Ross Douthat asks the right question
Following up on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s conclusion that the war in Iraq is “lost,” National Review’s Mark Levin concluded that the remark was “so disgraceful and brazen that it could have been uttered by Tokyo Rose during World War II or Jane Fonda during the Vietnam War.” He took his outrage near its logical extreme.
“Rather than join the chorus demanding Gonzales’s resignation, let me be the first to demand Reid’s resignation,” Levin said.
Even if we put aside the fact that Reid’s comments were not substantively different from assessments offered by top generals, and even if we overlook the fact that most Americans seem to have reached the same conclusion Reid has, Levin’s harangue deserves some follow-up.
In fact, Ross Douthat, filling in for Andrew Sullivan, asks Levin the right question.
Is there any imaginable point in any imaginable conflict where Mark Levin would admit that the United States had lost a war? I don’t mean to be flip, and I say this as someone who generally thinks that the U.S. hasn’t necessarily lost in Iraq; we probably have, but the outcome is still sufficiently in doubt and the stakes sufficiently high that I want to give the “surge,” however ineffectual it may prove (or may already be proving), at least a Tom Friedmanesque six months to work.
But even allowing that Reid shouldn’t have said what he said, it’s still the case that the United States can lose wars, like any world power; that we may well lose this one (in some sense, at least); and that at some point, in this struggle or another, some American politician will say “we’ve lost the war” and be entirely correct. Given this reality, I wish Levin (and many of his fellow “till the last dog dies” Iraq War backers) would clarify whether there’s any situation in which they would greet a U.S. defeat abroad with any response save a rote invocation of the stab-in-the-back narrative.
In talking with people I know who support the war, I take a similar approach all the time. It’s rarely satisfying.
Indeed, the most common defense lately for the war is that the president’s policy (his sixth, by the way) just needs more time.
But war supporters should at least consider Douthat’s challenge. Is it even possible for the war to fail? Can the war go on too long? Can there be too many U.S. deaths? Can the cost become too great?
Yesterday, I saw a far-right blog post that was typical of those lambasting Harry Reid for his comments.
We are not losing in Iraq, Senator Reid, despite your efforts to deprive Iraq and America’s troops of victory when it is almost within their grasp.
We are winning in Iraq.
This is how winning feels, in the early stages. It feels like scorching heat, freezing cold, sweat, pain, agony, injury, and loss of life. That is always how it feels in wartime before victory comes.
That’s one way of looking at it. There is, of course, the other way — that the president’s approach to the war has failed, through a combination of incompetence, denial, non-existent planning, overly-optimistic expectations, cronyism, corruption, misjudgments, and the disconcerting possibility that Iraq just may not be cut out for a unified democracy. We can wait, but the “victory” probably won’t ever come.
The war is in its fifth year, which conservatives say isn’t enough. What about when the war is in its eighth year? Or twelfth? Or twentieth? At what point do war supporters say it’s been too long?
The war has claimed 3,317 American lives. What about when that number reaches 8,000? Or 20,000? At what point do war supporters say the fiasco has claimed too many?
The war has cost over a trillion dollars. What about when that number reaches 2 trillion? Or 5 trillion? At what point do war supporters say the cost is too high?
If their rhetoric is to be believed, the right doesn’t see a limit. For that matter, it can’t conceive of failure, in part because every development is filtered through the unflinching notion that we’re winning (more violence is good news, less violence is good news). It’s the kind of thinking that would make Stephen Colbert’s character proud — if the war cost too much and was a failure, we’d leave. Since we’re still there, it’s a victory that’s worth the cost, reality notwithstanding.
If Bush, Cheney, GOP presidential candidates, congressional Republicans, and war supporters nationally believe there is no limit to the price we’ll pay for this war, they should say so, explicitly. We’re waiting.
Expect a very long wait.
I would suggest one problem is that we’ve never really gotten a sense of what “victory” means. If it’s a complete end to the violence and chaos, that’s not going to happen. If it’s meeting a set of lesser standards–getting the power back on, stabilizing the economy, better managing the violence and lessening their frequency–by all means, let’s have the debate about what those standards are and should be.
