I’m watching the Senate debate over Senate Joint Resolution 9. And Kit Bond (R-MO) is up there saying that the American people want ‘victory not defeat’. He’s got iconic pictures of the fall of Saigon up there. He’s saying that we retreated from Saigon, from Beirut, from Mogadishu. Let me talk about this for a moment.
We sent our troops over to Lebanon as part of a peace-keeping mission. We sent our troops over to Somalia as part of a humanitarian mission. Would it have made any sense to talk about victory or defeat in Lebanon and Somalia? No. Those were not wars in which we intended to be participants. In each case, we had a mission. Those missions failed. We did not succeed. But we were not defeated and successful missions would not have brought victory.
Now…let’s talk about Iraq.
We invaded Iraq with the intention of deposing Saddam Hussein and destroying his weapons of mass destruction. What were our goals beyond that? Part of the problem is that we, the public, the Congress, don’t know the answer to that question.
The whole topic is controversial. Over time we took it upon ourselves to try to transform Iraq into a democracy. That is a mission, not a war. It is a mission that is failing. It is a mission that we cannot afford. Failing to succeed in this mission is not the same thing as defeat. However, by constantly talking in terms of victory and defeat, the administration and the Republicans have assured that the failure of our mission will be perceived as a defeat. In fact, they have gone so far with this misleading rhetoric, that it will be a defeat.
To be sure, the Republicans will point to remarks made by Usama bin-Laden and say that he perceived Lebanon and Somalia as defeats. We do ourselves a great disservice when we use bin-Laden’s definitions. It doesn’t matter what bin-Laden thinks. It matters what the world thinks. The more the world comes to accept bin-Laden’s way of seeing the world, the worse for us. Talking points are a pale substitute for reality, and the reality in Iraq is grim. But our military achieved its initial goals. In the war, they were victorious. What has followed is an ill-defined, ill-planned, and ill-executed mission.
And this has led to another war. This second war is sectarian and ethnic and civil. We can’t win this second war (we shouldn’t even be a party to it) and it has made it impossible for us to succeed in our mission. I suggest that we begin talking about our failure to succeed in our mission, rather than talking about defeat in a war.
As for the future of Iraq, the world has no interest in helping us win victory. They have little interest in helping us in our current mission (which is transparently hopeless). But they might agree to help Iraq with a different mission. And that mission would be to end the sectarian and ethnic violence.
If we could get our terms and definitions right, we might do better at making strategic decisions.
A very good post. Boo, I think you are offering up a wonderful method we can use to talk about Iraq. I have heard snippets of the viewpoint you offer in a few other venues. This view has been expressed on some occasions by military leaders when they are trying to differentiate between the evolving tactics and strategies needing to be employed over a period of time in Iraq. But the view has not been presented in any type of consistent fashion in the mainstream media. This is where I believe we need to focus in order to shift peoples perceptions away from the current frame of reference.
This is where the war supporters have been allowed the high ground and it will certainly be difficult to ameliorate in a short period of time. But I think most reasonable people could not argue with the ideas you put forth.
The American public, unfortunately, is probably not going to put forth much effort at this point to try and think through this whole debacle in the fashion which you outline, but I think they could possibly be persuaded to see it this way.
Sadly, this is a very tall order given the mighty Wurlitzer of talk radio. I sat in the car yesterday during a drive across the state and listened to an Iraq discussion. It was quite disconcerting how ungrounded in fact most people’s opinions still seem to be. Four years into it and the public still can’t get a hold on the facts. They are so damn certain about it but, sadly, they are wrong.
You are correct, I believe, in your assessment that the world has absolutely no interest in helping with our current mission. And I cannot say that I blame them. I do believe, like you, that they would be very willing to help with curbing the ethnic and sectarian violence. They are not, however, going to help as long as our long term motives in Iraq are suspect and as long as we do not show some concern for mitigating the negative effects on the Iraqi people which occur as a result of our current actions in the country.
What you bring up is a very important perspective in how we frame Iraq from this point going forward. I think we would do well to give it a try.
Misssion Accompished. We won the war and are losing the occupation. If we can decide not the occupy and the world can believe that we don’t want to occupy I do think that they would be willing to help dampen the civil war in Iraq.
The biggest problem with that strategy is that is would require a significant show of humility on our part, and I am not sure if we are ready for that.
I agree that we are not to the point where the American people are ready to publicly acknowledge the failure of the occupation. Since in their mind the deposing of Saddam and the occupation have not really been separate entities up to now. As a result it wasn’t something they even had to consider. Now it is becoming more apparent by the day that yes, we won the war. But it is impossible to ignore the fact that we can never win the occupation. Watching and listening to the public debate, both nationally and within my circle of friends and acquaintances, has become an interesting observation in how people deal with an issue when they realize that reality is incontrovertibly and inexorably opposed to what they wish it to be. Much like someone who has received a terminal medical diagnosis, the American people are trying to come to grips with what they have been dealt in Iraq. And they will eventually have to come to an acceptance of the reality.
It will be difficult. But I believe it will eventually come to pass. It has to.
Yes. That speechifying bothered me intensely but what else could one expect from Inhuff?
Agreed: