People and Policies End; History Never Does

By now, millions of Americans are familiar with a question posed by General David Petraeus back in 2003, not long after coalition forces had toppled Saddam Hussein. Patraeus was talking with a reporter and said, "Tell me, how does this end?"

While Congress and President Obama navigate our continuing involvement in Iraq, it's important to keep in mind that "how does this end?" was being used by the general in a military context.

As the insurgency grew and commanders realized US troops were facing a deadly new threat, it began to look as if quick intervention might become a grinding long term occupation. The Bush administration added to the uncertainty by saying any timetable for withdrawal of American forces would be setting a "surrender date" and give a huge boost to the enemy.

As of now, both countries are in agreement on the goal of getting all US troops out by the end of 2011, which should provide some military closure to General Petraeus's astute question. But in the context of transforming an entire nation from a tightly controlled dictatorship into a stable democracy, "how does this end?" doesn't have an answer.

That fact is not something a lot of us want to hear. There's a long
tradition in this country of believing we can overcome any problem, military or otherwise, if we just work hard enough. British historian Denis Brogan put it this way: "Probably the only people who have the historical sense of inevitable victory are the Americans."

During World War Two, large numbers of US service personnel were surveyed about their feelings and motivations, and many of them talked about "getting the job done" and saw defeating the Axis as "taking care of business." They believed the international situation would then be settled, and all soldiers and sailors could return to their loved ones and enjoy life
in a prosperous post-war America.

But while the surrender of Germany, Italy, and Japan was greeted in this country with a genuine feeling of "Mission Accomplished!" there were other conflicts already underway. Stalin moved quickly to dominate eastern Europe. Colonies of France, England and the Netherlands were agitating for independence. Mao and Chiang Kai-shek began their final showdown for
control of China.

Even if Franklin Roosevelt had been healthier and survived his entire fourth term, I'm not sure he could have changed the national desire for swift and massive de-mobilization. Read the military memoirs from that period and what you'll find again and again are statements like, "The moment we heard it was over, everyone in the unit started asking how soon we'd be
able to go home."

In Iraq, surveys indicate growing numbers of the locals want us to go home, and there are growing numbers of disgruntled Americans saying, in effect, "The heck with those ungrateful jerks!" But regardless of how many troops are still there at the end of 2011, the future of the middle east remains hugely complicated.

One of my personal theories about American culture is that films and TV have distorted our view of everyday life by making it seem normal to have conflicts resolved in short time spans. In movie theaters everyone sees "The End" emblazoned onscreen, the lights come up, and the audience leaves. But the real world isn't a movie.

What happens in Egypt after Mubarek is gone? Libya after Gaddafi? Or Iraq after Al-Maliki? I hope the president has lots of people thinking carefully about these scenarios and how the US might deal with them.

Tyrants don't live forever. Regimes do change. Military expeditions are terminated. In every century there are moments when "The End" really does occur.

But more often, the operative phrase in history is: "To be continued."