Chaos theories in Iraq

Kevin Drum over at the Washington Monthly mocks the refrain that an American withdrawal from Iraq will produce a regional conflagration:

Having admitted, however, that the odds of a military success in Iraq are almost impossibly long, Chaos Hawks nonetheless insist that the U.S. military needs to stay in Iraq for the foreseeable future. Why? Because if we leave the entire Middle East will become a bloodbath. Sunni and Shiite will engage in mutual genocide, oil fields will go up in flames, fundamentalist parties will take over, and al-Qaeda will have a safe haven bigger than the entire continent of Europe. Needless to say, this is nonsense.

This is fair enough in parts. I tend to discount the arguments that a regional conflict will erupt as America leaves. But I fail to see why skepticism about that particular nightmare scenario leads naturally to skepticism that the sectarian conflict in Iraq will grow significantly bloodier if we leave (or, for that matter, why it leads to skepticism about the dangers of a terrorist safe haven). To Drum and others, the notion that supporters of the war can now be legitimately and sincerely concerned about the human consequences of withdrawal appears unfathomable.

As was pointed out last week over at Andrew Sullivan's place, we do not know that we can ultimately avert more serious and prolonged bloodshed. Perhaps we are only delaying the inevitable. But kicking a can as horrible as that one down the road has considerable merits. The time that we buy may be the time that is needed for tempers to cool and for moderates to emerge. Buying time and space for moderates is essentially what we have done in Bosnia, after all. A decade after intervention, the fundamental political dilemma in that country remains unresolved, but at least the killing has ended.