Getting Out of Combat

Slate's David Greenberg makes an important observation about war in his analysis of the 2006 mid-term elections. Arguing against interpreting the results as simply a “six year itch” common to all two-term presidents, he discusses the particular factors influencing earlier mid-term elections where change was dramatic. Each election occurred in the context of significant events: recession, uncertainty, war. Greenberg’s conclusion about war is particularly worth noting.

Wars help presidents so long as the rally-round-the-flag effect holds up. The Iraq war did so for Bush in 2002 and even 2004 (though by then it was becoming uncertain whether the Iraq war was helping or hurting Bush). On the other hand, a conflict that has no clear end in sight vexes Americans of all political stripes, summoning up deep strains of both conservative isolationism and liberal anti-imperialism. As my Rutgers colleague Ross K. Baker, a congressional expert, wrote, last spring, "Combat fatigue is not a condition found only on the battlefield; it is also an affliction that has often been diagnosed in the voting booth." If there's a history lesson to be drawn from this year's election results, that one would be closest to the mark.

A conflict with “no clear end in sight” that “vexes Americans” speaks to the heart of the matter. This is where the burden of combat comes home to us civilians. We are vexed about what is being done in our name, especially when so many past assurances about Iraq have turned out to be lies, grossly inacurate or failed promises of an incompetent administration. After three years, “progress” in Iraq is an iffy proposition. What little has been gained toward democratic reform is overshadowed by Iraq’s descent into hell. Most Iraqis may not long for Saddam Hussein but they are severely disappointed about America’s complete inability to do things that Iraqis had previously done for themselves. Not to mention the death squads.

Combat soldiers know best what the descent into hell is like. They are there at our command, doing our bidding. They sacrifice their humanity, a sacrifice that only has meaning when it benefits the nation in some real way. In the same sense, combat degrades the civilian society that wages war. In 2003 Americans were told of grave threats requiring immediate military action and we were quite willing to pull the trigger if it meant safety. In the years since, rationales have come and gone as BushCheney struggles to find a real meaning for his war, to give us a reason to keep pulling the trigger. The lies and failures of the Iraq war have rendered much, if not all of this sacrifice, meaningless. No wonder we are vexed.

If the moral, ethical and policy questions weren’t difficult enough, combat is difficult to sustain physically. Difficult for the individuals called to duty but also difficult for the society that sends them. It costs a lot of money to keep US forces fighting in Iraq. They need lots of weapons, ammunition, food, vehicles–you name it–all coming out of Americans’ pocket books. Not the rich Americans, mind you, they have their tax cuts. Just average Americans, the same Americans who send their sons and daughters into the war. Sustained combat will drain the nation of resources even as it coarsens the America’s soul. That’s why combat is best managed in shorter applications, if at all.

America cannot sustain combat in Iraq indefinitely. Nor should we. America has lost prestige and credibility in Iraq; at this point the best America can achieve in Iraq is demonstrating its openness to ideas and a willing to recognize Iraqi national sovereignty. The US may have interests in Iraq but Iraqis live there. Other nations in the region, including Iran, also have interests. It's their home, too. America can only address our economic and security interests in the region successfully if we are cognizant of others’ interests and learn how to work with others. We have no imperial right to dictate or control their lives and resources.

Terrorism is a legitimate security interest for America. A serious but manageable threat. More manageable in a non-combat environment, I think. Society deals with any number of serious, ongoing threats using strategies that offer realistic, sustainable tactics and procedures for dealing with dangerous situations. A good parallel is criminal enterprise: terrorists are typically organized and function much like criminal gangs and syndicates. We don’t lay waste to our cities to fight criminal activity (some police departments are adopting military tactics and weaponry, but that’s another discussion). Instead, we investigate, assess, anticipate. disrupt and, ultimately, take down the organization. The same model will be far more effective–and sustainable–in dealing with terrorism.

For three years, BushCheney has fed Americans lies, distortions and exaggerated promises, asking the country to sacrifice more men, women and money in the service of a cause that has been muddled beyond belief, that has brought Iraq into civil war with no way out. It’s easy to see why Americans would want to rebuke this administration. I was disappointed it did not occur in 2004. But along with the satisfaction of a well-deserved smackdown well delivered, Americans also need to figure a way to salvage our national soul while still defending ourselves against real threats, not side shows like Iraq or exaggerated demons like al-Qaeda. That’s why, for me, one of the most important issues the new Democratic Congress can address is the “war on terror”. Two years ago, John Kerry recommended addressing terrorism as a law enforcement problem. He was derided unmercifully. I think he was, and still is, right. Perhaps the new climate in Washington will be more receptive to critical thinking.

I hope so because sustained combat will destroy us.