The Non-Ideal War

Christopher Hitchens offers a must read with My Ideal War, in which he solidly makes the case that, not only was the Iraq War necessary, there are many more at fault than the Bush administration for the current state of affairs in that regard.

Well, if everyone else is allowed to rewind the tape and replay it, so can I. We could have been living in a different world, and so could the people of Iraq, and I shall go on keeping score about this until the last phony pacifist has been strangled with the entrails of the last suicide-murderer.

Unfortunately, there never is an ideal war and right now America is in the middle of an idea war, more than she is some ideal war. If it didn't anger me so, it would amuse me when I read about polls which show so much discouragement amongst Americans as regards the Iraq war . But what really is being measured?

I'd submit it isn't a measure of what is happening in Iraq, but more a measure of what is going on in the headlines. And anyone who has followed events in Iraq closely knows that there is a significant disparity between what is happening on the ground, as opposed to what is happening in print.

Put simply, it is the idea of what is happening in Iraq that we are fighting now, not the reality of it. No war, or even battle, has been fought in which the plan didn't change almost immediately after its start. And for all those who would say this or that could have been predicted better, or more precisely, I say nonsense. Not only is that an arguable point, now is not the time for such second guessing and political maneuvering. Now is the time to prosecute a war as best we can with what we have - and that will never change for anyone ever engaged in significant conflict.

One does not try to win. One either wins or loses. And the simple fact is that, despite what the headlines might tell us, we are winning in Iraq. In fact, it is impossible for us to lose, we can only do that at home in the world of our ideas of what is, was, or should be as regards Iraq.

As there is little doubt that the current administration will continue to prosecute this war, there really remains only one vital question. Do we ensure that the next Congress and possibly even the next President has the vision and resolve to stay what, in any war, will at times be a difficult course? Or do we cave to the more insecure elements of our nature and society at large and somehow abandon what we have started?

That isn't a question for me, it hasn't been from the start. Some say Bush's problem is that he doesn't leave room for doubt, I'd respond that when one is taking on elemental issues and or fighting significant wars, doubt has no place in the front lines of those struggles. The problem for America right now is not Iraq, it is America.

And I not only hope but believe that enough of her is still mature enough to realize that in the end. There has been much talk of Iraq as compared to Vietnam. If the nation doesn't want another Vietnam there is only one way to avoid that. Simple - don't have one. What transpired in Vietnam was ultimately a reflection of what happened within American society in the face of war, not what was happening on the battle fields of Vietnam.

It was America's idea of that war that caused us to abandon it, in part because of some thought of, or quest for an ideal war. Well, there isn't one. There never has been and there never will be one. What we have and all we have is the war we've got. And the world, obviously including America, will be a damn site better off if we win it, than if we don't.

Right now it is going to take an interim election to ensure that happens. And that may well be the most important fight we have to face right now. And that while safely tucked away in America. If we want to support the troops, then we have to be about supporting the war and the politicians who have the backbone to see a difficult task through to proper conclusion.

Anything else would be a political retreat by us the voters which very well might foster a military retreat. Then, once again, just as in Vietnam, it will be the people who lost the war and let the men and women in combat, from the CIC to the grunt, down - and not the reverse.

That is a fight the average American voter can and must win while our military sees to its task at hand on their battlefield. I know they won't let us down. The greater question is will we let both them and ourselves down by retreating once again, as a democratic nation, in the face of a non-ideal war?

Comments

[lwm]

"And anyone who has followed events in Iraq closely knows that there is a significant disparity between what is happening on the ground, as opposed to what is happening in print."

So, what is it exactly that's happening on the ground that is positive?

