Posted by
JDComments on Friday, December 08, 2006 8:20:48 PM
Shelby Steele in the WSJ finally says what so many have only thought- war is won when the other side is defeated and subjugated by the imposition of the will of the victor. A truism for all of history, the US has since WWII refused to accept this, and the results have been disastrous. Iraq is the latest example of this will to self doubt and defeat.
Steele's
article is extremely interesting, and I highly recommend it. His basic premise is that we cannot win in Iraq because we have attempted to define victory by a series of ambivalent and unattainable goals which ignore the fact that they replace the solidity of an historical military win with the gossamer of a triumph which we hope can be attained with minimal casualties and a US presence which begins to debate exiting before firing the first shot, and defines its benchmarks in terms of troop drawdowns. As he so insightfully points out, the Liberals have relativized this most pragmatic of human activities to the point that Pelosi can say
"You can define victory any way you want." And war, she said, was only "a situation to be resolved."
Using that definition, anything that happens can also be considered a loss, and so today we watch as the administration paints their picture , while the MSM and Liberals draw their's and never the two shall meet. Relativism insures one man's idea of victory is another man's definition of defeat. We are lost in the swamp of ambiguity that Liberals have brought to so many things.
Steele defines true military victory as the establishment of hegemony over the defeated power, so that in Iraq, for instance, after overthrowing Saddam the US would have taken power and responsibility for defeating the insurgents and pacifying the nation, while establishing a government, much as we did in Germany and Japan after WWII. Of course, instead we rushed to handoff power to the Iraqis, and now we find ourselves at the mercy of a novice government and military who are not prepared to do what has to be done. In essence, we turned a certain victory into a possible defeat because of our refusal to take the control and responsibility that was called for, something we have done ever since WWII.
Why this is so is the big question, and for Steele it is a reflection of our reluctance to play the part history has given us as the world's only superpower, something which implies a need to police the world and fight wars that are not only in your national interest, but in the world's interest. We are so uncomfortable with this that we are torn between fulfilling our duties and retreating to Fortress America. The result of this schizophrenia is that we go to war, but refuse to follow-up by exercising the oversight and power which some would call colonialistic, but which Steele feels is necessary to prevent the kind of havoc we saw in Vietnam and now Iraq. We are not doing anybody any favors by cringing from the term "imperialistic" and refusing to step up and take control; instead our attempts at being seen as "humanitarian" and "multicultural" led to Pol Pots's reign of terror, and God knows what will happen if we withdraw from Iraq prematurely.
Steele's observations are I believe right on target. However, he never asks why before 1945 we didn't seem to suffer from this bipolar disorder, while now no amount of medicine seems to alleviate the symptoms. To me the obvious answer is the creation of the UN, a body which institutionalized Liberal disdain about colonies and imperial power, while empowering every entity which could afford to sew up a flag, with the result that suddenly we found ourselves afraid to step on anyone's toes, or be called, heaven forbid, imperialistic. So in the effort to be "politically correct" we allow the world to descend into chaos instead, and in lieu of creating stable governments which would ensure world peace, we allow the inmates to run the asylum, and spreading lunacy is the result.
The idea of rules of etiquette for warfare and constraints placed on the exercise of power and control is a wonderful fantasy which would perhaps work if both sides agreed to play by this game of "can you top this". Imagine if one side refused to use landmines and the other decided to go one better and not use guns. Pretty soon we would all be holding hands and singing hymns. Unfortunately when the other side still abides by the quaint notion that war is killing the other guys anyway you can, this game ends rather abruptly for the noble but stupid player. If we don't play by the same rules we don't stand a chance, plain and simple. As for our chances of suddenly developing the backbone necessary to really win this war, well let's just say some spectators are already heading for the exits thinking this contest just about over. After all, isn't that what the ISG suggested?