The power of words: let’s just say we won in Iraq
In a remarkable column by Terence Samuels at The American Prospect, the author praises Montana’s Democratic Senator Jon Tester for the following suggestion regarding the dilemma of what to do about the war in Iraq:
He begins with the idea that the war in Iraq is won, not lost, and that we should pat ourselves firmly on the back and get the hell out. Clearly, with casualties rising and the situation increasingly hopeless, it requires a high quality conceit [to] declare victory in Iraq. But if the aim is to get out, a little rationalizing may be a small price to pay.
Samuels clearly does not believe the war has been won, not by a long shot. But does Tester? He has stated that our initial goals in going into Iraq—the search for WMDs, the deposing of Saddam, and free elections—have in fact been achieved.
That is true, as far as it goes. But it’s also true that without a more stable government there, achievement of the last goal will not be true in any meaningful sense for long.
It’s also true that initial goals in a war are not the same goals as the reconstruction after a war, and that’s the stage we are in, like it or not: occupation. The Marshall Plan and the postwar occupation of Japan were not part of the original war goals, but without them World War II would have inexorably led to even greater problems it did.
So Tester’s “solution” is short-sighted at best. But Samuels hits the nail on the head when he says that the real goal is “to get out,” and declaring victory is just a political tool to make the getaway more politically palatable domestically.
How it plays in Peoria, however, is not how it plays in the world. And if all the world is a stage, it’s the world stage we should be interested in here, not petty domestic politics (the latter, I’m afraid, a concern not historically limited to the Democrat side of the aisle). And the world will see through this particular ploy immediately, and find it contemptible, laughable, and weak.
Another characteristic Tester’s proposal has is that it indicates a strong and almost delusional belief in the power of words to create reality. Yes indeed, labels do influence perceptions, but not that much. If Tester or Samuels actually believe that the Islamicist totalitarian jihadis will suddenly say, “ooops, I guess we lost after all” if victory is declared along with a premature pullout, leaving the Iraqis vulnerable to terrorist and/or Iranian/Syrian takeover, then Tester and Samuels are either remarkably naive, remarkably stupid, or both.
Samuels ends his piece on a cryptic note. After quoting Tester as saying that he can no longer give Bush the benefit of the doubt that he will end the Iraq war, Samuels writes:
For Democrats, even as they disagree on how to respond, that is the bottom line. As more Republican lawmakers come to the same conclusion, so too will the war come to its end. It’ll be clear then who will have won.
It will be clear who will have won what? The war in Iraq? Or the war Samuels seems to consider the more important one, the political battle over which party’s vision of that war will prevail?
[ADDENDUM: I’ve written at length previously about the conundrum presented by the lack of definition of what “success” would look like in the war in Iraq. Please see this and this.]
It is the Theatre of the Absurd stage of our politics. In this case with the script by Pirandello for “Right You Are (If You Think You Are)” or, as sometimes translated, “It is So (If You Think So!)”
Or maybe, where so many on the Left and the Drowsing Right are concerned, it is the Lennon phase: “War Is Over. If You Want It.”
Then again, to continue referencing, it is the really the Trotsky phase: “You might not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”
But, in the end, I fear it will be ee cummings who leads the pack of prognosticators:
it took
a nipponized bit of
the old sixth
avenue
el:in the top of his head: to tell
him
I believe the Democrats, and some Republicans as well, want to avoid a Nixon Vietnam scenario.
Nixon came to office on a promise he would end what was painted as LBJ’s war. As far as our commitment to Vietnam, the Republican president accomplished what he said he’d do. However, popularly much blame for our history with Vietnam has been laid on Nixon; essentially, he is blamed by partisans for delivering on his promise because the actual extraction of America from Vietnam was not – could not be – as immaculate as the domestic political rhetoric.
I believe the Dems want very much to avoid a Nixon scenario where the next president – presumably a Democrat – would be forced to take charge and become accountable for the realities of the Iraq mission. Withdrawal from Iraq will be costly and ugly, with consequences and costs that will reshape the historical narrative. Rather than be responsible for their own political advocacy regarding Iraq, the Dems would rather that the current president take the political costs of the consequences of withdrawal from Iraq onto himself. CYA.
