The unwinnable war

Not too long ago, the Hippie Conservative wrote an interesting post challenging his readers to question whether the world was becoming increasingly anti-Semitic. In talking to him, I commented that I believed that the world’s hostility toward Israel was the product of (1) its connection to the United States (since most of the Middle Eastern world can’t stand us, it makes sense that they hate Israel as much) and (2) Israel’s proclamation that they are God’s chosen people; which – to others – implies that everybody else is out of God’s grace and favor. My theories aside, I can’t help but to carry a great deal of sympathy for Israel. Being only a half century removed from one of history’s great atrocities, they've found themselves engaged in a bloody battle over land, struggles over sovereignty, and have been targeted to be "wiped off the map" by Iran. Together, these things can help in rationalizing the need that Israel may have for seeking retribution.

Interestingly, America was equally as justified after the tragedy of 9/11. However (yep. Here it comes…), I have to ask: what’s the point in seeking reprisal against an enemy military that can't even be detected?

People have been patting Bush on the back for his immediate response to Afghanistan after 9/11. I suppose that the praise would be warranted. (*Note* This is one of the only times you’ll ever hear me give it up to this president. So don't get used to it). From Afghanistan, we were able to create new language to justify all of the nonsense that proceeded that initial conflict. We coined the phrase “The War on Terror”.

The War on Terror.

Even if we're able to dismiss the sheer lunacy behind fighting a war against a tactical concept (Which is exactly what “terrorism” is. Let’s keep it real.), and sell this as a war against insurgents; the fact remains: this is a war that we cannot win. “Winning” a war implies that a general, a major, or some high ranking military officer waves a white flag of surrender and his army lays down their weapons in defeat. Do you honestly think that will ever happen here?!

The process that we’re taking in Iraq is similar to what Israel has been trying to do for half a century now: fighting in lop-sided wars with losing results. While “insurgent” groups (interesting word choice since the term ‘insurgency’ tends to empower people) are hiding in houses, strategizing, and executing plans amongst their own people, we’re responding to them like we would if we fighting uniformed Germans during WWII. Strategies like this spell – in bold letters – FAILURE. Army experts are quick to point this out. Why hasn’t the government? Perhaps the better question is: does the government even care that this war is unwinnable? One of the problems is: the tactics that we’re using in this assymetrical conflict are causing more barriers than they're removing. With every bomb dropped and every assault taken, the liklihood of killing civilians increases. Think about it: if al Quada, Hezebollah, and Hamas don’t have clearly identifiable military outfits/bases, and most of the combat is done in populated areas, civilian deaths will be high (all the more reason why the U.S. won’t release civilian death tolls). Killing citizens and ‘insurgents’, as the Germans and the Japanese learned sixty years ago, does nothing for the war effort but create more soliders. Terrorists feed off of the lop-sided assaults we make on their land and on their population.

If this war is unwinnable, what then do you propose Andre? First, I would suggest that we stop approaching this conflict like we would’ve in WWII. I think that our country was so spoiled from victory in the “great campaign” of WWII that we've tried to model all of our subsequent conflicts from that war. We need to stop responding terrorism militarily. This tactic failed for Russia during the Chechnya conflict (you remember that, right?!). It continues to fail in the conflict between Israel and Hezebollah. Why should we expect different results in doing the same thing? Didn’t Albert Einstein define that as insanity?

Since it’s clear that responding to terrorism militarily won’t work, why not try to approach it as an issue of law enforcement instead? Similar to how the UK responded to the Irish Republican Army; using law enforcement practices against terrorism can be effective. Doing so may allow for us to remove ourselves from “negotiating” with terrorists networks while also solving some of the problems we face in the region. For the UK; this method led to an eventual cease-fire with their neighbors from the North. But, even more notably, it shifts the balance of power and allows for independent states to accomplish self-determination; one of the things lacking in this war, and one of the things that creates more and more insurgents each day.

If the feds can bring down notoriously deadly groups like the Mafia without using military force and resources, why not employ those same tactics against the equally deadly and clandestine groups against whom we’re fighting now? Instead, we’re relying on an overly-expensive, massively depleted military that continues to lose (in both $$$ and lost lives) to fight against a bunch of guerrillas.

It’s clear that Vietnam has taught us nothing.

- ACL