2/17/2005

Winning Big

One of our regular conservative commenters said something the other day that surprised me. He said, "I didn't support our going into Iraq when and how we did. But now that were there I want us to win and win big."

That got me thinking. That's pretty much the way I saw it and still do. I marched against the war. I wrote letters to my congressman. When I saw the bombs go off on CNN, I was shocked and awed. I felt that the US was a giant wooly mammoth that had been sniffing around the edges of a tar pit and in the end finally said, "The heck with it," and did a swan dive into the black. I took down my yard sign. There wasn't much sense in having a "No War" sign if we were already at war. I have friends in the Guard. A close relative was on the plane to Iraq. I wanted them, and all the troops to stay alive, to do what they had to do to win. The troops still need to do what the need to do to stay alive. I never liked MoveOn's quicksand ad. It is deeply unhealthy. The trooper never gets rescued. I didn't like the idea of my friends and relatives seeing that thing when they are over there.

I still want us to "win and win big." But I am faced with the same predicament that faces every one of us. In spite of an election that plucks at our hearts, inspite of a bad man getting served, the invasion of Iraq is still bad for the US. The gravity of the mistakes that were made, the incompetence of the people running this war and the acceleration of recent events won't allow us a clear victory. Instead of reducing the terror threat, the invasion raised it.

The new CIA Chief testified today that the Iraq Conflict Feeds International Terror Threat. You take away the flags, and soccer fields, and elections and there it is. The action we took to decrease the terrorist threat to our country has actually increased it.

Our physical saftey isn't the only casualty. Our national character has also suffered. We have been stained with an incredibly long list of scandals. Now it comes to our attention that we are beginning to use programs modeled after those we used first in vietnam and then in El Salvador - the use of death squads. No good can come of that. Meanwhile, the diversion of funds and resources has left us vulnerable at home.

It could still turn out ok. The wild card is the Iraqi people. They could perservere and form a secular, progressive republic that serves as a beacon of freedom to the rest of the region. That possiblity real. If it happens I will bow down to King George in all deference. I don't think there's a risk of peace breaking out though. I think Tom Englehart is more on point when he describes the new Iraq as flattened.

This all leaves me unsettled. Iran and Syria are aligned and events are accelerating rapidly, perhaps kicked on by King George's will to conquer. There is no evidence - save the Iraqi election - that the US can lay plans that won't go awry rather quickly. I do not pretend to know what to do. We are there. If we cannot engineer an outright victory, we must engineer our exit. In doing so, the troops need to follow orders. They need to do what the need to do in order to stay alive - follow orders, shoot first ask questions later if need be. There is abundant honor in their service. I do not wish the death of any innocent Iraqi.

All those deaths are on the head of the President and his deluded staff. Rummie said last summer - "It's quite clear to me that we do not have a coherent approach to this." Coherency eludes us still.

6 Comments:

At 11:04 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's the thing. Korea was a stalemate because the US refused to root out the real problem, China. Vietnam was lost because the US refused to root out the real problem, again Chi-Com aggression.

This time the real problem is the Royal families of the middle east and the fact that the socio-economic alternative is militant islam. (Clearly the US has been instrumental in allowing this to develop, but as the only global superpower we can be blamed for just about anything, perhaps rightly so...)

If we really want to solve this problem, we're going to have to do the heavy lifting. That means regime change in Iran and Syria is a forgone conclusion in the short term and probably Saudi next. It also includes the forceful imposition of democracy rather than allowing a deterioration into religious rule.

I suppose this is where we part company. Terrorism needs state sponsorship. The way to win is to eliminate all the state sponsors. In order to make what has happened in Afghanistan and Iraq a victory, it has to be part of a larger action that includes these other countries.

Go big or stay home. Syria and Iran can be beaten, even if aligned. And they have to be. The only question is when? We can stop now and make Iraq the new S. Korea - but that leaves us Vietnam to fight (and loose if we don't deal with the real problem.) I'd rather bite the bullet and fight it out now rather than leave it for my kids to do.

 
At 12:08 PM, Blogger tom.elko said...

You and Swiftee may be on the same page now, but I don't know who isn't on that page right now. Who want's our soldiers to die, besides our enemies.