It is considered hateful to be so cynical as to accuse the Democrats of fighting for political control here instead of against terrorism, but how else are we to interpret such a plan?
From the start of the war there has been an attempt to use casualties as the measure of success in Iraq, rather than regarding them as the cost; polls are cited as indicators of whether we are winning or not; all news out of the ME is viewed through the prism of how it will affect things here. It is a stunning, chilling display of treating reality as mere counters in the political game.
It is understandable, as politicians and journalists are comfortable talking politics, while they don’t know much about the military. They want to appear knowledgeable and important, as movers and shakers. But it is still not right, and the lives of real people, both now and to come, hang on this vanity.
I remember this ‘strategy’ was floated on the daily Kos a couple years ago (re: declare victory and leave)…
Anyway, its not 100% wrong (but deceitful, yes)… We can’t fix their all their problems. We should focus on stabilizing the capital (even if it has a high cost to do it) so their political class can maneuver (in addition to training their army.. as we have been doing for years now)… then its up to them to sink or swim on their own. We did win (the old Iraqi army is smashed and Saddams dead) and we did beat the hell out of al queada the last couple years (re: we are even now), et cetera… but if the Iraqis can’t get their act together then it’s not our loss…. its theirs… IMO… we can’t carry them forever.
How come the rest of the world can see through this ploy immediately and find it contemptible, laughable and weak, yet a large number of voters in the good ol’ USA, a majority if the polls are to be believed, cannot?
Mind you, we here are not of that ilk. But where is the Public, Neo? Anyone? And why? Bizarre national wussification.
It’s clear we will not have won in Iraq if we pull out now, precipitously. Tester’s is a backdoor strategy of retreat. Bush has resisted congressional attempts at withdrawal, and he’ll compromise only after facing political defeats. That’s good news for the mission, which is now showing clear signs of improvement under the surge.
I’ve wondered whether that’s true, Tom. I actually think most people see through it, but don’t care because they are tired of the war and want out. What I wonder about is why more are not concerned with the consequences—not just to Iraq, but to us.
Neocon, when you say that most people are “tired of the war”; what do you think actually tires them?
Is it the severe rationing of consumer goods? The shortage of necessities? Luxury items?
Is it the prolonged absence of millions of fathers, sons, etc? Wondering when, or if, they will ever return.
Is it watching the anguish in one neighbor family after another as bad news is delivered?
Is it the constant dread that a military delegation, perhaps accompanied by a chaplain, will ring your door bell today?
Shall I go on? I think not. Readers will tire.
This is the most frightening aspect of the situation to me; i.e., that the American people, who are so marginally involved, have tired after so short a period. I have to ask how long we can hold out against a determined JIHAD? It is so tiresome.
“Another characteristic Tester’s proposal has is that it indicates a strong and almost delusional belief in the power of words to create reality.”
Such word power in the service of a delusion work here in America only because those who utter them can smile, smug in the knowledge that such a disastrous path, if taken will not directly harm them, but will further their shortsighted partisan political agenda. They won’t suffer the reprisals or slaughter. Neither will their families. (9/11 being all but forgotten by them or discredited as an ‘inside job’ by the more rabid)
I honestly am coming to believe that such cynical political hacks don’t care at all about fighting the war on terror or if America and the west loses as long as they gain some short sighted political advantage from it. This clash of opposing world views is simply another backdrop for domestic political in-fighting. They fail to think through the ramifications to the west should we not prevail. Sadly, it would seem that they don’t care if their ship is sinking as long as they can go down first class. They are the living embodiment of decadence.
Radical Islamism is not going to go away if we pack up and leave Iraq. Nor will it fold up its tent and go if we abandon Israel. Or leave the middle east entirely. You would think that obvious to any fool. Obviously there are many (fools) who can’t see the most obvious facts or refuse to see them.
They might want to reflect on Gerard’s citing of Trotsky’s quote above, “You might not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”
Oldflyer: I understand the point you’re making. I think people are tired of this war because they do not get the connection at all to the so-called “War on Terror.” The MSM and the left have been relentless in their criticism of the war and emphasis on bad news to the exclusion of good (read Michael Yon to get a more balanced view; but how many do?). It is a case of the drip drip drip of constant repetition (much like in advertising) that emphasizes not just the casualties in this war but the meaninglessness of it, and even the supposed venality of it (“oil,” “Halliburton”). If there are deaths—and there certainly are here, even though they are relatively small for the length of the conflict—and those deaths are perceived to be in a manufactured or meaningless cause and to no purpose, of course people will get not only tired of the war, but angry about it. I would, myself, if I thought that were the case. And if I still was limited to reading the NY Times or the Boston Globe, I would think that were the case.
Yes, Neo, it is the relentless drip,drip, drip of bad news and criticism from the MSM and the left. It has been a masterpiece of propaganda. Herr Goebbels would be proud.
I read the mil-blogs, plus Mike Yon, Bill Roggio, and others. They, the people with boots on the ground, are not tired nor are they discouraged. Things are turning around.
Those of us who have some grasp of the reality of the situation need to write our Congress Critters again and again and again. The blogosphere helped stop the Illegal immigration travesty. Why can’t we have some influence on Congress to support the troops until they, the troops, say the situation is hopeless?
I listened to Tester’s speech, it was about 16 minutes long.
http://tester.senate.gov/News/record.cfm?id=278289
To say it has been mischaracterized by TAP and Neo is and understatement.
But cheer up, pro-war crowd…
H.R. 1585, next fiscal year’s Defense spending bill, contains an extra $96 billion to fund the Iraq war through September 30, 2008.
The House passed it by a vote of 397-27.
The Senate begins debate on it on monday.
The war will continue through Bush’s final term no matter what the Dems and “wavering” Republicans say in the coming months.
Thanks for the good news Alphie. I hope you are correct. If Gen. Petreaus and company can have a reasonably unfettered rein through the remainder of Bush’s term it may be enough.
Neo, I knew I was preaching to the choir. I just get so frustrated when I hear that particular refrain. I expect the larger struggle to go on through the rest of my life. If Americans cannot maintain focus and commitment better than this, my grand-children could face a bleak future.
Regarding the media’s contribution to national ignorance, I am just reading “Troublesome Young Men (The Rebels who brought Churchill to power, and saved England)”. It is startling to read how the press and the BBC collaborated with the Chamberlain government in the run-up to the war so as to keep the English people almost completely ignorant of the true situation. Media malfeasance, and the damage it can produce, is not new.
Human stupidity and having alliances with evil is never new.
It didn’t even start with the first siege and the first inside betrayal either.
Human psyche is malleable and oftentimes very vulnerable, to add to the theme of America the Tired.
It is not the maximum absolute amount of sacrifice that determines focus, will, spirit, esprit de corps, or discipline in the face of danger and terror. It is the strength of the human psyche, and in this case, so long as the media undermines the American fortitude, it does not really matter how many has died or lived, how many losses or victories.
So long as you control the battlespace of men’s minds, reality no longer matters because you have chained a person in his own hell, a hell under your control. And of course, unless the real world intrudes to break your control over people or someone else steals your control over folks, control is still control.
A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, a society is only as strong as its strongest leaders and followers, and a person is only as strong as his ability to resist being controlled.
Currently it is only human beings and the minds that operate such beings, that control the weapons systems and policies. If you are able to control the human mind, then it does not matter what physical forces are arrayed against you. Until true AI develops, controlling the human mind, its perceptions and beliefs, will be the most important strategic objective of the 21st century.
The simple reason why it was less important in our past is because in our past the simple belief that you are strong must be backed up by physical military force and violence. For the Left, that is no longer true and even if it was, they have the help of their allies the Jihadists to complete the equation. Given better technology and safer environments, people no longer need physical strength to be seen as “correct”.
alphie, you may mean to say that TAP and neo have misinterpreted the intent of the speech, and then give evidence for that. However, they have not mischaracterized it. They related what was said and interpreted that in light of other commonly-held knowledge. Adding the hyperbole of claiming it is not an understatement only worsens your position on that.
I would call this a minor slip were it not for your history of conveniently choosing “stretch words” to make things appear worse than they are.
Pingback:inspra discount sales
cO1xHMu9OPa4p