But I don’t know, I’m pretty sure the troops on the ground don’t know, and I very much doubt the “thinkers” in the administration or Pentagon know.
For the nuts on the right, “victory” is a mindset. At this point, there’s no enemy capital to capture, no opposing leader to seize or kill, no responsible “enemy” who can sign a treaty or make meaningful pledges. It’s all just how we feel.
Wasn’t there a time when righties were *against* the “if it feels good, do it” approach?
If you want to see true frothing-at-the-mouth insanity on public display listen to Levin’s radio show sometime. The guy is in the same league as Savage.
The US will leave Iraq, when they have all the oilsafely back in the states, where God meant it to be.
I really wish the righttards would wake up to the fact that this is not a football game. The entire idea of foreign policy, of which war is one extension, is to do what is in the nation’s best interest. Fighting an interminible war at great cost for something that may not be worth that much is a mistake, EVEN IF WE “WIN” THAT WAR at some point in the future. Take Vietnam as an example. Other than not having been involved in that stupid quagmire in the first place, losing was probably the best outcome the US could have got. It would have been better if we had lost sooner. Suppose we had persevered through another 5 or 8 years, how would it have been better than where we were after losing? It would just have been more blood and more treasure spent to get the same situation we have today — a free, independent, and non-threatening Vietnam.
This isn’t a fucking game, morons. Grow up and start thinking about what is good for the US and good for the world.
a Tom Friedmanesque six months to work.
Sullivan’s such a dork for calling it Friedmanesque while he’s doing it.
I read all today’s posts and I’m speechless. Verbal capabilities paralyzed. The one and only gripe that endures is that everything happening in America now makes Monty Python seem straight-laced and normal. I really resent that. When the world became absurd, I could always turn to good old Monty to redress the balance and make reality tolerable. Now I seem to be deprived of even that palliative.
There must be a law against this. Of course, I know who not to ask.
Two points: one, victory in Iraq has NEVER been defined, and two, the war’s rabid supporters have NEVER felt scorching heat, freezing cold, sweat, pain, agony, injury, and loss of life.
Focusing on the money occasionally works with Republicans.
i.e. “you have a family of four and there are 300 million people in this country so the war has already cost you personally x thousand dollars. How much more are you willing to sacrifice out of your pocket to accomplish whatever it is we’re doing in Iraq? Is it worth $2000 a year for the rest of your life?”
Just depends on the conservative whether their outrage over paying taxes outweighs their bloodlust.
It is in the long-term interests of this country that this Iraq war continue at least until the November 2008 elections. Only that will sufficiently discredit the Neocons, for a major overthrow of the Republican hold in congress and media. The Democratic hold on the Senate today is at best tenious; it is essential that the voters are confronted with stark choices when they elect their next senator.
Right wing bloggers have a strange mindset. I thought winning felt like and instead they give a description that winning (in its early stages mind you) feels more like a lethal case of jock itch or hemorrhoids (painful swelling, burning, itching, yikes!)
We’ve been through this semantic go-round before. We won the war when we conquered Iraq, deposed its government and had our way with messing with its society as Paul Bremer saw fit. We own the damn place. It’s the peace we’re losing. It’s the occupation that’s not going well. We conquered the horse, led it to water and now it doesn’t want to drink. George Bush’s neocon idealism ran smack into the Iraqis themselves having other ideas. Our failure to take into account the tribal and religious pandora’s box (“Shia? Sunni? I thought they were all Muslims?”) led to things not working out as we planned (or failed to.)
What’s being lost is the right-wingers ability to say “we told you so.” The wingers don’t give a damn about who rules Iraq any more than they care about Darfur. It’s the ability to say they are always right and liberals are always wrong that is being lost. They don’t care how many lives or taxpayer dollars that costs. Their egos are priceless.
Damn tags. This is the link I wanted to say winning feels like – http://images6.fotki.com/v74/photos/1/133612/496647/kiss00-vi.jpg
You can lead a ***** to water, but you can’t make him *******.
There will always be a certain number of nutcases in this country (and any other country). The problem comes when some faction has used the nutcases to seize power, and is using a powerful propaganda operation to both feed the nutcases and create more of them.
