In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, politicians and pundits alike expressed confidence we would prevail against terrorist enemies. Our superior intelligence was the oft-cited source of assured victory. Vice President Dick Cheney said the hijackers had destroyed buildings they couldn’t build with technology they couldn’t invent. Ann Coulter wrote "if our enemies were smart they’d have indoor plumbing by now." However, after watching us fight a war in all the wrong ways for half a decade, I was beginning to doubt our supposed intellectual superiority. Two articles in Sunday’s Press-Enterprise, my local paper, about American military personnel on trial for war crimes combined to form the proverbial straw. The compositions were titled, "Charges in Fallujah killings tough to prove, experts say," and "U.S. sniper gets five months on lesser charges," and settled the issue. There is no doubt about it, we are the dumb ones.
Our enemy does not wear uniforms to effectively blend in with non-combatant civilians. Since these non-uniformed combatants kill our soldiers and marines on a regular basis, and owing to the fact they hole up in close proximity to non-combatant civilians, it comes as no surprise that, from time to time, we kill the wrong people. By the way, this is precisely why captured non-uniformed combatants were summarily shot in all previous wars fought by smart people, the exact tactic we should employ nowadays. The hasty execution of non-uniformed combatants results in fewer non-combatant civilian deaths, a lesson learned long ago. But now, some Americans want to fight a politically correct war, detaining or killing only non-uniformed combatants who look exactly like the non-combatant civilians they hide behind. Owing to our enlightened sensibilities, when we kill the wrong civilian, we put our soldiers on trial. One wonders how the military reaches its recruiting goals.
Our enemy is smart enough to know the winning formula of protracted war. Wear the stronger opponent down. Hit and run, hit and run, never absorb a catastrophic defeat. Keep at it until the stronger opponent tires of the struggle and then quits. It worked in Korea and Vietnam, and it’s working now. Despite the fact the surge is producing significant progress, success calling for even more troops, Congress is nevertheless populated with Mensa candidates desirous of calling the troops home, a tactic effectively snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Until the "failure at any cost" crowd succeeds in making America throw in the towel, it pacifies its radical base by court marshalling brave American fighting men, a tactic exploited by our outdoor plumbing enemies. Fighting like this, America cannot win in Iraq, and may never win another war.
Our enemy is determined, smart, crafty, resourceful, and will not give up. They have sworn an oath to defeat the decadent West, establishing a worldwide caliphate in the process. Our President may have been wrong a few times in the last six years, but his early prediction of a five decade war with radical Islamists was most likely dead on. That being the case, our choice is not whether to fight, but whether to win. Neither winning nor losing in Iraq will end the fighting, but losing will make the next forty-five years more costly, in lives and money. America is facing a pay-me-now-or-pay-me-later decision. Just as that old ad implied, it’s smarter to take care of business now. Shortsighted, sentimental, squeamish politicians should be the ones going home. Leave our military alone. Better, unleash them, and let them carry the day.
Posted by Jerry Pomeroy in Politics