Measuring Victory In The War On Terror

With casualty reports indicating a recent decline in losses for American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, how will we now move into determining the success or failure of the "War on Terror" for those two countries? Will we measure it by the number of surviving Al Qaeda forces that we know about? Will we measure it by the stability of the Iraqi government? How long will it take to see if there has been real success on either front?

The answer to the question of our success or failure may not be known for decades. Considering that there are scores of unknown ramifications that could result from our efforts in the Middle East it will be nearly impossible to tell if we have had a positive or negative impact on the expansion of extremism globally. Some could argue that we will be able to track the movements of known terrorists through our intelligence networks worldwide. The counter to that argument is that nobody is born a terrorist and there is no way to know which personal tragedies will inspire what children to decide that they must destroy America or any other nation or group of people when they grow up.

When Yasser Arafat was born Mohammed Abdel-Raouf Arafat As Qudwa al-Hussaeini in Egypt in 1929, Palestine was still a nation and he was nothing more than a newborn baby with no hatred or resentment towards anyone. He came to his beliefs about the fight for Palestinian causes through his experiences growing up in and out of Palestine and observing the unfolding of the dismantling of his mother’s homeland. Who can say what he would have become if he had not witnessed British forces abusing his uncle in Palestine or if the United Nations had not decreed that the land once called Palestine would be turned over to Jewish forces to facilitate the birth of the state of Israel? He might have become something wholly different than what he became and the PLO might never have existed.

The long-term impacts of the "War on Terror" may not be known in my lifetime. Children born today who grow up without a father or mother because of an American bomb could grow up to be the world leader that ultimately destroys the U.S. out of sheer hatred for us. We could also have a stolen nuclear warhead go off in an American city tomorrow with a claim of responsibility coming from a wholly new terrorist group born out of our actions against a nation that harbors our current enemies. On the other side we could have some child of war in one of these countries turn out to be the leader who unites the people of the world under one banner of humanity.

The truth of the matter is that measuring success in something like a war against an invisible enemy with unknown reach is a futile attempt to quantify the unknowable. We can claim victory or admit defeat and be equally accurate in our assessment of the situation. Politicians ride wars on this or that to the polls because a war on this or that is a decisive act that conveys the idea of leadership. The "War on Drugs" has neither been won nor lost despite over two decades of rhetoric about it and billions of dollars being spent to fight it. There are still illegal drugs flowing on the streets of America and there are still people dying of addiction related illness every day. Sure, some major dealers and suppliers have been put away but there has always been someone there to take their place when we put them away. It is a symbolic war with no definitive outcome possible. There will always be those who want to take something to escape their reality and there will always be someone willing to find them that high. Likewise in the "War on Terror" there will always be those who feel that violent acts of large scale will be the only way to bring about the changes they seek. No military force can destroy an idea. No bullet can stop a philosophy in the larger sense.

In light of the knowledge that these wars cannot be won no matter how long they are fought, perhaps the wisest thing to do is to reexamine the idea of launching "wars on" anything so nondescript as drugs or terrorism. Perhaps we need to think of new ways not involving guns and bombs to address societal ills whether local or international in scope.

Chicken Hawks

When I first started this article it was going to be a comparison between Toby Keith and Pat Tillman. I had gone so far as posting the draft on my blog and on another site to see what kind of reaction it would get. The responses I got were pretty nasty and accused me of not doing my homework.

One of the nice things about being an independent writer in this type of forum is that you have the ability to go back and address things you got wrong. In using somewhat biased sources to gain my information and not thoroughly checking quotes I started with a flawed premise and when you start on a shaky foundation, the house becomes pretty weak. While Mr. Keith has not served in the military and has been a vocal supporter of the troops, he has not been as vocal a supporter of the Iraq war. He states publicly that he supported the Afghanistan invasion and still does but was not a supporter or opponent of the Iraq war and supports the troops more so than the conflict. So in hindsight, I have to thank my detractors for forcing me to dig deeper on this one. In digging deeper, I found that I still don’t like much of what Toby Keith has to say but I can’t jab at him too hard on Iraq.

That being said, I will take another shot at the hypocrisy of war promotion by "chicken hawks". To get the ball rolling I’d like to share a quote with you from one of the top dogs in the chicken hawk ranks.

"If we have to, we just mow the whole place down, see what happens. You're dealing with insane suicide bombers who are killing our people, and we need to be very aggressive in taking them out." – Trent Lott

Trent Lott has never seen active combat or served in the military.

The race for the White House often brings out the warriors in our politicians. Here is an excerpt from a campaign speech given during this campaign season on war and using war to keep the peace.

"The way you achieve peace, in a world in which there are people that hate you, and people who are maniacally opposed to you as many of the Islamic terrorists are is, the only way you do it is through strength, not weakness. Weakness prolongs struggles like this." – Rudy Giuliani

Rudy Giuliani has never seen active combat or served in the military.

The brave men and women who serve in our armed forces should be afforded all the respect and honor due to them for their bravery. When it comes time to talk of war these should be the people we listen to the most intently as they have some real perspective on war. They have faced it first hand. The chicken hawks that would send people to die in their stead should not be our primary guides.

It is interesting to look at the makeup of the most ardent supporters and detractors from a war. Below are some interesting proponents and opponents of the Iraq war.

Those who talk tough but never served:

Former Governor Mitt Romney
Former Senator Fred Thompson
Vice President Dick Cheney
Republican Strategist Karl Rove
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich
Senator Joe Lieberman
Rush Limbaugh
Michael Savage
Sean Hannity
Bill O'Reilly

And a few anti-war advocates that DID serve in the military:

Former Vice President Al Gore
Senator John Kerry
Former Senator Mike Gravel
Representative Ron Paul
Senator Christopher Dodd
Representative Jack Murtha
Senator Ted Kennedy
Former President Jimmy Carter (His time of service at seven years in the Navy is second only to Dwight Eisenhower among US Presidents in the 20th Century.)
James Carville

It is interesting to see the marked division in party affiliation. While not a perfect split it is a fairly lopsided equation. Of the nine Senators in the U.S. Senate that have seen active combat six are Democrats and three Republicans. This is not a judgement about the Republicans it is simply interesting to note. It does lend the appearance that those who wave the flag the hardest are the least willing to part with their lives to defend it.

So the real question becomes, who are the real patriots? Are they the ones who talk a good game but wimp out on the actual fighting or are they the ones who put their lives on the line before they talk about the value of peace and avoiding senseless wars?

For the pundits, talking heads, loudmouths, and others who use their mouths to show their "patriotism" I have this to say. If you want to call people cowards and traitors for being against the war then you darn well better man-up, put your money where your mouth is and join up. Otherwise, you really should just shut up.

At least those who are against the war who have not served in the military are being consistent. They are being pro-peace across the board. Those who have served and call for peace have earned the right to speak out without fear of reproach by risking their lives for their country. Conversely those who have served who call for war have every right to be heard. The wimps that call others cowards for opposing killing and dying in their name who don't have the guts themselves to fight for their country really don't have any ground to stand on.