(Crossposted at my blog, and written for readers from across the political spectrum.)
Prompted by some entries and comments at
Obsidian Wings, I just finished reading the manifesto over at
No End But Victory. I can understand the support for staying in Iraq: I myself am on the fence, still listening to (when they are rationally represented) both sides. So, at NEBV, I was looking for a definition of victory.
In the manifesto, at any rate, there isn't one.* Instead, there are statements like this:
We know that Americans don't want to retreat: they want to win. And their support for the war varies in direct proportion to their perception that the American political leadership is willing to achieve that.
One word: nonsense.
The support of the American people for war comes from several things: their sense of political "will" may be on the list, but it stands behind several more important things.
- A clear understanding of the purpose of the war.
- Evidence of progress toward the objectives that will fulfill that purpose.
- Goal lines that do not, without clearly-expressed reasons, shift.
- Competence in the prosecution of the war.
- Confidence that American values and principles are key to our actions.
- Honesty in the prosecution of the war.
The support to stay in Iraq must come from citizens who were in favor of the war to begin with, and at least a few prominent people who were not.
How is this administration doing on the list? Should anyone be surprised, or offended, by citizens who are not expressing support?
- I think that as soon as it became evident that we weren't going to find those WMDs that (please don't argue this point; it's obvious) were used to sell the urgency of this war, the President was much clearer on his overall goals and recently has -- for him -- been pretty eloquent on the subject. The war in Iraq is a piece of a much larger conflict, one which will last decades: the defeat of what some call "Islamo-fascism" and others call "violent Islamic extremism." As Iraq becomes self-governing (I don't think the President mentions "democracy" anymore), its model will spread and the violent factions in the Middle East will lose popular and financial support. In the meantime, we will also seek out and destroy identified terrorist cells.
If this was the goal from the beginning (and I tend to believe that for many of the architects -- right or wrong -- it was), then war supporters shot themselves in their collective foot by making WMDs and mushroom clouds the rationale. If the administration thought that the media was mischaracterizing their reasons(I'm just repeating what some on the right wing say), it was their job to correct the record.
- With such a long-term goal, it is difficult to show the public that progress is occurring in the short term. When the violence is so obvious, and (I'll admit) more interesting for the media to cover, one school here and another constitutional step there may not provoke much support for the overall war. However, it is my contention that if the other elements of this list are in place, such small victories can be the focus of celebration, and motivation for the long haul.
- Much of this administration's problem in explaining this war to its citizens has been the changing language. For example, as I mentioned above, we used to hear quite a bit about "Democracy in the Middle East." Now? Not so much. Prior to the war, we heard about how many troops would be needed (not that many), and how long things should take (not that long), and how we would be greeted as liberators. Recently, we've heard from our Vice President that the insurgency is in its "last throes." For that matter, it was understandable if many Americans thought the goal of the war was to "disarm Saddam." Changing the message without admitting why it has changed (see #5) does not inspire confidence. It does not inspire support.
- Do I really have to list anything here? No, I didn't think so.
- Yes, I'm talking about torture. And due process. And the President and Vice President having the guts to speak, not to special interest groups, and not in closed Congressional chambers, but to the entire country about why they feel strongly that the rules have changed
. Not blaming "rogue soldiers," and not claiming, "we do not torture," and expecting that to be that. Finally, I'm talking about allowing -- even encouraging -- full, bipartisan investigations in Congress, because allowing the branches of government to function, and to discover truth -- especially when our young men and women are dying -- is an essential American value.
- Now, notice that I have not said "total transparency." I think American citizens understand, and support, the need for covert action and classified information (no, I'm not going there). On the other hand, when no one -- not a single person** -- has been held accountable for any of the mistakes of this war, mistakes that are nearly undisputed at this point, supporters of this war cannot and should not chide Americans for failing to support the administration. Honesty means saying, "we didn't know we'd be in Iraq, with this number of troops, for this long. Our mistakes in the occupation cost us." Honesty means saying, "Yes, we know about the $9 billion dollars that is unaccounted for, and we know about the unqualified people that were allowed to hold positions of importance in the coalition authority. That should not have happened. The following people have resigned or been fired. We're going to fix this, now, because the overall goal is critical."
The Bush admistration has failed in 5 of the 6 items on my list and, despite admitting that the media focuses on explosions, there is a strong argument that -- without enough troops, and without competent management -- we haven't given our soldiers what they need to consistently meet the short-term objectives, either.
It is
wrong to claim that the American people don't have "the will" to win. It is
wrong to claim that those criticizing this war, or wondering if we're now doing more harm than good in Iraq, don't have "the will" to win.
tacitus, who is behind NEBV, has been critical of this administration, and I think that his "NEBV" convictions come with an agreement with some of the points I've made here. So if he's going to create a website and a slogan to focus his passion for the cause, why not devote equal time and space and web designing to admonishing and prodding Bush and Co. to change their ways? Unless they do, no amount of posturing and political will is going to be effective (nor should it be) in changing American support for this war.
NOTES:
*I found some terms for victory by entering "define victory" in the search box at NEBV. Among other things, the poster says, "Victory is Peace. Victory is Iraqi Self-Governance. Victory is Iraqi controlled and sustained Security. Victory is full Iraqi sovereignty. Victory is stability in and around Iraqi borders. Victory is withdrawal of American troops AFTER cessation of hostilities with terrorists made possible by the full and complete destruction of them and their self-induced destabilization of Iraq's neighbors." Ok, then. I mean, that first thing and that last part -- considering this is the Middle East we're talking about -- should only take, oh about forever, but ok. I assume this poster agrees that Israel/Palestine issues must be resolved in a way that satisfies everyone before we can withdraw from Iraq?
**Sure, George Tenet took responsibility for intelligence failures. And then he got the Presidential Medal of Freedom.