"VICTORY"

“VICTORY”

I know I am out of touch with the mainstream of American society. But more and more, what passes for political dialogue seems like a script from a previous generation to me. The democrats press Bush to admit that “mistakes have been made” in the conduct of the Iraq War. (Yeah, and they made a big one in going along with his starting it.) And the President and his point talkers harangue about how the democrats would “cut and run” from Iraq. That sounds really bad, of course. It is hard to put a positive spin on “Redeployment to the rear.” However, under the circumstances, cutting our losses and running from a failed and ill-conceived, colossal blunder might actually be the best of the bad choices that remain to us.

My strongest disconnect comes, though, when the Communicator-in-Chief talks about “victory” in Iraq. No one ever asks him what that would look like, or if the concept is possible. Perhaps those questions are too frightening to contemplate. But for me, the more frightening thing is the realization that, in about 1965 or earlier, the whole nature of warfare changed—and nobody has noticed. So we go on talking, and therefore thinking, in World War terms, using concepts and language that no longer exist in the world we live in. Words and concepts like victory.

Another is “the enemy.” Why doesn’t anyone ask—who, exactly, is this enemy? Al Quaeda? That rules out all of Iraq and Iran, and rules in much of Saudi Arabia. Is it the Iraqi Bath Party? Shiites? Sunnis? All Muslims who disapprove of U. S. government policy? Anybody who disapproves of U. S. government policy? How can we fight an entity we have never actually defined?

Nations used to go to war against nations. Each one had armed forces, who wore uniforms and carried flags. They were to be found behind “enemy lines.” There were combatants, and there were non-combatants, and they stayed decently separate from one another during business hours.

No more. We Americans started it, by sniping at Recoats from behind our trees and fences. Then, we put on blue uniforms and behaved ourselves for many years. But World War II introduced the concept of the French saboteurs, those blowers-up of bridges and such, who were considered perfectly honorable, since they were on our side, and we won. The Viet Nam War brought a new French term, guerillas. They won, too, but aren’t considered so honorable, since they were not on our side, and we lost. Now, the vocabulary builder is terrorist. Something we used to think was a concern for Israelis and Brits has become a threat to us as well. The meaning is shifting and growing. Nowadays, the term can be quite easily applied to saboteurs and guerillas, as long as they are in opposition to us. One thing is clear, though: they represent big trouble to the nation states and to their ways of waging wars.

Terrorists don’t wear uniforms or march around. They don’t stay behind enemy lines, or away from non-combatants. They don’t represent national governments, not officially or openly, anyway. They don’t live in barracks and have headquarters. They are rarely draftees, and not merely loyal citizens, they are zealots, willing and perhaps eager to die for their chosen cause. Consequently, they are impossible to defeat in any conventional sense.

Talk of “victory” and overcoming “enemies” attracts campaign contributions, votes, and popularity points from those who haven’t noticed that the world of the World Wars is past now. If we really want greater security in the world, however, we would do far better to: a) make fewer enemies in the first place by treating other peoples with greater respect and consideration, b) working more cooperatively and less confrontationally toward our goals, c) save military intervention for true last resort uses, d) set a high standard for behavior on the international scene, and abide by it ourselves.

Today’s terrorists will not be overcome by armed might by foreign interventionists. On the contrary, every day we are in the Middle East, we create more terrorists and willing suicide bombers. The supply of terrorists will dry up when the outrage over how we treat people is assuaged. One way to do that is to take an altogether different, and more respectful, attitude in our dealings with other peoples. Another is simply to butt out of their affairs.