Iraq is not Vietnam. But if we are to avoid a debate over who "lost" Iraq, as we debated who lost Vietnam a generation ago, we must act urgently to transform our early military success into lasting political victory. The United States can and must win in Iraq. - Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
McCain is a serious guy. But the idea that there is some clean way out of Iraq that will leave most everyone in America feeling good about it is a silly idea.
I've heard a similar notion expressed about Vietnam, that if we had just "won" in some clean-cut way, everyone would feel good about it. I think the idea must be based on some kind of ideal, nostalgic picture of World War II, which was probably the least divisive major war the United States ever fought. But the cost of "winning" a guerrilla war in Vietnam would not have left everyone feeling good.
The same is true in Iraq. The false claims about "weapons of mass destruction" used to justify the war in the first place guarantee that there will be recriminations long after we've accepted some resolution in Iraq and pulled the troops out.
Bush further guaranteed a divisive aftermath on May 1 when he did his Sheriff Top Gun act on the Abraham Lincoln, with the giant "Mission Accomplished" banner behind him. The Republican echo chamber can spin it all they want. But most Americans thought they heard George Bush declaring that the war in Iraq for all practical purposes was over. And it wasn't. It was just beginning.
The Iraq War was also the test case of the Bush Doctrine of preventive war, a radical innovation in American foreign policy. But instead of showing "the terrorists" how much Will and Resolve we have, the war has so far done more to show the limits of American power.
Oh, there will be recriminations for a long time. Even after we've decided some way to declare we've "won."
No comments:
Post a Comment