Convincing dedicated wingnuts to face reality is impossible, but it’s also unnecessary. A good working majority of Americans has given up on the war, and on Bush. I think the stranglehold that the right wing noise machine had on political discourse is breaking, partly as more and more malcontent pieces of the MSM find voice, but also because I think large numbers of people (especially the best-informed of them) see through the BS.
The nutcases don’t matter much anymore, and the best way to further reduce their relevance would be to work on dismantling the right’s propaganda infrastructure once Bush has been removed from power, either in 2009 or after his presidency implodes. In the meantime the best course is to speak the truth (as Reid has done) and don’t let a confederacy of dunces intimidate you.
“I really wish the righttards would wake up to the fact that this is not a football game. ” — shargash @ 5
Yes! I go to work, I finish a project, I come home. Spousal unit doesn’t ask, “did you win?”
Bush sent our military to Iraq to do a job — even if the true nature of the job has never been clear. But whether it was to rid Iraq of WMD, depose Sadaam, install a democracy or secure some lucrative oil fields, or enrich the have-more’s, those things are judged in terms of success or failure, not win or lose. This isn’t a win or lose kind of war and never was.
Like many, I can’t figure out how we’ll know we succeeded, if in fact that’s possible. Was the job complete after the Iraqi election? Or the adoption of a constitution or Sadaam’s execution? Should we stick around until there’s a viable army or reliable electricity or a chicken in every pot? Maybe we should stick around until they have a national health care system or build a missile defense?
The way we’re going, it seems we’re going to stick around until they all kill each other. Some success. Some victory.
Is there any imaginable point in any imaginable conflict where Mark Levin would admit that the United States had lost a war?
Of course. As soon as there’s a Democratic president who can be blamed by the rightwingers for losing the war.
We could have paid for Social Security indefinitely plus complete National Health Care for all US Citizens for over 40 years with the money that we have already spent on the Iraq war.
The war isn’t officially lost until Social Security, National Health Care, and Public Education can be declared officially dead due to their high costs.
Are these people blind or just stupid. My God what the hell do they think victory in Iraq means. Deterrmine that and anyone can see it will NEVER happen short of putting half of America in Iraq to police the state. It’s now a shooting gallery, a surgesque fallacy to extend failure to the next administration, a civil war that must resolve itself. It will never be won. It was lost the day we the thieves ransack the country and the incompetent war reconstructionists rob it blind. Just look at the pictures of the country and it is ravaged for all to see. They (Sunnis, Shiites) will not stop because we send in more troops and trying to establish a central government is merely arming the Shiites. The surge is better know as the General George Custer war plan. We will continue to lose until we take everyone’s ‘toys’ away till they play nice. We will be the focus of their frustration as long as we try to police them. When will these idiots quit banging their heads against the wall. How much more violent failure does it take before we quit trying to settle their fights for them. We can do more and succeed with political and economic force than we could ever with military force. Determination has turned into stubbornness and so we have lost in spite of the right’s refusal to accept it.
Listen to sports talk radion.
Real Americans don’t care if we win.
Real Americans just want to cover the point spread.
One really has to commend Mark Levin for doing such “heavy lifting” in working so hard every day to disprove the ancient anti-Semitic slur that all Jews are really really smart.
He also does a good job on debunking the myth that Jews can’t be Nazis. He ought to go join his fellow Americans in the West Bank, where he can wear guns and tear up Palestinian olive groves and kick Palestinian kids and shoot Palestinians, and in general be a good fundamentalist stormtrooper, like he’s always wanted to be.
If their rhetoric is to be believed, the right doesn’t see a limit.
Yokel got it right at #15; the limit is as soon as they can blame a Democrat. Which they’re doing with Reid right now, of course.
Also, it may be less a matter of never admitting defeat as much as never admitting defeat when there is still a theoretical possibility of victory, i.e. while troops are in the field. As soon as it’s over, they’ll say, “Oh, we lost it after the first 18 months, but it would’ve been improper to say so.”
that all Jews are really really smart.
Isn’t that pro-Semitic and anti-everyone else?
I have to say that this is a tough one for me. I’ve been away from the internet for a week with only CNN and Fox as possible news sources. So, I do not know exactly what Senator Reid said or the context in which he said it. I see no one here refutes that the Senator actually spoke in terms of the war in Iraq as lost. That disappoints me.
