Militarily we already won.. but politically?

Submitted by Andrew (United States), Nov 15, 2006 at 20:47

The United States lost the Viet Nam war when military decisions became political decisions. No longer able to fight the war the way a military should, we lost. With the latest election, the Iraq conflict has become another Viet Nam, in large part due to politicians catering to Americans' worst fears. From here forward, all military decisions regarding Iraq will be politically driven and none of those decisions can be portrayed as a political victory.

Do we pull out of Iraq? Our enemies will be emboldened if we do, not just in Iraq but everywhere. Our allies will perceive us as fair weather friends. Any sectarian violence in Iraq will be blamed on the US for abandoning Iraq in their time of need.

Do we send in more troops? The anti-war movement will not accept this. Even advocates of the war who say we should have sent in more troops earlier would characterize such a move now as proof we are losing the war. Do we stay the course? The voters have rejected this option as failure in spite of the progress.

With such options, the politicians have already lost the war even before they decide. Regardless of which option is chosen, two-thirds of the people will likely state the decision is a bad one and prefer one of the other options. There is no way for the politicians to win this war. The military must ask the politicians, how do you want to lose this war? Hopefully the politicians are blamed for the results instead of the US military.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".