This article originally appears in The American Thinker.
They’ve had the stuffing bombed out of them in Afghanistan. They’ve had their financial resources revealed and weeded out, their money men arrested and thrown in jail, their supporters and enablers cowed by a law enforcement effort involving upward of 80 countries and thousands of investigators. Their leaders are cowering in fear for their lives in caves and holes in the ground. And in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Yemen, Indonesia, the Philippines, Iraq, and all across the continent of Europe their soldiers are systematically being hunted down and killed or captured.
And yet…
And yet al Qaeda may be winning this war. Here on this beautiful late spring morning in the Midwest with the promise of summer right around the corner, our enemies have much to celebrate. For the debate in the United States may no longer be what to do about this group of fanatical, murderous thugs who ruthlessly and heartlessly attacked our homeland on September 11, 2001. The debate could revolve around the question of how we can have a “return to normalcy,” a question reflective of a yearning to turn back the clock to a time when we didn’t have dead serious debates about whether or not the accidental splash of urine on a Koran translates as “abuse” or which interrogation methods truly constitute torture.
Our national conversation about the War on Terror is proceeding in a manner very much as our enemies wish. They have seized the psychological initiative by playing our national news organs like a Stradivarius. Admittedly, the military has helped al Qaeda out enormously not only by the occasional breakdown in discipline which has led to isolated but significant incidents of torture, , but by the natural tendency of the military command authorities to not give the enemy a propaganda weapon to use against us. This has resulted in the appearance of cover-up, if not in the intent then certainly in the result of torture allegations.
At bottom, the brouhaha about prisoner abuse, Koran flushing, puppet governments, Bush- lied-and-people-died-no-blood-for-oil-U.S.-out-of-Iraq battle cries reveals a desperate desire on the part of many Americans – perhaps a majority – to wish away the harsh realities that the war in Iraq is exposing and the monumental effort it will take to win this conflict and defeat the forces of ignorance, intolerance, and terror.
President Warren G. Harding used the phrase “return to normalcy” to describe a state of mind that existed in the United States prior to our entry in World War I. There was a reaction to America sullying her hands by taking part in what at the time was seen as part of the endless cycle of European self-immolative conflagrations that flared up every hundred years or so. Harding thought it was high time America returned to a pre-war state of mind where, as his successor, Calvin Coolidge so aptly put it “the chief business of the American people is business” and the only foreign entanglements worthy of our interest was trying to keep Latin America subservient and docile.
Harding and Coolidge succeeded in making America forget its involvement in that war. The League of Nations, President Wilson’s flawed yet valiant attempt to integrate America into the world community was roundly defeated because in their heart of hearts, Americans believed themselves too pure, too righteous to become involved in world affairs. We did emerge briefly from our self-imposed slumber to propose and sign the Kellogg-Briand Pact that idealistically renounced the use of force in solving all international disputes. But that was perfectly in keeping with our belief that the forces of evil could be kept at bay simply by the lucky accident of geography. Separated as we are from the rest of the world by two vast oceans, we believed that the forces of darkness gathering strength during the 1920’s were of no concern to us simply because they couldn’t possibly threaten our well being.
Today the forces of darkness can’t be kept at bay by geography. They can’t be stopped by wishful thinking. They must be confronted, attacked, pursued, captured, and killed. There simply is no other way.
And yet…
And yet the opponents of this war – most of whom are good Americans who love their country as much as any of us- are playing directly into al Qaeda ’s hands. Unable to defeat us on the battlefield, unwilling to confront us directly, al Qaeda is using its battlefield defeats – the capture and detention of its soldiers – to turn our successes upside down and put the United States government on the defensive. And the opponents of the war, seizing upon this sidebar issue with a fervor reminiscent of a revivalist reverend preaching hellfire and damnation, are unwittingly following the game plan of our enemies by excoriating the Bush Administration for its alleged failure to uphold American values.
The anti-war crowd is using traditional grips and handholds in the political mud wrestling going on over the war. This begs the question. Who do they think the enemy is; Bush or al Qaeda? For that matter, when was the last time you heard or read anyone from the anti-war left actually using the pejorative “enemy” to describe our opponent?
In effect, much like their Democratic Party forbearer’s who took Abraham Lincoln to task for a variety of issues not directly related to the Civil War including the suspension of Habeas Corpus and questions about what constitutes free speech in wartime, Bush’s political opponents rarely, if ever, mention the reason we fight. Instead, their constant carping about prisoner abuse seems to be having its desired effect; the American people are losing confidence in the President to bring the war in Iraq to a successful conclusion and are becoming more anxious about our War on Terror in general.
Anyone who doesn’t believe that this is part of our enemies strategic thinking has another thing coming. Despite Michael Moore’s portrayal of Bin Laden and his cohorts as ignorant savages living in caves, many of the top leadership in al Qaeda are college educated – many of them matriculated at some of the finest colleges and universities in the west – and are keen students of both the western media and western attitudes. A translated copy of the al Qaeda Training Manual reveals a deep understanding of not only what makes the American people tick, but how to roil the streets of the Islamic world and bring the masses to their side.
All of this points to the first significant test for American resolve in the War on Terror in 2008. While the election last year could have been considered a referendum on the Iraq conflict and hence of surpassing significance for that reason alone, it’s devoutly hoped that by 2008 the mass of troops currently stationed in that country will be redeployed and American casualties will have virtually ceased. If that’s the case (and I believe the Administration will make it so whether completely warranted or not) then the Democratic candidate will have an interesting decision to make about an overarching theme for the campaign.
Will a “return to normalcy” theme – one that seeks to fulfill John Kerry’s dream of a return to a 9/10 world – be so attractive to the American people that it brings the Democrats the White House in 2008? It’s a seductive approach, one with very little political downside and could resonate with swing voters. But what consequences will flow from a decision to stop doing the things necessary to successfully prosecute the War on Terror and take the battle to where our enemies live rather than fight the war on terms of the enemy’s choosing?
The sad fact is, the constant drumbeat about prisoner abuse has lowered the morale of the American people and made them question not only the tactics, but fundamental tenets about the necessity for the war on terror. And since the next attack on our homeland will not be blamed on terrorists per se but rather on the personal leadership of the President, the anti-war crowd will be able to use any such assault as a political weapon to attack the way we are currently fighting this war and turn the country’s gaze away from fighting terrorists elsewhere to battening down the hatches at home and withdrawing from the fight. In a supremely ironic twist to Harding’s reasons for a “return to normalcy,” they will make the case that America is, in effect, too evil to lead this fight and is better off letting the wiser, more virtuous heads in Europe and the United Nations take the lead.
The enemy knows the only way to win the war in Iraq and elsewhere is if we voluntarily withdraw. In short, if we abjectly surrender. And in a conflict where many of us believe we fight for our existence, this is simply unacceptable.
But the siren song of “normalcy” may prove too tempting to resist. Unlike Odysseus’ sailors, no amount of wax we stuff in our ears will be able to muffle the alluring sound of the birds singing sweetly on a glorious September day in 2001 – September 10th, that is.
9:43 am
Hi Rick, nice piece…I would completely agree with your assessment….if we hadn’t taken the fight to the enemy in Iraq. I argue that if we hadn’t gone into Iraq to press our advantage, and begin the process of democratizing the region, we would be embroiled in many of the same arguments, only strictly about Afghanistan – and we would not have the advantages of a removed Saddam Hussein, thousands of now-dead jihadis ensnared by the fly-paper strategy, and we would have no long-term strategy to bring new light and ideas to the region. We may be losing focus in this war, but absent the Iraq war, we would be in tire straits.
Thanks,
jp
http://americansforfreedom.blogspot.com
9:49 am
Unlike the chickenhawks who sit out this war while cheering it on, I put in my time in uniform and understand how the inept prosecution of this war is destroying our military.
When George Bush gets on TV and spells out the sacrifices needed to win: raise taxes to pay for it, ask citizens to join the military to fight it, encourage an end to giant gas guzzling vehicles that keep us dependent of foreign oil, and put enough troops on the ground then I will believe he is serious.