It disappoints me because up until that point, Bush was the only one linking the efforts of the troops with failure, with “losing.” He was the one constantly painting their contributions so far as (in essence if not in exact language) “not enough.” [They will never have done enough until his “vision for Iraq” is realized, and they have overcome the incompetence of their C in C.]
As many comments above (as well as many made in response to previous CBR posts) point out, much of what could reasonably be asked of the men and women in the military (putting aside for the sake of argument the righteousness or lack thereof of the cause) has been accomplished. Bush has consistently been trying to make the “troops” responsible for correcting the blunders of his administration’s policy failures. By insisting upon framing political decisions (such as the current debate over funding and time lines) in terms of “victory” or “defeat,” of the United States itself, he attempts to saddle the “troops” with accountability for his own errors.
I thought Senator Reid made a mistake by accepting the “won / lost” language. Whether he is correct in his assessment or not, I am not happy with the diversion of any focus on the failure of Bush and his miserably inept policies. I simply wish Senator Reid would keep his comments going straight at Bush and avoid any opportunity for his words to be construed as commentary about the quality of the “troops.” I think he steps all over his message when he accepts any of Bush’s terms to convey that message. For better or worse, many in the American public see the “troops” as the embodiment of the American mythology and, therefore extensions of themselves. They have a hard time accepting the notion of American failure. That’s why I think it is important to choose words of opposition carefully – and keep Bush the proud and arrogant owner of the Iraq fiasco.
The war will be over when our military collapses from exhaustion or death. Bush is well known for being spiteful. I think he wants to destroy the military because they didn’t take him seriously. He’s doing a heckuva job.
This is how winning feels, in the early stages. It feels like scorching heat, freezing cold, sweat, pain, agony, injury, and loss of life. That is always how it feels in wartime before victory comes.
Jeebus. What does losing feel like?
***We are not losing in Iraq, Senator Reid, despite your efforts to deprive Iraq and America’s troops of victory when it is almost within their grasp.
We are winning in Iraq.
This is how winning feels, in the early stages. It feels like scorching heat, freezing cold, sweat, pain, agony, injury, and loss of life. That is always how it feels in wartime before victory comes.***
Ooooh, I can have fun with this one….
Let’s change the word “Iraq” to “Africa”—or “Crete”—or “Italy”—or “France”—or perhaps “Russia”—————-and then imagine for a moment that we’re listening the the right-wing noise machine of a certain Herr Hitler, as they continue to urge Germany on towards “final victory”—which, in the end, becomes the most humiliating, devastating, costly defeat the world has ever known.
And we have a “presi-don’t” who “just don’t listen”—because he’s the Deciderer, and is too busy “making history” to care that the record he’s aiming for is pretty much the one mentioned in the preceding paragraph….
Well said, TuiMel. I hadn’t thought of it like that but you make a good point.
I guess my response in defense of Reid would be that “losing” simply refers to Bush’s strategy of military victim in Iraq. In other words, Reid is saying the policy has failed. I agree with you however, that it is important to make the distinction between Bush failing, and the military failing. I hope Reid understands this.
ha, should have been “military victory” not “victim”. There’s a freudian slip.
As a Jew who despises Boy George and each and every one of his neocons, both yiddishe and goyishe, I’ve dismissed as self-serving nonsense wingnut assertions that opposition to the neoconservatives is a form of anti-Semitism. Then I see crap like this even on polite blogs like this one:”He also does a good job on debunking the myth that Jews can’t be Nazis. He ought to go join his fellow Americans in the West Bank, where he can wear guns and tear up Palestinian olive groves and kick Palestinian kids and shoot Palestinians, and in general be a good fundamentalist stormtrooper, like he’s always wanted to be.” And to be honest, I’ve seen much worse. Which proves to me that while opposition to neoconservatives is clearly not anti-Semitic, there are plenty of anti-Semites everywhere.
