By George, His War Views Sound Like Mine!

The newspaper pundit who is squarely on target these days when it comes to speaking the unpleasant truth about Iraq and Afghanistan is George Will, and I hope all war hawks are paying close attention to his columns.

Unlike many commentators, he understands that historical facts can't be bent to fit a particular ideology, and democracy is not a commodity that we can export to other countries and transform them into grateful allies.

Mr. Will, you are saying what needs to be said, and one of the best examples involves a recent statement by General Ray Odierno, commander of our troops in Iraq. Talking to a Washington Post reporter, Gen. Odierno said, "We still have people that are attempting to attack the new Iraqi order and the move toward democracy and a more open economy. So we still have some work to do."

George Will's response to this notion was a simple three-word comment that I have recited in my own mind for years: "No, WE don't." He went on to say, "It would be indefensible for the US military -- overextended and in need of material repair and mental recuperation -- to loiter in Iraq to improve the instincts of corrupt elites."

In other words, "victory" or "winning" in Iraq isn't up to us. It's up to them. They live there and we don't. It's exactly the same dilemma this country faced during the Vietnam war. No amount of US aid and no amount of time will ensure the survival of a government if it can't, or won't, find a way to gain the loyalty of its own people.

In his memoir, A Look Over My Shoulder, former (and now deceased) CIA Director Richard Helms offered some painfully honest conclusions about why American intervention in Vietnam did not prevent an eventual communist takeover.

On page 388 is this blunt assessment: "Ho Chi Minh and his advisors had from the beginning successfully corralled the anti-colonial emotions of many Vietnamese." And later on the same page: "The widespread American assumption that the South Vietnamese were both anti-communist and pro-Saigon government was wrong. There was a measure of anti-communist conviction in the South, but modest enthusiasm for the Saigon leadership."

George W. Bush frequently referred to Iraq as "this young democracy" in his speeches about the conflict. He made it sound personal, as if Iraq was a high school dropout he'd rescued from a halfway house, dressed up in a new suit, and sent off to college. With our understanding and support the kid would study hard, turn his life around, and do us all proud.

This is not, of course, how representative government develops. You can't just swoop into a country, blast out the old political system, install a democracy machine, and hand out operating manuals to the locals. The idea that liberty and democracy can be "brought" to other countries and "take root" is an insult to the determination, sacrifice and suffering endured by the people who fought and won the American Revolution.

It's tragic that so many people in this country know so little about our own national experience and world history in general. That kind of knowledge would hugely helpful in every debate about our foreign policy priorities. In the absence of such knowledge, what we get from war hawks is a stream of locker room platitudes like, "quitters don't win and winners don't quit!"

George Will unveiled a historical gem in one of his recent columns that all Americans should think about carefully: "Genius, said de Gaulle, recalling Bismarck's decision to halt German forces short of Paris in 1870, sometimes consists of knowing when to stop."

Kudos to Mr. Will for promulgating such a timely insight from the Franco-Prussian War. Charles de Gaulle was absolutely right. And I would add that a logical time to stop is when you realize the path you're on is going nowhere.

Comments

[Kaviraj]

Excellent! Could not have said it any better and have nothing to add. Spot on. Laudable.