Ignoring the total mismanagement of the post ‘Mission Accomplished’ photo op era is wistful thinking. The abuses of Abu Gharib and Bhagram have damaged our image precisely because we are the US of A dammit and we don’t torture and murder prisoners. At least no one would have believed it before this horrors came to light. To top it off we send people off to other countries where we know they will be tortured, innocent or not.
Some of us ex-military types see how the crushing op temp of the fighting is destroying the Army Reserve and how the active force is being being ground down.
Once the stop loss troops get back they will be gone from the service. Once current active troops put in their eight years and can no longer be compelled to serve they will be gone too. Yet we see this ridiculous happy spin put on current recruiting numbers.
It isn’t Al Queda that is winning this war, it is the Bus administration that is losing it.
11:20 am
Rick,
Thanks, I have long worried that we will loose this war. The reasons for this loss will be similar to the reasons that we lost Vietnam. Our inability to come together (or stay together) for various (intentionally caused)reasons as a unified country, our lack of backbone to do what it takes to see this through, and the failing of the government to involve the citizens in this fight.
It started when the pictures of 911 were forced off the air for exactly the same reasons that they should be on the air…their gruesomeness. It continues to the Koran flap of today.
And it accelerates yet today. Our eye is no longer on the ball.
11:38 am
Rick,
Do you think it was coincidental that John Kerry made his public reappearance on Meet the Press the day of the Iraqi elections? He was there to gloat but fortunately the Iraqi people spoiled his day. As far as I am concerned, Powell said it best the day the French sandbagged us at the UN. “We may be a very young country, but we are the oldest democracy here assembled around this table.” We earned our moral authority, the distractors act as low as the terrorists.
11:50 am
And what does Kerry gloating have to do with not enough soldiers on he ground to do the job and recruiting at all time lows for the al volunteer force?
Kerry isn’t president, Bush is.
Rumsfeld’s happy talk about the insurgency being on its last legs is demonstrably false and designed, I guess to keep the right wingers pacified until a pre-2008 election bugout.
1:15 pm
Richard,
Kerry’s expectations for bad Iraqi elections is the point. Mr. Political opportunist was going to use the event to criticize Bush. Too many or too few soldiers is a Pentagon issue, they understand the footprint effect. I trust those in both the civilian and military planners to make those decisions. An all volunteer force has a greater economic moral hazard than a conscripted one. 65% of WW2 soldiers were drafted, was that an indication that Roosevelt was ruing the military? We are in a real war with Islamo fascism that breads within 1,000 miles of Baghdad. The litany of Bush criticism is the tribal anti-Republican Left’s playbook to power.
3:53 pm
Yes, it is a fight to the death with Islom-fascism. So where are the recruiting posters? Where are the calls from the White House for men and women to rise to the defense of this country?
Where is the call for urgency and sacrifice that was made for WWII?
What I see is a public that can’t be bothered to get rid of gas hog SUV that contribute to our dependence on foreign oil. What see is GW’s twit daughters on the cover of Vougue instead of a MArine recruiting poster.
What I see is war on the cheap without enough men on the great or gear to keep grinding away for the years and years it will takr to win.
I see a military about to self-destruct and the delayed recruting numbers from last week will only make that more evident.
We are losign this war because we aren’t mounting a full scale all out effort to win it.
I’ll now you’re serious about winning when you start urging Bsh to go on TV and lay out exactly what sacrifices are need in a long term struggle instead of assuring folks their tax cuts are safe.
4:41 pm
Richard,
A government call to sacrifice is a romantic notion. We have lost probably 0.5% of non-inflation potential GDP, that is a sacrifice. Getting ourselves back to normalcy has helped offset the economic damage of 9/11. The 4th leg of any great military effort is the economy, so it is important to keep growing. I don’t argue that this effort in Iraq hasn’t been disappointing, but the people that are hampering our efforts in Iraq are the terrorists. Arab culture will ultimately destroy the roots of this enemy, not the US military. We are at a critical stage, if the new government can establish a political settlement, the terrorists will be ratted out and the hostilities will end quickly.
4:57 pm
Mr. Bottoms:
First of all, thank you for your service. Secondly, the idea that supporters of the war who are not serving are chickenhawks is bull. It’s pure sophistry to argue this point and while it might make you feel good to call your political opponent names, you only show yourself to be shallow minded and petty.
