how the wingnuts lost the war

January 25th, 2007 View Comments

  • In “Why did anyone support the invasion of Iraq?” Avedon Carol puts it into neat, well written paragraphs that even a wingnut should be able to understand:
    Any reasonably sane person over the age of 15 knows that war is dangerous, expensive, and terrible. You know that it kills lots and lots of people, leaves many others damaged, and makes new enemies with new grudges. It is profoundly destabilizing and carries with it the threat of wider, more devastating unrest. So you don’t do it unless you absolutely have to.

    In the run up to the invasion of Iraq, no one provided a credible justification for the war. It was obvious that we did not have to invade Iraq. This is the overriding fact: Invading a nation without cause (you can call it “preemptive”, but that just means you don’t have cause) is breathtakingly immoral and equally stupid and you do not do it… A sane person starts from the position of not making war. The question of why not support starting a war should never even be raised—the reasons not to are always obvious…

    Yes, we’d all like to be Superman, able to fly into countries and create freedom and justice for all. If I wake up tomorrow morning and discover I have become God, believe me, everyone will be hearing from me. But no number of weapons, and no army of whatever size, can compensate for the fact that human beings are not God and we can’t just make everyone behave the way we want them to.

    Read it all. (c/o Jonathan Schwartz at This Modern World)

  • John Murtha, a man who actually fought in a war, says “wars cannot be won with slogans,” which is a message I’ve been pounding into the ground for a couple of years, both on this blog and at ye olde Jakeneck. Of course, it hasn’t helped the situation any that the public relations wonks that run the Bush White House keep renaming the war.

  • Another sure recipe for losing a war: Keep it open ended. The wingnuts like to compare the Global War on Terror to that other open-ended struggle, the Cold War. Of course, troops weren’t actually deployed in the Cold War. There wasn’t an “insurgency” in the Cold War. It was an overall concept to describe the struggle against Communism and the Soviets and the Chinese in particular, a struggle which is still very much occurring and rather serious, very serious.
  • They have no plan.
  • And, finally from Philip Carter over at Intel Dump:
    We will not win this “long war” so long as our enemies want victory more than we do, and are willing to sacrifice more to achieve victory than we are. We are asking for tremendous sacrifice from our all-volunteer military today. But though the burden of military service is heavy, it is not broad. I believe this is problematic in its own right, because such a division between those who serve and those who don’t has serious political and social consequences. However, there is an operational implication here as well. Our lack of national sacrifice telegraphs a very clear message to our enemies, not unlike the message which President Clinton sent to Slobodan Milosevic when he said “I do not intend to put our troops in Kosovo to fight a war.” Wars are a contest of will, and they are won in the mind. We cannot afford to tell or show our enemies that we want victory less than they do. Unfortunately, that is precisely the message that our current attitude on national sacrifice is sending.

    It is an important point. But, as I’ve said before, it is a war without definition, therefore a war without a defined end. How can we win?

    Until an answer is found, I offer this and this.

    No related posts.

    blog comments powered by Disqus
  • What's this?

    You are currently reading how the wingnuts lost the war at buzz twang.

    meta

    Switch to our mobile site