Posted on 12/06/2006 7:25:53 AM PST by presidio9
Popular consensus has it that we are losing the war in Iraq. Robert Gates, the White House nominee to replace Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, stated on Tuesday that the United States was categorically not winning in Iraq. "What we are now doing is not satisfactory," Gates said. Popular consensus also has it that we are losing the war in Afghanistan. "[B]ecause of the Bush administration's inattention and mismanagement," wrote The New York Times editorial board on Tuesday, "even the good war is going wrong."
America has not "won" a major "hot" war since World War II. The Gulf War cannot be considered a full-fledged victory; it returned the situation in the Middle East to the status quo. The aggressor in that war, Saddam Hussein, would remain in power for another dozen years. The Vietnam War was surely a devastating loss. The Korean War ended in stalemate; North Korea, the aggressor in that war, remains militant and dangerous 50 years later.
It has been six decades since we emerged fully victorious from a major "hot" war. This is because the very definition of war has changed. Each modern war is now more of a battle than a war. Tearing out the enemy's motivating ideology by the roots is no longer a nation-centric task. Nazism was located in Germany and Shintoism in Japan. We could defeat both countries and win the war. Fundamentalist Islam, however, spans the globe. Even if we disestablish fundamentalist Islam in Afghanistan and Iraq, we still have not won the war. Afghanistan and Iraq are the equivalents of Okinawa and Utah Beach. Super-national ideologies mean that war is not a local affair, but a global one.
So how do we win a global war? We won the Cold War by waiting out our communist opponents. We could lose the war in Vietnam and still win the broader Cold War. We could stalemate in Korea without losing the fight against communism. Communist ideology was bankrupt, and if we denied them resources (as we did by funding anti-communist forces around the globe and rolling back communism under President Reagan), we would be successful in the long run.
That strategy will not work with fundamentalist Islam. Fundamentalist Islam is not an ideology that will crumble from within. It demands total religious obeisance of its practitioners, regardless of material hardships incurred. And anything but total replacement of fundamentalist Islam by another, friendlier ideology is seen as a victory by the fundamentalists. The Gulf War was not merely a victory squandered; it was a defeat. Denying Iraq oil may have hurt Saddam Hussein, but failing to depose Hussein hurt Western credibility and emboldened Muslims the world over.
Even were fundamentalist Islam internally unsustainable, we could not wait them out. The demographics are not in our favor. As time goes on, there will be more fundamentalist Muslims and fewer liberal Westerners to carry on the fight. Stalemate in Korea and prolonged fighting in Vietnam hurt the cause of communism. Stalemate in Iraq and Afghanistan favors our enemies, who can simply wait (SET ITAL) us (END ITAL) out.
There was one Cold War tactic, however, that remains useful today: suspicion of our enemies. Winning the Cold War relied on anti-infiltration strategy, particularly in Western Europe. Unfortunately, western civilization seems unwilling to acknowledge the growing fifth column in its midst, specifically because recognizing the growing threat would seem "racist." This is a recipe for disaster. If fundamentalist Islam relies on demographics to achieve its ends, ignoring the growing demographic threat in Europe is a crucial error. If fundamentalist Islam relies on proselytizing to spread its views, ignoring that proselytizing in the United States is an unforgivable mistake.
Will America ever win another war? Only if we combine our Cold War vigilance with our World War II ruthlessness. We cannot afford to lose in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and a stalemate is a loss. We cannot ignore demographic trends in the name of multiculturalism -- diversity will only survive in countries that can resist the long-term onslaught of fundamentalist Islam. This will be a long, hard slog, as former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld put it. In today's world, true victory always is.
Are they sitting around asking "what can we do to get America to kill us?" No. But do they see death from American bombs as a deterrent to their goals? No.
That and the Russians aren't beholden to PC nonsense and have no reservations about going in and wiping them out if need be.
Personally, I don't think we ever again will defeat the enemy without until we defeat the enemy within.
Sad but true.
Unfortunately the West has become very PC.
Europe wants to bash us but let us spill our blood for everyoe.
The Mooselims want us dead.
The Jews living here want the Democrats. They don't even care what happens to Israel.
The Germans want to inherit the world by sitting on the sidelines and cheering.
The Russians want to ally with China to teach us a lesson.
Our own country dislikes itself and does everything possible to ruin the freedoms it enjoys.
Maybe we should just pull back all of our troops worldwide, (why do we still maintain troops in Germany?) declare that our country has decided to become neutral, act like Switzerland and leave the policing of the world to someone else for a change?
We could use the money we save to build incredible defensive and offensive eapons that no one would ever dare to attack us.
Just a thought.
I agree that a defeatist attitude does not help. You may take hope in our history and in the "American spirit." However, aside from the actions of our armed forces, what gives you encouragement today with regard to our war with the jihadists? What tells you that a critical mass of the American people understand the threat and are willing to pay the price of victory?
Hmmm .... did you ghostwrite "State of Emergency" for Pat Buchanan?
(that's intended to be a compliment, by the way)
- John
Pat Buchanan talks about this issue? I must read his book.
I'm very frustrated by this.
LOL, that's true.
Has anyone else noticed this? The Liberal Press is just setting in and declaring that we "lost" everywhere we go in. I don't know how many of you noticed that immediately the press set in on how many US soldiers we lost. They report this number (only) for obviuos reasons: it makes us look like we're losing the war. Whe you report that number to Americans, it only does two things: 1 demoralizes the war supporters 2. it gives the anti-war activists ammunition for haating the war. Basically, there is no way to look at the numbrer of US soldiers killed and see it as a "good" number.
That already happened; and it also happened to those who lead this country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.