Skip Navigation
Matthew Yglesias

Matthew Yglesias - Matthew Yglesias is a fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
More

Matthew Yglesias is a fellow at the Center for American Progress. His first book, with the working title Heads in the Sand: Iraq and the Strange Death of Liberal Internationalism, scheduled to be published next spring by John Wiley and co., deals with the Democratic Party's struggle to find a post-9/11 foreign policy, focusing primarily on the rise and (hopefully) fall of the liberal hawk movement.

Previously, he was a staff writer at The American Prospect and an Associate Editor at TPM Media, where he contributed to the group blogs Tapped and TPMCafe. His main blog, now at The Atlantic, has existed in various forms since the dark ages of the blogosphere in January 2002.

His writing has appeared in The Guardian, Slate, The New Republic, and The Washington Monthly, and he is a regular on BloggingHeads.tv and makes the occasional radio or television appearance.

Desperately out of touch with the American mainstream, Yglesias was born and raised in Manhattan and studied philosophy at Harvard where he was editor in chief of The Harvard Independent, a campus alternative weekly.

His latest writings can be found on the Matthew Yglesias blog.

Better Readers Needed

By Matthew Yglesias
Nov 28 2006, 4:40 PM ET Comment

Jonah Goldberg receives (and republishes) email from some real morons:

1. The toppling of a regime that was a constant threat to its neighbors and, potentially at least, to us.

2. Removing the Iraqi threat allowed us to move our troops out of Saudi Arabia. The US presence in the Kingdom was the #1 motivator for Bin Ladenism, and the long term benefits this will have after Iraq are hard to calculate but will no doubt be significant.

3. Worst possible case scenario, we retreat to Kurdistan. No matter what happens in Greater Iraq, the liberation of the Kurds and the implantation of a nascent democracy there is a genuine success.

4. Also in the worst case scenario, we retreat not only to Kurdistan, but also to Kuwait. The virtual military encirclement of Iran will remain, and that is important. An encircled Iran, even with a nuke, is a far different scenario than the opposite.


Toppling a regime that was a potential threat to its neighbors and to the USA is an accomplishment if and only if it's not replaced with a more threatening situation like, say, pervasive chaos.

The other points all seem to involve misunderstanding the pre-war status quo. Kurdistan enjoyed de facto autonomy from Baath Iraq before the war. Our troops could have been moved out of Saudi Arabia and into Kuwait and Kurdistan before the war. Iran was "encircled" before the war. And what does encircling Iran accomplish, anyway? This seems like the kind of thing someone who's been playing too much Diplomacy would care about.

Presented by

More at The Atlantic

Hey Voters: The Kill List Is What Matters Hey Voters: The Kill List Is What Matters
Visit Afghanistan's 'Little America,' and See the Folly of For-Profit War The Folly of For-Profit War
The Rock-Mining Children of Sierra Leone Have Not Found Peace 10 Years After Civil War, No Peace for Sierra Leone's Kids
'Black Lagoon': The First, Great Pretty-Girl-Attacked-By-Aquatic-Beast Film? The First Great Pretty-Girl-Attacked-By-Aquatic-Beast Film
What Happens When They Get Drones? What Happens When They Get Drones?

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register.
blog comments powered by Disqus
View All Correspondents

The Biggest Story in Photos

Afghanistan: May 2012

Jun 1, 2012

Subscribe Now

SAVE 59%! 10 issues JUST $2.45 PER COPY

Facebook

Newsletters

Sign up to receive our free newsletters

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)