That said, I agree with much of what you said:
http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2005/05/27/where-bush-went-wrong/
I would love to have seen Bush take the actions you suggest even if it meant putting his domestic agenda on hold.
As for the number of troops, the problem there is politics. Is it better to an overbearing presence that would complicate our position in the mid east enormously? I don’t know the answer to that and neither do you. The people we elected to make those decisions think we had enough. You can criticize the decision, but please don’t ascribe inferior motives to it.
6:43 pm
I appreciate your coments and understand how the term chickenhawk can be considered name calling. I don’t want it to detract from my point: someone has got to fight this war.
If people who support Bush and his policies aren’t filling the ranks on the Army right now when the casualty count is 1,700 then just will do it when it hits 2,000 or 3,000?
I don’t doubt you believe this war should be fought in this place at this time. I believed the opposite, Afghanistan first elsewhere later. But we are there now.
But the president won’t do it because he will not want to frighten the public by declaring forthrightly we are in a big mess for wahtever reason that he needs a lot more troops to clean it up.
As for the number of troops. Shinseki had it right and Wolfowitz was wrong. Fighters are pouring across the borders and we are send a few hundred troops to patrol thousands of square miles.
Frankly al the insrugents need to wreak havoc is a couple of thousand guys willing to blow themselves up two or three at a time every day for the next three years.
The US public will not stand for casualties topoing 3,000 servicemembers. Not the way things stand with the rah-rah rhetoric being used. If this is a fight for sruvival then say so now, not after the 2006 elections. Because that’s what I think they’re waiting for. Bush and Cheney are betting the farm they can contain this by next summer.
7:14 pm
Rick,
This is a good piece, but it smacks of the Vietnam defense: “They’ve tied our hands behind our backs!” This time it’s not the President, but the public.
Every wartime era had its dissenters, and all were vilified. Did it stop the United States in its tracks? Rarely.
Usually it takes screw-ups of monumental proportions for a war to go awry, and it’s happened this time, for reasons of what Aldous Huxley called Vincible Ignorance—willful neglect of preparations. When we prepare poorly for war and expect to play catch-up on the battlefield, it only gives our opponent a better chance at playing catch-up too.
I’m personally damned tired of everyone blaming the left as closed-minded ninnies. Lots of us are hard-headed realists when it comes to war and to peace. Why blame something abstract called “the left?” Why blame anyone? Why not simply try to do better. Yes, the US is a cacophanous place, and yes, as a country with ambitions for global empire, the world is bound to find us an easy target. But let’s put up with the political divide, shall we, and GET ON WITH THE HARD WORK OF IT? The info revolution has now made the interpretation of events a much more fractious affair—a virtual echo chamber. If we’re looking for normalcy, we’ll be finding it invididually this time around. Just knock off the liberal-bashing. Some of us are with you guys on this—we’re just sick of the reactionary abuse we’re taking.
Get the drift?
Marty
Princeton University
7:26 pm
Some of those liberals are vets like myself who are damnded angry as we watch Rumsfeld dismantle the all volunteer force.
What soldier in his right mind is going to stick around to get stop-lossed out of a justly earned retirement or transfer? The reserve troops especially are seeing their businesses fail and lives disrupted only to find out they are second class citizens when it comes to health care & benefits compared to active military.
Republican representatives and senators aren’t going to listen to me because it wil never get cold enough in hell for me to vote for them. So it is up to Republicans in good standing to demand this pie in the sky appraoch to warfighting stop.
8:48 pm
Marty & Richard:
When 85% of attendees at the Democratic convention opposed the Iraq War and 45% opposed the war in Afghanistan, can you argue that the “left” as represented by the Democratic party is “hard headed” or not ninnies?
There are plenty of Democrats – moderates and liberals – who support the war on terror. My beef is with the moonbat left, the ones who think Karl Rove controls everything and George Bush is a robot. Or who think that Bush was behind 9/11 or that we’re trying to steal Iraqi oil and that’s the only reason we’re there.
