Are we fighting for a myth in Iraq?
Is it possible we are fighting in Iraq for a myth?
A clue is President Bush's insistence that we remain in Iraq as long as it takes to achieve victory. The subtext is that we can't abide failure. Failure would stain the country's reputation. It is thought that what he really means is that it will stain his reputation and I have argued as much in earlier posts. But it's also possible that he is sincere about his insistence that victory is vital to America. If he is, why does he insist we must win?
Losing of course is unpalatable. No one likes to lose. But there are any number of circumstances in which losing might be preferable to winning. Losing a short war, for instance, might be better than winning a long one which cost many more lives and much more national treasure.
Why then can't we openly discuss the possibility of losing? It is because of that old American myth that we are winners. This same myth kept us in Vietnam for years and years despite evidence that our goal of victory was elusive and it may now be what is keeping us in Iraq.
The victory myth took a beating in Vietnam, of course. Policymakers in the Johnson adminstration could truthfully convince themselves that we had never lost a war when they were contemplating action in Vietnam. At that point we had not. But now? We lost Vietnam. And yet we remain (seemingly) as wedded to the myth of victory as we have ever been.
I am not sure what defeat might look like. But we should be talking about it, which we haven't. We have an idea of defeat in Iraq that is no more specific and realistic than our concept of the boogeymonster that haunts us in our dreams as children.
Shouldn't we, if we are rational, consider specifically what defeat might entail? It might just be helpful.
I am afraid however that we shall never engage in such a rational debate despite our commitment to freedom and reason. Our myths won't let us.
comments powered by Disqus
John Paul McGhee - 4/3/2007
There is a great post on The Carpetbagger Report from a few days ago about the mainstream media's (specifically Time magazine's) ignoring the prosecutor purge scandal.
What explains the failure of the mainstream media to cover the purge scandal for so long, and so many other scandals? Do you think somebody just set up newspaper editors to cheat on their wives, and threatened to tell if the editors wouldn’t play ball when they come back some day and ask for something?
It wouldn’t be that hard to do, when you think about it. People wouldn’t talk about it.
Stephen Kislock - 3/29/2007
The Korean Conflict/WAR was a Draw, no Myth this was Not a Win. Two Asian Conflict's and not one Victory!
Civil Wars are not won by a third party, but by the Strongest Indigenous Leader/Ideology!
What does the United States have to show for 450+ Billion Dollars spent for War?
Tim Lacy - 3/26/2007
Yes. We ~are~ fighting for myths, and we always have. Let's face it, in many contexts, both 'democracy' and 'liberty' are myths.
The question, rather, is whether we're fighting about the right myths in the right geo-political context at the right time. Have we picked our battles wisely? Of course the "winner's myth" is one of the wrong ones for which to be fighting.
Like you, I've often wondered if our nation has really and truly learned the lessons of Vietnam. Based on current circumstances, I'm forced to say no. We seem to have chosen a wrong war for the circumstances and the times.
- Wow: Barack and Michelle Obama to be paid $60 million in book deal
- Betsy DeVos Press Release Celebrates Jim Crow Education System as Pioneer of “School Choice”
- Jesse Jackson: It’s ok to leave Confederate monuments in place, but tell the full story
- Taiwan Commemorates a Violent Nationalist Episode, 70 Years Later
- Mostafa el-Abbadi, Champion of Alexandria’s Resurrected Library, Dies at 88
- James Oliver Horton remembered as a pioneer for African American research
- Theodore Lowi, Zealous Scholar of Presidents and Liberalism, Dies at 85
- What LT. Gen. H.R. McMaster will offer as new national security adviser