Swiftee made that comment after I made a profanity laced response to this comment by him: The information that Gannon supposedly, allegedly (there isn't a shred of evidence of this either)had access to was floating all over the place. There is an investigation into how that happened, but the fact that gannon may or may not have seen anything is a non-factor.I wondered where this skepticism was when the administration was touting its "evidence" against Iraq, and Swiftee stated he was opposed to the war.

I don't want to put words in his mouth, as I'm sure its full of 'em as it is, but what I heard Swiftee say is that it wasn't strategically
the right move to make at the time.

It may be an insignificant difference but I wasn't so much on the "wrong war at the wrong time" side like Swiftee and John Kerry (boy, I loved putting those two together on the same issue), my feelings trended more towards "this war is bullshit and we're being lied to."

As for the "winning big," whenever I hear that it harkens back to the night of the long bombs that was so gloriously described as "Shock and Awe." Perhaps if we hadn't been so focused on winning "big" and, instead tried to win effectively, or in the best way possible, the utilities of the Iraqi people would not have been destroyed and the country would have been easier to placate. This is just one example where the "big" ideal may not have been as effective as the "right" or "most effective" way of winning. I know its war and its not an exact science, but the priority of winning it "big" often interferes with accomplishing the mission.

 
At 1:30 AM, Blogger Chris Dykstra said...

We probably part ways on that Decaf. Syria and Iran can be beaten... but I am not so sure it should be by us. It should be by their own people. In many ways, out interference slows down the process. Going to war with a larger chunk of the Middle East isn't biting the bullet: It's eating one.

Tom- you make sense. I started thinking about this idea after the debates when Bush kept saying (paraphrasing) "How can you go around asking for allied help when it's 'Wrong war, wrong time' all the time."

My thinking was really simple-- It was the wrong war at the wrong time. But now that we are there, it's most important thing on the national plate. And it is in the world's interest to win it, and win it "big." Bush's inexcusable lies and icompetence are almost a separate issue. Bush is Bush and Rove is Rove. Given a choice between being straight and being deceptive, they will choose to be deceptive. They lie every time they open their mouths.

Around the same time you started hearing all the real right wing america haters saying that the left wanted our troops to die (coulter, freepers, etc.) I had always sort of grouped Swiftee in that catagory and was suprised to hear him say that he didn't support the war.

"Winning big" in my mind means running the thing competently and getting the hell out with as few US casualties as possible, leaving more friends than enemies. I didn't really see how that is possible, and still don't.

You are right to compare the phrase with the 24/7 blue screen to blue screen coverage of the glamour war - 500lb bombs raining down and troops racing ahead of the dust storms to topple statues. But that's not what I meant.

 
At 7:57 AM, Blogger tom.elko said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 7:59 AM, Blogger tom.elko said...

I get what you mean, and running it competently and getting out with more friends than enemies would be winning big. Swiftee's non-support surprised me too, but the war is what it is, largely ambiguous to most of America, violent, dramatic, and very costly. I think that's what we all agree on.

 
At 4:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am really enjoying reading many of the comments in this blog. However, I am noticing that most of the deep thinking going on, here, is based on incorrect assumptions about world history. I think that the fundamental reason that left-leaning intellectuals in the United States are incapable of effectively reasoning with the rest of the American “herd” is that their basic knowledge of geopolitics are based on ideas taught in the American educational system and media. Really, if you want to curb the power of the American right you should isolate yourself from American media at all cost. You have to gain a truer perspective on what is going on in the world. Only then will you realize how important it is to fight Bush… to take the microphone away from the “neo-cons”. There is some serious misinformation being propagated by the American right… and the left has not properly been able to discern truth from false.

In any event, don’t beat yourselves up. Germans experienced many of these phenomena prior to WWII. Like you, Germany was an educated and advanced society. Nobody could effectively fight the Nazis because even educated Germans had trouble believing that “a BIG lie” could exist. Once Hitler had empowered the disenfranchised and wrapped his ideology in a pretty flag, everything became an issue of “us versus them” and there was no going back. I don’t know how to translate this thought: “Le mauvais gout mene au genocide” / Bad manners (bad taste) leads to genocide.

Philippe

 

Post a Comment

<< Home