Military historian Frederick W. Kagan has a great piece on the importance of winning wars. Whatever one may think of our war in Iraq -- whether it should have been waged, whether it has been managed competently, whether we are presently winning -- Kagan explains why the costs of losing are far, far higher than the American left is willing to acknowledge.

The hyper-sophisticates of the American foreign-policy and intellectual establishment direct their invective at the whole notion of winning or losing. What’s the definition of winning? If we choose to withdraw from an ill-conceived and badly executed war, that’s not really losing, is it? We can and should find ways to use diplomacy rather than military power to handle the consequences of any so-called defeat. Less-sophisticated antiwar leaders on both sides will ask simply why the U.S. should continue to spend its blood and treasure to fight in “a far-off land of which we know little,” as Neville Chamberlain famously said in defense of his abandonment of Czechoslovakia to the Nazis. We have, after all, more pressing problems at home to which the Iraq war is only contributing. As is often the case, there is a level between over-thinking and under-thinking a problem that is actually thinking. Yes, in the world as it is, whatever line we sell ourselves, there really is victory and there really is defeat, the two are different, and their effects on the future diverge profoundly. And yes, the reason we must continue to spend money and the lives of the very best Americans in that far-off land is that the interests of every American are actually at stake.

We will consider below just how much of a diversion of resources away from more desirable domestic priorities the Iraq war actually is, but the more important point is simply this: Unless the advocates of defeat can show, as they have not yet done, that the consequences of losing are very likely to be small not simply the day after the last American leaves Iraq, but over the next five, ten, and 50 years, then what they are really selling is short-term relief in exchange for long-term pain. As drug addicts can attest, this kind of instant-gratification temptation is very seductive — it’s what keeps drug dealers in business despite the terrible damage their products do to their customers. “Just end the pain now and deal with the future when it gets here” is as bad a strategy for a great nation as it is for a teenager.

Maybe I'm cynical, but I think most of the anti-war elite know that a retreat-defeat will hurt America, and they're eager for America's diminishment in the world. It's not fair that America is so rich and powerful! We owe it to the rest of the world to sabotage ourselves for the sake of international equality. Obviously, most Americans would reject such a premise, so the left is forced to argue that they aren't really calling for defeat, and anyway, if they are, the consequences won't be that bad.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The Importance of Winning Wars.

TrackBack URL for this entry:



Email blogmasterofnoneATgmailDOTcom for text link and key word rates.

Site Info