Bush lost this war when he invaded Iraq–for all the wrong and false reasons we all recognize–with insufficient troops that did not exist then and will never exist. The Democrats need to hit this point over and over and over. The war was not lost because the troop were not brave, or not skilled, or not well trained or armed. The war was lost by Bush when he went to war with too few troops. That lays the blame directly at his feet. This also has the virtue of being true and being vouched for by the military command before the invasion.
Jeebus. What does losing feel like? — Antonius
Like winning. :[
More than anything, now in our 5th year of involvement in this disasterous war, Bush’s war planners failed to fully realize that Islam has been involved in that region of the world for about 1350 years. I guess the Neocons’ continued call to give the surge time could theoretically last for another 1345 years. May I remind our brethern on the right that the Honorable Senator Reid’s comment was not a political statement. It was a statement reflective of the facts on the ground in Iraq. Mr. Bush has initiated and executed what was prematurely declared a “mission accomplished” all for the failure we are witnessing now! Mr. Bush needs to own this war, because it was he who sold it to us! -Kevo
dmh
Even with a much larger invasion force, it’s unlikely we would have ended in a much better situation. The basic problem is that Iraq is not a place that could be held together politically by anything other than force; the basic sectarian divisions are such that a secular western-style parliamentary government isn’t possible. The hamfisted neocons allowed things to deteriorate very fast and very violently, but even a skilled occupation would have eventually run up against the same problems.
If Saddam really had been on the brink of getting nuclear weapons, and if he’d been disposed to give them to Al Qaida, the invasion might have been justifiable, even given the necessity to deal with a difficult aftermath. Given that neither of those things is true, the invasion was a monumental blunder regardless of how it was executed.
If you guys are ever planning on doing an article about campaign finance reform, here’s something to link to. I worked on this post for nearly a week and I think the time I’d spent on it shows.
(Sorry for the length of this, but it is what it is…)
What in the heck does it even mean in this Iraq situation, when we say we won or we lost?
As everyone knew when the world’s only superpower attacked a nation that had been under UN sanctions for over 10 years, the U.S. military romped over the Iraqi forces, most of whom had high-tailed it for cover. Had the Iraqis actually put up any fight, the outcome would certainly have been the same – a quick U.S. military victory. I am leaving out the illegality of the war, as that is another issue altogether.
When people in 2007 talk about winning or losing “the war in Iraq,” that is complete balderdash. The war was fought and won four years ago.
What began with the ending of organized military actions was an occupation.
“Winning an occupation.” That is what people should be assessing right now. Calling it a war is complete bull. We, the U.S., went into Iraq (illegally, as I mentioned), because we needed to get those WMDs out of the hands of Saddam Hussein, one way or another. One way was to take power away from him. That was accomplished with the military action. Another way was to capture him, which was done around Christmas time in 2003. Both were accomplished fairly readily, as we all know.
As of the end of 2003, then, the U.S. had every reason to exit Iraq, having accomplished what it set out to do. (Of course, the fact that WMDs weren’t even there meant that NOTHING had been needed to get them out of Saddam’s hands. The excuse for the invasion was immediately morphed into “ridding that corner of the world of a tyrant”. (One whose main sin was to defy the U.S.)
But, there we were at the end of 2003, with Saddam out of power… And yet, we did not leave Iraq. Why not?
Would leaving Iraq then have been “admitting defeat”? Of course not.
We – the government of the U.S., anyway – decided to stay in Iraq. It is altogether probable that the decision to stay pre-dated the invasion. Staying meant occupation.
There are many Iraqis who do not – have never – accepted that the American occupation there is legitimate. So, in ever increasing numbers, they fight against the it – against us – against our boys, who are being asked to defend that occupation – indefinitely.
The Iraqis will know that they will have won, when the last Americans forces have left, and when they themselves have – or some power faction within their population has – complete and autonomous authority within their borders.
But how does America know when we have “won”?
Is it when the entire country is pacified? How likely is it that that could that ever happen? Not likely at all.
Is it when no American GIs have been killed for a specified length of time? If so, we have a long way to go; GIs have been dying since the day Bush declared “mission accomplished.”
