Just a few months ago, during the Presidential election, Iraq was the center of the political universe. It was a crisis, at the boiling point, a fiasco, a failure; and all media talk centered on the need for a "quick exit strategy," otherwise known as "John Kerry." The day after the election, the unavoidable crisis that had reached the boiling point was moved to the back burner to simmer indefinitely. Apparently, the unbearable burden became somehow more bearable when it could no longer benefit the Democratic Party to comment upon its weight. So I suppose our surrender will need to be delayed until the midterm elections.
However, there was one advantage to the artificial crisis atmosphere of the last election - it forced President Bush to explain to people why we were in Iraq, and why it is so important that we stay the difficult and expensive course there. In the absence of such direct political conflict, the media has now reverted to plan B for demoralizing the American people: good news is no news. The remarkable progress being made in Iraq has been largely ignored by the media, and the President is happy to let the issue rest while he pursues Social Security reform. So the public is treated, instead, to a constant muffled drumbeat of roadside bombings and marketable kidnappings on page 2. The frontal assault on support for the war has been replaced by a battle of attrition, one in which the pro-war side is taking little interest.
So please allow me - after a six-month break from the argument - to remind us of why we must fight. Especially since the most important reason that it is in America's interest to continue this endeavor was totally overlooked during the election - lost among all the defeatist rhetoric on one side, and the pie-in-the-sky "fighting for the democratic future of the oppressed Iraqi people" talk on the other. Sometimes an issue needs addressing even when the pack media is busy analyzing Michael Jackson's pajamas or making catty comments on Camilla Parker's taste in extravagant feathered headwear.
That being said then, why are we there? And, more importantly, why do we need to stay there - for years, if that is what it takes to win?
The odd problem with explaining why we went to War in Iraq is that there were so many legitimate reasons to invade that even the supporters of the War seem to disagree on just why - exactly - we went there.
Enforcing the armistice that ended the Kuwait War was enough for me, to which can be added UN mandates (if you believe in that sort of thing), the potential of Weapons of Mass Destruction reaching terrorists, an attempted assassination of former President Bush, deposing a butcher, ending our presence in Saudi Arabia, and most importantly, the long-term strategy for victory over the cultural phenomenon of Islamist Terrorism: changing the culture of the Arab World by establishing Democracy there.
All are legitimate and worthwhile reasons and none of them matter at all now.
Once a war is begun, regardless of why it was initiated, a new concern comes into play that overwhelms nearly everything else: national reputation. Losing a war can wound the reputation of a country in a way that will cause it hardship and bloodshed for generations. This concept should require little explanation to anyone who witnessed the legacy of our defeat in Viet Nam. Following our ignominious "withdrawal" there, the world became more threatening for America, not less so. Neither did the end of the Vietnamese civil war "stabilize" Southeast Asia. The collapse of the South was rapidly followed by the collapse of Laos and Cambodia, in the latter case leading to one of most horrendous slaughters of civilians in World History. The example of these victories buoyed Maoist and Stalinist movements the World over for 20 years, and inspire our diverse enemies even today.
And it is more than simply military reputation that is at stake, for such a reputation could be repaired with just a single victory. It is something more akin to the reputation of our character that we have to lose by premature withdrawal - what might, in the past, have been called "Honor." It says something about a nation when it lacks the resolve to complete what it has publicly declared should be done. Any nation can do what is easy; Great Nations are defined by how they handle difficulty. Iraq has turned out to be more difficult than was foreseen, just as Afghanistan turned out to be far easier than was predicted.
But War is not a financial transaction, in which it is wise to withdraw if the price goes too high. War is a game of "Chicken." Withdrawing is how you lose. And the price of losing is Dishonor. Without Honor, the World expects you to lose every time you play the game in the future. You are marked as weak in a world full of tyrants and madmen.
Osama Bin Laden used America's incompetent humanitarian intervention in Somalia as a morality tale for his followers. This proved, he often preached, that America was weak - not militarily, but weak in its soul. Unlike the disciples of Islam, he claimed, the children of Democracy are afraid to die for what they believe in. All you have to do is draw them into a battle Man to Man and kill a few dozen of them, and they will run home to safety and comfort. This is exactly what happened in Somalia, just as it had happened in Beirut after the bombing of the Marine barracks and in Iran after the failed hostage rescue attempt.
For decades after Vietnam, America trained its enemies to outlast us. We declared ourselves to be wealthy cowards: fine when our money could do the work for us, but not up to a slugging contest. So every megalomaniac in the world wanted to get us into a slugging contest. September 11th changed that.
After the massacre of 3000 civilians in our own land, we were prepared to trade punches with anyone, and we rolled over the Taliban like they were girl scouts. The resolve shown in this effort frightened our enemies the world over. The sleeping giant had been awakened. No opponent of America was safe. Iraq collapsed so quickly after the initial invasion, I believe, because the Saddamites and their servants did not doubt our will. Given our technical capabilities and resources, the only hope our enemies have is that our will might falter. Without this hope, our enemies have no hope at all.
Now we have entered the slugging contest of the Iraqi occupation. Our enemy believes he can outlast us: just trade punches with America long enough and she will run home; she is a nation without Honor. I say "slugging contest," but the blows of our enemies are pinpricks. It is only in the echo chamber of the American Media that each prick is turned into a mighty blow against public support for the War. In two years of "bloody" war, we have lost less than half as many Americans as we did on September 11th. That is the difference between passivity and taking the offensive.
If we fail now, with the eyes of the world upon us, we are going to have to live through the aftermath of the failure in Vietnam all over again. But this time it will be worse than just humiliation and malaise we suffer, for Ho Chi Minh never sought to incinerate New York and Washington. America's enemies will fall on her with a renewed and unparalleled enthusiasm, energized as only Victory can energize an adversary. Friendly governments from Pakistan to Kuwait could collapse and Terrorism will be fully validated as the one force more powerful than the American military.
That is one future. The other is that we stick it out and complete our mission - not in spite of the costs, but with disdain for them - because it is not the Iraqis for whom we are fighting now. It is our Honor. And the Marine or Soldier that dies preserving that saves his son from having to die pointlessly a decade from now because we lost our honor. If we win under duress, we will teach our enemies a new lesson: your best hope for victory does not lie in outlasting us; it lies only in never fighting us. Regardless of whether one supported the War at its outset, only a fool can find it acceptable to now lose it. Remember this, if things take another turn for the worse, or when we find ourselves in the midst of another election year crisis.