[AuntJ]

Oh my ! Very very good post ! I agree with it all. Back in the months before the war started in March 2003, I took a good hard look at everything I could find on both sides of the argument for war. I made the decision to support the President in this. I also thought to myself at the time that this would be a long hard road, that there would be those that would try to deter us from this road and that we must continue to the finish and not leave things too early over there. People that do not believe that remind me of "fair weather fans" of sports; when the team is doing very well, everyone is there to support them, but let them have a bad year, and down goes the support and attendance.
I also think a lot of people base their views on the headlines they read or hear on TV. It just amazes me when a person I know spouts some headline that really doesn't tell the whole story and then turns that into some negative hate speech against the President and the government.
I just don't understand what the purpose of the military is supposed to be, if not to defend us and to send them out to stop someone from attacking us. Is their purpose just to sit around on bases in the US and around the world and do nothing? What do they train for if not to be sent out to stop a threat to us?
I believe a lot of people don't support war at all in any form or fashion or for any reason at all. I'm sorry, I just don't get that and I am a religious person too. Do you sit here and let someone kill you because you think God doesn't want war? Well then, don't bother locking your doors or locking up your possessions, just let anyone come in to your home and kill you and steal your stuff. Isn't that the same reasoning?

[Y]

What long hard road?

No one in the Administration talked about any long hard road, they talked about troops being welcomed with open arms, Iraqis learning how to self govern overnight, the war PAYING FOR ITSELF with Iraqi oil...

None of that came to pass.

As far as the Iraqi threat, I'm still waiting...still waiting for those weapons of mass destruction and enriched uranium that Saddam had all over the place.

No truth to it. None of it.

We were taken in by charlatans like Chalabi and because Bush Co. only likes what it likes any plan or prediction that wasn't in syn with the idea of a glorious, quick, cheap and easy victory was sidelined.

And now we are stuck. Stuck in the middle of a country that on the path toward civil war, stuck spending billions and billions of dollars to simply keep the peace, stuck with young soliders dying and being maimed every day.

Yeah, good plan.

[MrsLevy]

Christoper Hitchens is the author of a book that calls Mother Teresa "The Ghoul of Calcutta".

http://are.berkeley.edu/~atanu/Teresa/hitchens_interview.html

http://are.berkeley.edu/~atanu/Teresa/hitchens_nov1992.html

MrsLevy

[annie]

The day I see Christopher Hitchens roll up his sleeves and get out there amongst the poor, and feeding and washing the sick, is the day I will have some respect for what he is saying.

How about putting your money where your mouth is Christopher, why not start with the proceeds of your book, otherwise you are talking a load of hot air.

[annie]

By the way, I am making reference to MrsLevy's post re Mother Teresa.

In a lot of other matters, I do have a lot of respect for what Christopher Hitchins says.

[stuff]

funny, seems the anti-war movement predicted a whole bunch of things spot on and many other besides. Why are you SO invested in believing in dumya? He sure as hell doesn't believe in you.

[annie]

Stuff

Did the anti-war people predict the removal of the rape rooms and the torture chambers after the US troops entered Iraq, or would you like to still see them churning out their victims?

You seem to forget that although there are casualties in this war, as there are in any war, there were hundreds of thousands while Saddam Hussein was in power, including the people who were put (alive) into his mincing machine, and that really existed!

In Afghanistan, children were having to help stone their own mothers to death, and this was a daily occurence. It was a hell on earth living there under the Taliban rule.

If you talk to any Kurds they are infinitely grateful to the troops for ridding them of Saddam, as they were living under a state of terror. Millions of people have literaly been freed because of President Bush's decision regarding Afghanistan and Iraq, because the Taliban and Saddam must rank as two of the most evil dictatorships ever.

Meanwhile, you and your ilk just give support to the enemy by your utterances and negativity, not realising that while Bush has taken the fight to the enemy, he has taken it away from you, but perhaps that is a good thing, because I can't imagine any of you Job's Comforters putting up much spirited resistance if the war was fought on US soil, before you would all be behind Cindy Sheehan with her white flag begging to surrender. It would have to be left to the other half who are willing to fight for their freedom.

[Robert]

Stuff,

I hear you're giving support to our enemy.

When did YOU tell the insurgents killing our soldiers to "bring it on"?