Language Skills 101

CheneyBush and his Republican parrots are screeching "enemies", "defeat", "bloodbath", "dire consequences" at Harry Reid and the Democrats who advocate ending the American occupation of Iraq. Reid replies that the war is already "lost" and America should invest no more of its sons and daughters.

What I find amazing is why the Democrats accept CheneyBush's framework for this debate. America "loses" only when we accept defeat, only when we say as a nation that we will or can no longer pursue and protect legitimate national interests. Nothing I've heard in any of the alternatives to CheneyBush's war and occupation suggests to me that those alternatives compromise America's ability to protect itself. Rather, I see them enhancing our security by abandoning a costly, failed policy in favor of something that works, something that promotes regional involvement and responsibility. If we're really good (or lucky) this appoach will stop the bloodbath that CheneyBush now uses to justify continued occupation.

Keep in mind, too, that the "victory-defeat" framework works the other way as well. America cannot win until our adversaries accept defeat. That's why we're still fighting long after "Mission Accomplished". Even worse, who exactly will surrender? America has a multitude of adversaries in Iraq, any one or more of whom may continueto fight. Much easier with an actual state and its army. Under these circumstances "victory" is elusive.

Finally, I question the concept of "the enemy" of whom CheneyBush constantly speaks. Why is it that I or my country has enemies? Exactly what does that mean? To me, enemy means inplacable and never-ending hatred. I cannot think of why I should hate any individual or nation without end. I may be angry at them. I may think they act against me or my country's legitimate interests. But these actions are a matter of circumstance, environment and human weakness rather than specifically directed at me or my country. I certainly left Vietnam feeling that way toward my VC and North Vietnamese adversaries, despite their persistent attempts to kill me. Once I and my nation left Vietnam, that nation has not been any real threat to America. That's why I prefer to have adversaries rather than enemies. I can deal with an adversary to overcome differences. Force and violence are not part of that relationship.

For me, Iraq is a problem to be solved not a war to be "won". Iraq's problems are best solved locally by the parties most at interest. America will win when the killing stops and Iraq governs itself. Iraq will only govern itself when its leaders make their own decisions with the confidence (ideally) or acquiesence (at least) of its people. In a nation that overwhelmingly objects to foreign occupation, the people will not give their confidence to allies of the occupier.

That makes the first real step toward a real solution very simple. No doubt too simple for CheneyBush.