How to Lose a War
November 21, 2005 — QUIT. It’s that simple. There are plenty of more complex ways to lose a war, but none as reliable as just giving up.
Increasingly, quitting looks like the new American Way of War. No matter how great your team, you can’t win the game if you walk off the field at half-time. That’s precisely what the Democratic Party wants America to do in Iraq. Forget the fact that we’ve made remarkable progress under daunting conditions: The Dems are looking to throw the game just to embarrass the Bush administration.
Forget about the consequences. Disregard the immediate encouragement to the terrorists and insurgents to keep killing every American soldier they can. Ignore what would happen in Iraq — and the region — if we bail out. And don’t mention how a U.S. surrender would turn al Qaeda into an Islamic superpower, the champ who knocked out Uncle Sam in the third round.
Forget about our dead soldiers, whose sacrifice is nothing but a political club for Democrats to wave in front of the media. After all, one way to create the kind of disaffection in the ranks that the Dems’ leaders yearn to see is to tell our troops on the battlefield that they’re risking their lives for nothing, we’re throwing the game.
Forget that our combat veterans are re-enlisting at remarkable rates — knowing they’ll have to leave their families and go back to war again. Ignore the progress on the ground, the squeezing of the insurgency’s last strongholds into the badlands on the Syrian border. Blow off the successive Iraqi elections and the astonishing cooperation we’ve seen between age-old enemies as they struggle to form a decent government.
Just set a time-table for our troops to come home and show the world that America is an unreliable ally with no stomach for a fight, no matter the stakes involved. Tell the world that deserting the South Vietnamese and fleeing from Somalia weren’t anomalies — that’s what Americans do.
While we’re at it, let’s just print up recruiting posters for the terrorists, informing the youth of the Middle East that Americans are cowards who can be attacked with impunity.
Whatever you do, don’t talk about any possible consequences. Focus on the moment — and the next round of U.S. elections. Just make political points. After all, those dead American soldiers and Marines don’t matter — they didn’t go to Ivy League schools. (Besides, most would’ve voted Republican had they lived.)
America’s security? Hah! As long as the upcoming elections show Democratic gains, let the terrorist threat explode. So what if hundreds of thousands of Middle Easterners might die in a regional war? So what if violent fundamentalism gets a shot of steroids? So what if we make Abu Musab al-Zarqawi the most successful Arab of the past 500 years?
For God’s sake, don’t talk about democracy in the Middle East. After all, democracy wasn’t much fun for the Dems in 2000 or 2004. Why support it overseas, when it’s been so disappointing at home?
Human rights? Oh, dear. Human rights are for rich white people who live in Malibu. Unless you can use the issue to whack Republicans. Otherwise, brown, black or yellow people can die by the millions. Dean, Reid & Pelosi, LLC, won’t say, “Boo!”
You’ve got to understand, my fellow citizens: None of this matters. And you don’t matter, either. All that matters is scoring political points. Let the world burn. Let the massacres run on. Let the terrorists acquire WMD. Just give the Bush administration a big black eye and we’ll call that a win.
Ralph Peters, in the New York Post
Posted on November 21st, 2005 by pwyll
Filed under: politics, war
Entries RSS
Can someone please clarify for me what war we are fighting?
It’s not a war to find weapons of mass destruction, surely. It never was.
It can’t be a war to fight “terrorism”, could it?. Putting a whole bunch of US troops in one location won’t do anything for that, since “terrorism” isn’t in Iraq, though certainly some terrorists are.
So, is it a war to fight a small number of terrorists in one particular place? That would seem silly. That would be another example of having someone check your driver’s license three times before you get on a plane.
“See, our brave soldiers are protecting you. We’re fighting over there, so you don’t have to do *anything* over here.”
No. Clearly what we are attempting to do in Afghanistan and Iraq is precisely what Bush once ridiculed oh so long ago.
Nation-building.
We won the “war” part of this enterprise over two years ago. Saddam is gone.
What we need to do now is determine what course of action would best produce stable allies in Afghanistan and Iraq.
There was an old Sci-Fi series by Harry Harrison called “Deatworld”. It is worth reading and relevant to this discussion.
Sorry. Deathworld.
No such thing as Deatworld, as far as I know.
Here’s a very good overview of the war:
http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2005/11/strategic-overview-annotating-and.html