The Shifting Winds of War

I had very rough notes on this written in mid-July, after Blair’s speech to Congress, but work and writer’s block prevented me from giving my accolades to the speech. A number of people have commented on the speech, with the most extensive one I’ve seen so far over at Winds of Change. It is now almost two years since 9/11. Afghanistan has largely fallen from public view. The situation in Iraq seems to be deteriorating. The Bush Administration no longer seems to care whether it wants to win this war. It’s time to go back to Blair’s speech for inspiration; it encapsulates what this war is about: the confrontation between liberalism and the cults of death that have been festering in the Muslim lands over decades.

We ourselves may not see the end of this confrontation; the pathologies that have taken root will not be expurgated in a single generation. Liberalism does not establish itself in a span measured in mere years. We may at best hope that our children will see the end of this confrontation. These are world historic events that will define the early history of the 21st Century. Whether they will be seen as the end of the beginning of a successful struggle, or as lost opportunities that lead to further suffering, will be determined by the actions of America and its allies over the next few years.

Given the importance of this confrontation — not only for us, but also for the oppressed millions in those lands — how can the Administration so thoroughly screw it up? More troops were not commited to post-war Iraq and Afghanistan, possibly because Rumsfeld is experimenting with the theories of a smaller, lighter military: while technological change has made our troops far deadlier, occupation and pacification are still labor-intensive tasks. Iraq and Afghanistan need more troops, and it is not time nor place to try out new theories of war. Similarly, the financial resources that are apparently necessary for reconstruction have been frittered away in monsterous tax cuts that are doing little to improve the economy: it’s been said the Bush’s domestic policay can best be described as an effort to provide the richest 1% with the largest possible tax cut, and any other pandering (e.g., to the protectionists) to get this tax cut is fine. For an Administration that values actions, not words, it’s clear that Bush and his advisors are not taking the war seriously. For them, trivial domestic political concerns geared towards next year’s election are more important than the war.

John McCain has a good op-ed in the Washington Post describing what we should be doing: more money, more troops, more honesty on the part of our government about the scope and costs. What we’re trying to do in Iraq is far too important to fail. As with Blair, McCain gets it: this is a world historical struggle that we must win.

Earlier in the year, I despaired about the Democrats, who didn’t seem to take foreign policy seriously even in time of war. But the Democrats are partially constrained by their rabidly anti-American, anti-Bush segments. What excuse does the Administration have? But now, even Dean possibly gets it:

Our oil money goes to the Saudis, where it is recycled and some of it is recycled to Hamas and two fundamentalist schools which teach small children to hate Americans, Christians and Jews,” Dean said. “This president will not confront the Saudis.”

Dean gets to the heart of the matter, though, arguably, his antiwar position on Iraq would not have helped in preparing for an eventual confrontation with the Saudis. But he appears to understand what this war is about.

Comments are closed.