July 12, 2007
How Goes the War? IV Posted by John Steele Gordon at 11:20 AM EST A few responses to the points Joshua Zeitz made in his latest post. 1) He writes that “Webb and his colleagues—most of whom also support withdrawal in one fashion or another—simply believe that the Iraq War is breaking the back of the U.S. military and that we need to do better by our servicemen by bringing them home and helping them mend their families, their souls, and their bodies.” First, “withdrawal” is defeat. When an army moves in to a foreign country in order to achieve an objective, fails to achieve it, and withdraws from that country, it has been defeated. Therefore those who advocate immediate withdrawal are advocating immediate defeat. Defeat can be euphemized a thousand ways, but it is still defeat. And when an army has been defeated, someone has been victorious. In this case, the victors would be Al Qaeda, Iran, and the other enemies of civilization. Second, the Iraq war has required the deployment of roughly one percent of the soldiers and sailors deployed in World War II, 20 percent of those employed in Vietnam. It is absorbing something like 25 percent of the military budget, which, in turn, is a much smaller percentage of federal spending than in the 1960s, let alone the 1940s. It is, therefore, a very small war, however vicious and frustrating. To say that such a war “is breaking the back” of the United States military does not say much for one’s opinion of the United States military. The fact that reenlistment rates in Iraq are very high argues powerfully that it is anything but “broken.” Third, anyone who believes that Senator Webb, et al., “simply believe” that the soldiers need more R&R stateside, must also believe in the tooth fairy. The net effect of Senator Webb’s amendment would be to force an American defeat (oh, sorry, “withdrawal”) in Iraq by making it impossible to deploy sufficient troops there, not something of which Senator Webb could possibly be unaware. The reason that Congress’s approval ratings are even lower than the President’s, I think, is exactly the habitual use of such smoke-and-mirrors dishonesty. 2) He writes, “The vast majority of war opponents . . . think . . . that Iraq has sapped precious military, diplomatic, and financial resources that are needed in the real fight against Al Qaeda. Mr. Gordon is free to disagree with these ideas, as honest people can and should do, but it’s wrong to impugn the motives of those with whom he disagrees.” I am not impugning the motives of those who think the war on terror should have been fought differently than it has been or who think the war in Iraq should have been fought differently or not fought at all. In many ways I agree with them. Obviously our strategy in Iraq in the last few years has not worked. But we have a new strategy now, and it shows preliminary signs of working. I cheerfully admit that, as Mr. Zeitz points out, that has a certain light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel quality about it. But consider a small thought experiment. A patient has been suffering from a medical problem and the treatment regimen has not been working. He’s as sick as he was before. So the doctors decide to try another approach. They develop another treatment regimen, and start that regimen. An hour and a half later, Dr. Harry Reid declares the new approach a failure and says the only acceptable action is euthanasia. I think we should give the new regimen time to work before we kill the patient. I am, however, impugning the motives of those who ignore that fact that, for better or worse, we started a war in Iraq and now must deal with the consequences of that action. Many of these people can’t seem to fathom that what we should have done or not done in 2003 is one question and what we should do in 2007 is entirely another. In July 2007 the only alternative to war is not peace. It is catastrophic defeat. These people advocate, whether they know it or not—and those of them who sit in Congress or write for serious periodicals surely do—a catastrophic defeat for the United States in particular and civilization in general. Some of them even admit that one of the consequences of that defeat (oh, sorry, “withdrawal”) will be a genocide in Iraq and quite possibly a far worse conflict in the Middle East into which the world’s strongest power (and largest importer of oil) will inevitably be drawn. They just don’t seem to care. As far as I can see, the passion to be able to say “I told you so” trumps everything else with these people. To admit that genocide—another Darfur—will be the consequence of an action one advocates and be indifferent to that fact is as morally shameful as anything I can imagine, short of taking an AK-47 and personally shooting as many strangers as possible. 3) Regarding Cindy Sheehan, Mary-Jo Cooney, and Michael Ledeen, I regard Cindy Sheehan as a profoundly disturbed woman who has shamelessly exploited her son’s death for political purposes while she has been shamelessly exploited in turn by the liberal media to advance their political purposes. I do not trivialize the death of a child. It’s hard to imagine anything more painful. But the idea that someone like Cindy Sheehan has “absolute moral authority,” to use Maureen Dowd’s hyperbolic phrase, is frankly ridiculous. Does Ms. Sheehan get to say whatever she wants and everyone else must simply stand in awe of her sacrifice? Ms. Sheehan has chosen to enter the political arena and must take her lumps like everyone else. Her son’s death, if anything, has clouded her judgment, not clarified it. The death of a son would certainly cloud mine. Do I think her a traitor? No, for as far as I know she has not levied war against the United States or given aid or comfort (except spiritually) to the enemies of this country. But she is anti-American to the core. Her antiwar rants get wide coverage, her anti-American ones do not. I was not able to find the articles to which Mr. Zeitz refers, but judging from his description of what Ms. Cooney and Mr. Ledeen wrote, I agree with Mr. Ledeen. Her adult son chose to join the Marines. She should be proud of that fact, not whining about it. Like Cindy Sheehan, Ms. Cooney seems to me to be exploiting her son’s service for her own political agenda. Again, she has of her own free will entered the political arena by writing an op-ed article. She is therefore fair game for criticism.
| 