We already are a global empire – we’ve been once since 1945. It can’t be helped. Our military, only the 14th largest in the world, is by far and away the best in the world, better than any two armies. We have a $9 trillion economy. All of western europe AND Japan are not as large. American culture is dominating the planet as people gobble up American films, American music, and American styles. English is the language of international diplomacy, of international business, of science and technology.
In short, unless you’re willing to shrink our economy, emasculate the military, and ban the export of American culture, then you will have an American empire. So the question isn’t getting one – the question is what do with it now that we have it.
My point in the article was simple. We could lose the war on terror very easily. We could lose it by giving up. The surrender would be couched in soothing language, much like Kerry’s bromides during the latter part of the campaign…”Let the UN do it”...Get the europeans involved”...”Give a timetable for withdrawal”...etc.
This will sell a lot better in “08 as we will have drawn down our troops substantially and Iraq will hopefully not be an issue. It will be close – just as it was in ‘04 – but there could be enough switches to give the election to the Democrats on the basis of not being too agressive in going after al Qaeda. You underestimate how that might play and I think you overestimate the resolve of the American people in the matter. Only another 9/11 size attack would bring most of us back to our senses.
9:57 pm
Is the moonbat right any better with wantng to teach fantasy in science class? I think your scary people have alot more infuence than our scary people.
As for losing the war on terror. All we have to do is continue to drive mid-career NCO’s and officers out of the military and decimate the reserve force with two and three tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And do you think we are in any way equipped to take care of 10,000+ disabled veterans? Especially reservists who are not given the same level of service at the VA as former active duty?
Last just when are we going to replenish the strategic stockpiles of weapons we are grinding into the dirt in Iraq?
1:53 am
Bottoms—
What does “fantasy in science class” have to do with the price of onions?
You obviously have a beef with the current leaders of the military. Maybe you are justified in your criticism. But the previous administrations had a whole lot more to do with the fact that we rely upon a reserve-based military than the current one has.
I think Rick answered your posts very well, and you responded by going off and chewing up 75% of the pixels on this thread. Maybe that makes you feel better, but it doesn’t make your arguments, if that’s what you call them, any stronger.
Frankly, however, you sound more like a man with a personal grudge. Ever hear of Bill Burkett?
3:14 am
Who?
I served my time in the military. The only grudge I have is against conservatives of the world who believe very strongly about wars they don’t sign up to fight.
The OP was about our national will, I am making the case that the current damage is in large part self-inflicted.
If you believe in this war, in the manner in which it is being fought then go fight it or if you are too old, then send your kids.
11:37 am
Your wheelchair bound woman argument is fallacious, she is not fit for military duty.
As for not everyone being cut out for military duty, that’s what everything from the AFSVAB to Basic Training are for, to find out who is fit.
Not going to war may not invalidate your beiefs, but as recruiters struggle to fill the ranks, those who believe in Bush and his choice of how to pursue the GWOT leave otehrs to do the fighting pure and simple.
If you are 18-37 and beieve in the war you are needed now. Let the services determine if you have the grit and skill to fight.
11:44 am
BTW, everytime I try the check spelling option I get the error about double posting. I’e just started posting directly I tend to write quickly then revise so forgive the typos. I don’t always catch them.
11:54 am
Richard—
My example is not fallacious.
As I say, I don’t necessarily disagree with your position that people should put their bodies where their mouths are. But that is simply an opinion, not an argument. You have just shown why: Many people cannot serve for various reasons. Yet they are still entitled to support the war. If you choose not to march in the streets blowing a dog whistle and wearing a “No Blood for Oil!” T-shirt are you are a “chicken-dove”?
IMO, you would do well to expunge that “chickenhawk” word from your vocabulary. (It’s also a poor simile: A chicken hawk is a ferocious bird that eats mammals for breakfast.)
11:59 am
Richard:
Since you’ve left more than (I think its) three comments in the last 24 hours, my spam blocker thinks your posts are on a par with on-line poker or sex sites.
Sorry ‘bout that…
2:29 pm
[...] Mickey Kaus first wrote about this impulse for a return to what some might consider a 9/10 world, something I believed the Democrats would try to do in this election cycle. In fact, Hillary Clinton rejected this theme and Obama embraced it. Look who is winning. [...]