By that, I don’t mean on the battlefield, where we have nothing but achievement and progress, both unheralded and under-reported. Unfortunately, once again the danger of defeat lies in the political arena. The only way to lose is to choose to lose (it helps to be blinded from success). Some are cool with that. Some have done so in the past.
Here are three columns that look at how we are currently on the knife’s edge, victorious in every way in the field and yet pulled towards defeat at home (hat tip for all to Power Line).
First, Ralph Peters wants the reader to think about that very thing the critics of the Iraq war want to sweep under the carpet — the consequences of defeat, which is how an early withdrawal would be trumpeted by our radical Islamist enemies.
How to Lose a War
QUIT. It’s that simple. There are plenty of more complex ways to lose a war, but none as reliable as just giving up.
Increasingly, quitting looks like the new American Way of War. No matter how great your team, you can’t win the game if you walk off the field at half-time. That’s precisely what the Democratic Party wants America to do in Iraq. Forget the fact that we’ve made remarkable progress under daunting conditions: The Dems are looking to throw the game just to embarrass the Bush administration.
[…]
The irresponsibility of the Democrats on Capitol Hill is breathtaking. (How can an honorable man such as Joe Lieberman stay in that party?) Not one of the critics of our efforts in Iraq — not one — has described his or her vision for Iraq and the Middle East in the wake of a troop withdrawal. Not one has offered any analysis of what the terrorists would gain and what they might do. Not one has shown respect for our war dead by arguing that we must put aside our partisan differences and win.
There’s plenty I don’t like about the Bush administration. Its domestic policies disgust me, and the Bushies got plenty wrong in Iraq. But at least they’ll fight. The Dems are ready to betray our troops, our allies and our country’s future security for a few House seats.
Surrender is never a winning strategy.
Yes, we’ve been told lies about Iraq — by Dems and their media groupies. About conditions on the ground. About our troops. About what’s at stake. About the consequences of running away from the great struggle of our time. About the continuing threat from terrorism. And about the consequences for you and your family.
What do the Democrats fear? An American success in Iraq. They need us to fail, and they’re going to make us fail, no matter the cost. They need to declare defeat before the 2006 mid-term elections and ensure a real debacle before 2008 — a bloody mess they’ll blame on Bush, even though they made it themselves.
I’ve never wanted to cut-and-paste and entire column like this one. I’ve previously expressed my long–standing respect for Mr. Peters, but he’s dead on the money here — one side is fighting a war and fighting for our troops; for the other, it’s sheer politics and gestures for the troops.
Second, a history lesson for those rallying around Democrat and erstwhile hawk Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania about the effects of premature withdrawal and the undercutting of an ally.
Defeated by Defeatism: Why Jack Murtha is wrong
But if the United States were to take Murtha’s advice, the outcome would be precisely the opposite of what he desires. He only needs to recall what happened in Vietnam.
After 1968, the situation in Vietnam was very similar to the one that prevails in Iraq today. Trends were moving in the right direction for the Americans and South Vietnamese. The United States had changed its strategy after Tet 1968, scoring significant military successes against the North Vietnamese while advancing “Vietnamization.” These successes helped stabilize the political and economic situation in South Vietnam, solidifying the attachment of the rural population to the South Vietnamese government and resulting in the establishment of the conditions necessary for South Vietnam’s survival as a viable political entity.
The new strategy was vindicated during the 1972 Easter Offensive. This was the biggest offensive push of the war, greater in magnitude than either the 1968 Tet offensive or the final assault of 1975. While the U.S. provided massive air and naval support and while there were inevitable failures on the part of some South Vietnamese units, all in all, the South Vietnamese fought well. Then, having blunted the communist thrust, they recaptured territory that had been lost to Hanoi. So effective was the combination of the South Vietnamese army’s performance during the Easter Offensive, an enhanced counterinsurgency effort, and LINEBACKER II — the so-called Christmas bombing of 1972 later that year — that the British counterinsurgency expert, Sir Robert Thompson concluded US-ARVN forces “had won the war. It was over.”
But as Bob Sorley has observed, while the war in Vietnam “was being won on the ground… it was being lost at the peace table and in the U.S. Congress.
If one does away with the unfortunately popular mythology of U.S. involvement in Viet Nam, one could see that there are actually very few similarities. After Tet and the accompanying decimation of the Viet Cong, we were not facing a true insurgency threat; rather, the bulk of the rest of the war was carried by outside regulars, the North Vietnamese Army. Second, the enemy’s efforts then were strongly and rather openly supported, supplied and fortified by our formidable rival superpower, the Soviet Union. That is not the case in Iraq. The true parallels are that it’s an engagement that can be won, is in the process of being won, and domestic forces are working to keep it from being won.
The third piece takes a look at the effect of the current and unfortunate political games upon our boots on the ground, those supposedly so heartily supported by the anti-war movement.
Military fears critics will hurt morale
Pentagon officials say they are increasingly worried that Washington’s political fight over the Iraq war will dampen what has been high morale among troops fighting a tenacious and deadly enemy.
Commanders are telling Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that ground troops do not understand the generally negative press that their missions receive, despite what they consider significant achievements in rebuilding Iraq and instilling democracy.
The commanders also worry about the public’s declining support for the mission and what may be a growing movement inside the Democratic Party to advocate troop withdrawal from Iraq.
“They say morale is very high,” said a senior Pentagon official of reports filed by commanders with Washington. “But they relate comments from troops asking, ‘What the heck is going on back here’ and why America isn’t seeing the progress they are making or appreciating the mission the way those on the ground there do. My take is that they are wondering if America is still behind them.”
This one falls equally upon those politically cutblocking the efforts today and the media, which has spent the entire war focusing upon the burning building and ignoring the opening school. Progress has been shunted for bloody headlines, and generations of blood may be the result.
The war and the world our children and grandchildren will inherit hang in the balance.