Is it when the oil fields are running at 100%, with no pipelines being sabotaged? Dream on…
Like trying to prove a negative, “winning” an occupation is pretty much impossible. Ask the Brits, respecting India, Afghanistan, South Africa. Ask the Russians, respecting Afhganistan. Ask the Spanish and the Portuguese. Oh, and by the way, ask the Americans, as regards Korea (with its now 55-year-old Demilitarized Zone) and Vietnam.
If the population is not subjugated by continuing overwhelming force, as was done in the Eastern Bloc and in Cambodia, which includes disappearing people, torturing people, killing guerilla fighters and resistance fighters, and massive “re-education” programs, as was done in China, no occupation can succeed, cannot be “won”. As long as the people do not accept the occupation as legal and legitimate and their real government, any occupation will fail.
So, once the occupation began – unless the Iraqis DID welcome us with flowers and continued to do so – there was only one possible outcome. We would fail. We would then leave as a sign of that failure. But – and this is an important point – we didn’t have to occupy Iraq.
Failing an occupation is not losing a war.
Those who claim that the occupation since 2003 is “the Iraq war” are simply those who are using the lives of American men and women as pawns for something else. They KNOW that the occupation is not a war. But they continue to call it that, so that the American people will see it as something more glorious than it really is. And a lot do. But fewer and fewer, as time goes on. (And each day that goes by, the dream of an American “empire” goes down the drain a little bit further.
Why are we still there? That is the question that everyone should be asking. Not, are we going to win it or lose it? We won the war, we are going to lose the occupation. Period.
We should not still be there. We, the American people – and that does include our Congress – did not engage in this Iraqi venture in order to occupy their land.
But there IS a faction that did. That faction was the American oil industry and those in the administration that are beholden to the oil industry.
The Iraq venture was, and always will be, for them a grab for the Iraqi oil fields. Once the U.S. military had defeated the Iraqi forces, they felt that they now had control over te Iraqi oilfields, and now they are not about to give that control up. Not if they have anything to say about it. And with Bush in the White House, they know that they can tough it out and hope that at the end of the day, the control of those oil fields will remain in their hands.
Until the oil companies feel safe in Iraq, the American military will remain there.
That is why we are occupying Iraq, and that is why we have not left, and why we are even discussing “winning” or “losing”. It is about holding onto the oil fields. If we do that, then the Bushies will have accomplished their goal of stealing the oil fields away from an independent and non-cooperative Iraqi government.
That has not been accomplished. The fly in the ointment has been the Iraqi people, who do not accept the American occupation and theft of their oil fields and their sovereignty.
The American claim there is illegitimate, and the Iraqis are going to fight it, forever, if need be. There will never BE an American victory in the occupation of Iraq. There WAS a victory in the “war”. But that was never the real question, was it?
The real question is “Why are we still there?” Is it so that we can claim victory? We already did that, or wasn’t Bush listening to himself on the aircraft carrier?
No, the real question has only one answer: We are there because the oil fields are not safe for the U.S. oil companies to operate in. Therefore, we have not “won”.
Ironically, pulling out early on could have legitimized the presence of the oil companies in Iraq. They could have gone back in within a few weeks or months, offering to “help” the Iraqis reclaim or redevelop their oil fields. But that didn’t happen, and every day that goes by de-legitimizes their presence even further.
“The fly in the ointment has been the Iraqi people, who do not accept the American occupation and theft of their oil fields and their sovereignty.” — SteveGinIL @ 34
Another fly not to be swatted away are the centuries-old religious and ethnic difference that had been bottled up under Sadaam, which we so ignorantly and carelessly uncorked.
Anybody besides me notice that the first part of what Reid said never gets mentioned? I don’t know the exact quote, but it was something like: “IF WE KEEP FOLLOWING BUSH’ STRATEGY IN IRAQ the war is lost.” Funny how the first clause is always left out…
I would assume Mark Levin will admit defeat in Irag the moment someone conscripts Mark Levin into one or another frontline unit to fight there.
What the hell has he got at risk? His credibility? Probably because he was a cakewalk sort of guy, as were so many, and this is one fine kettle of fish you’ve gotten us into, Ollie, isn’t it? Quitting means it was wrong from the start. And, Mark can’t stand for that. Any number of dead is worth it.
How does it feel to be proven wrong, bozo, and all your Loony Lefty buddies?