Of Withdrawal and Weak Words
DC Democrats show signs of getting their act together. They've sent Bush a letter demanding accountability and a path to withdrawal. The GOP now begins to worry (not just hope) that Dems will make the fiasco in Iraq the centerpiece of the midterm election.
Which is why the words we use to decribe it become so crucial.
WAR! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing? Think again!
Yes, it's another tiresome Lakoff frameshop diary, but a vital one. WAR is a powerful emotive term, and impervious to logic. People may dislike wars, but there is a strong national conviction that it's bad for America to lose them, or to look like it's losing.
The current tide of popular discontent, which many of us liberals take for a belated return to sanity in light of the documented lies and terrible costs, probably has just as much to do with national embarrassment: Dammit, Marge, looks like we're losing another war! To achieve a political victory this fall, Democrats must be able to talk about extricating ourselves from Iraq without implicitly advocating America's defeat.
"Forward! Victory is Near!"
In such times, the hard-liners can be counted on to double down by broadening the military offensive, and to accuse liberals and wavering supporters of stabbing the troops in the back even as Victory was within their grasp. If the war effort should fail, the fault lies with the doubters and naysayers, never the war planners and their ideology. This strategy flows directly from the grand and glorious idea of a unified Nation at War: when you leave the battlefield without a victory, you have lost, period. Losing, of course, is unthinkable, and those who advocate it are traitors.
So, when Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, John Kerry, and Harry Reid speak of the "War in Iraq", they are unconsciously accepting a debate on these GOP terms. To escape the rhetorical trap of defeatism, "cut-and-run", and treason, we must first negate this Republican War Fallacy.
War on Terror vs. Pax in Terra
Some will no doubt contend that there is a war--the "War on Terror." If that's true, then, as Iran and North Korea build nukes, as disenfranchised scientists from Iraq, Pakistan and Russia spread the technology, and as Al Qaeda and Hezbollah metastasize, do we really want our brightest and best bogged down in Baghdad, taking mortar fire and building "enduring" bases? Why did our Commander in Chief take his eyes off the ball at Tora Bora instead of bringing Osama bin Laden to justice? Why did he just disband the CIA unit tasked with capturing him? If there is such a thing as the War against Terror, then where the hell are our leaders' priorities in fighting it?
Of course, a war cannot really be fought against a mere tactic: Our "War on Terror" makes about as much sense as a War on High-Altitude Carpet Bombing, a War on Parachuting out of Airplanes with Rifles, or a War on Smoke Grenades and Night-Vision Goggles...or a War on War. It's simply a slick way of keeping America and its military-industrial complex on a permanent, profitable war footing, and an Orwellian excuse for failing to seek or achieve Peace. And of course, it's also a very handy trump card for rigging the political debate here at home.
A real war, for practical intents and purposes, is an armed conflict between opposing forces for physical and political control of contested territory. It has a concrete objective, and is thus at least winnable and terminable.
War in Iraq: Victory is Ours!
As it happenes, we did fight a real war when we invaded Iraq...and it was over in a few weeks. No organized force now in Iraq poses a true strategic threat to our military. Roadside bombs notwithstanding, we now inarguably control any position we choose to defend--indeed, we're busily paving the desert and building permanent bases at 14 such spots! (As a sidebar, it's an enduring mystery why replacing our Saudi bases with Iraqi ones isn't recognized for what it is: the servile appeasement of both Osama bin Laden, who wanted the US out of Saudi Arabia, and the Saudi royal family, for whom this was becoming a serious domestic political problem.)
It is quite obvious, therefore, that we are no longer fighting a war in Iraq--instead, we are OCCUPYING A COUNTRY that is awash in chaos and deepening sectarian violence.
If we want to reclaim our patriotism as Democrats by supporting our military, then let's begin (and end) by pointing out that OUR TROOPS HAVE DONE PRECISELY WHAT WAS ASKED OF THEM. Remember "Mission Accomplished"?
They won the war that so many Dems wisely or foolshly voted to support. They deposed Saddam Hussein's repressive regime. Even if it was ultimately little more than a photo-op, that Saddam statue was toppled. Our proud fighting men and women in uniform surely deserve credit for that.
No war, so now what?
And yet, more than three years after that victory, our soldiers sit mired in hostile deserts and dangerous slums, taking fire and driving roads littered with bombs, doing reconstruction and police work they were never trained for, with incompetent leadership and no clear plan. In two weeks my own brother, who is a naval reservist "SeaBee" trained in procurement logistics and supply, will leave his wife and two kids two kids to become a prison guard at Camp Bucca.
This is the reward for fighting and winning? Another stop-loss order; another Christmas in Baghdad with civil war looming and no improvement in sight?!? Incredible, isn't it? And who, we may well ask, is responsible for all this incompetence, for making America the laughingstock of the world?
It's time to let the voters be the Deciders; time to ask: Now that we've won the war, do you want your son, brother, or father to be part of a perpetual occupation army--one that Iraqis hate, one that can't guarantee anyone's security (including its own), one that can't even get the water, oil and electricity flowing? Do you want your daughter, sister, or mother caught in the crossfire of a faceless sectarian bloodbath that few Americans even understand, rudderless, and wearing a target on her back? Do you really want to see yet more American husbands and wives separated and sent abroad so they can break apart Iraqi homes and families as well?
Unlike wars, occupations are gritty, unglamorous, and morally vague affairs. You can't "win" or "lose" an occupation--there will be no great moment of victory, no decisive defeat, only a steadily mounting toll in dollars and lives and wasted opportunity. We will either declare our mission over and move on with our lives, or hang around in perpetuity, bleeding and fostering more ill will by painful degrees.
AMERICAN OCCUPATION, YEAR 3 AND COUNTING.
IRAQ DESCENDING INTO CIVIL WAR.
BIN LADEN STILL FREE.
FAILED LEADERSHIP.
OUR VICTORIOUS TROOPS DESERVE BETTER!
HAD ENOUGH?
If we hammer this message home early and often, then the choice should be clear!
