Stabbed in the Back? Don't You Believe It
Charles H. Featherstone
by Charles H. Featherstone
Novak is right – and I'd really like to believe
he is, though I have my doubts – then whoever gets to be president
on November 2 will be forced to accept the reality that the Iraq
war is simply unwinnable and that there is little alternative to
a fairly orderly but rapid withdrawal of American forces from the
land between the rivers.
Novak put this in the context of a second Bush Jong Il administration,
and Lord knows that's just as likely an outcome as any. (At the
risk of losing my newly acquired LRC member card and decoder ring,
I must admit that I am looking forward to a Kerry victory, in part
because Bush Jong Il and his entire clueless politburo needs to
pay a price for what they've done, in part because Kerry really
does have a better
understanding of what al-Qaeda is and how to fight it, and in
part because many nominal conservatives who spent the last four
years defending Bush's Great Big Intrusive Gummint will suddenly
find real religion again. In my heart of hearts, though, I'd rather
the presidency – and the entire executive – remain unfilled and
unstaffed, and the White House turned into an honest motel...) But
I have a hard time believing that the architects of this disaster
– especially those inside the administration – will accept an Iraq
evacuation, even if that is the price for continued executive branch
quite frankly, I have a hard time believing that the "scholars"
of the American Enterprise Institute would accept a pull-out calmly.
They've invested far too much of themselves in this incredibly stupid
adventure. I imagine them gathering at, say, the Old Ebbitt Grill,
getting themselves good and drunk, forming an outraged rabble, and
then marching on the White House...)
let's assume, for argument's sake, that Novak is correct, and that
the next president will acknowledge the obvious and cut and run
from Iraq. It will happen eventually.
Let's review very quickly why the Mesopotamian venture is failing.
It is not because the soldiers and Marines in Iraq are poorly led,
or have inferior equipment, or are badly trained, or even don't
have the support of enough of the country. It isn't even because
the political leaders are incompetent, though the incompetence of
Bush Jong Il and his politburo got us there in the first place.
The US military in Iraq is solidly led and reasonably well equipped.
No, it is failing because the political objective those soldiers
were sent to accomplish – the democratization of the Middle East,
or the scaled-down desire to simply create a pro-American Iraq –
is simply unachievable at any price we are willing or able
to pay. And there simply is no amount of pain we can inflict upon
the Iraqi nationalist and Islamist resistance at this point that
will compel enough of them to accept defeat and put down their arms.
doesn't matter how many of them we kill. It doesn't matter how many
times we take, retake, and re-retake Najaf, Samara or Sadr City.
It doesn't matter how many swell, well-planned and "successful"
operations we conduct. It doesn't matter how many schools we repair
or hospitals we build. It doesn't matter that we can go where we
want, kill whomever we want, arrest whomever we want, and destroy
whatever we feel like.
next morning, when the rubble clears, there will be more Iraqis
willing to threaten, assassinate, intimidate, plant bombs, organize,
and kill our soldiers. Their start-up costs are insignificant compared
to ours, and they self-organize. Drip drip drip.
we stopped at toppling the Iraqi government in April 2003 and given
everyone in Iraq 90 or 120 days to form a new government and hand
over all the old Ba'athis so we could quickly leave, we'd of had
a much better chance of something called "success" and
earned a lot more good will, both in Iraq and out of it.)
truth is fairly simple but hard to accept: we are not wise enough,
nor good enough, nor strong enough, nor rich enough to save a people
who neither want our help nor need it. (We barely have the wisdom,
goodness, strength, and wealth to save ourselves, much less anyone
I suspect few Americans – Democrats or Republicans – will consider
any of these things. That requires a thoughtfulness I'm not sure
many Americans are really capable of. To far too many, we are
good enough, wise enough, and strong enough to remake others, even
against their will. So true believers in the war will go looking
for someone to blame for its failure.
Bush Jong Il gets re-elected – or reappointed, or whatever – then
the domestic political fallout of a withdrawal from Iraq will be
manageable. Team Bush will paint a happy face on Iraq, call the
January "elections" a success, and probably start a six-or-ten
month pullout that will likely be accelerated. Last American out
of Iraq shut the lights and don't let the door hit you on the butt
or blow up as you leave.
mindless minions of Bush Jong Il will probably live with that, though
many will go looking for someone to blame. Certainly Democrats –
those powerful, evil, omnipresent, obstructionist Democrats – will
come in for their fair share of blame. Anti-war types of all stripes
– Howard Dean, Brent Scowcroft, Pat Buchanan, LRC – will also be
recruited for team blame. (Will they blame neoconservatives? Gawd,
I wish, but probably not.) But because the Party Faithful must believe
the story told by Bush Jong Il, and because he will call the whole
thing a "a victory" (and then change the subject after
the first coup in Iraq) and "a success," it will be fairly
calm, sedate and well-managed.
if the patrician junior senator from Massachusetts is president,
then the political consequences of the war will become downright
toxic. Because then Iraq will become one of those dreaded "Democrat
Wars" Bob Dole (and more than a few cranky Republicans) decry
in less guarded moments. Because a Kerry administration will simply
be able to do nothing right. The endeavor in Iraq will suddenly
have very few friends in the Republican Party.
is common currency among many committed Republicans that Democrats
know nothing about the military and are simply incapable of commanding
it properly. America needs a strong Commander-in-Chief, and a wimpy,
wussy Democrat more worried about day care, health care, hair care
and blow jobs is simply incapable of issuing orders that generals
and admirals will respect and obey. Bill Clinton tried to prove
otherwise, but his handful of wars and his recreational activities
have, I fear, simply reinforced this notion among the Red State
if Kerry presides over a withdrawal from Iraq – even the same withdrawal
that Bush would have undertaken in virtually the same way – be prepared
for the big lie, a "stabbed-in-the-back" theory that will
bitterly and angrily poison American politics and society, likely
worse than post-Vietnam recriminations damaged our national politics.
to be told – to be lectured and hectored – that were it not for
likes of us, for dissent, America would have won,
if we had just been as united as we were on September 12, 2001.
mind that there was no winning.
the First World War, the German Imperial government imposed very
strict censorship on battle reports. Many at home in Germany had
no idea how badly things had gone for the army during the last three
months of fighting in 1918. That, combined with the abdication of
the government which had waged the war and thus was unable to take
responsibility for losing it, allowed an exceptionally poisonous
lie to take hold: the "November Criminals," the socialists
and Jews who supposedly sold the nation out, who stabbed in the
back and defeated an army that was not beaten on the battlefield.
That lie, and the hatred and mistrust it engendered within German
society, made it virtually impossible for Germans to govern themselves
effectively during the 1920s.
we all know what that eventually led to.
H. Featherstone [send
him mail] is a Washington, D.C.-based journalist specializing
in energy, the Middle East, and Islam. He lives with his wife Jennifer
in Alexandria, Virginia.
© 2004 LewRockwell.com