Winning and Losing

Part of me is sympathetic to the Jon Tester’s “we won the Iraq War, let’s go home” tactic. On the one hand, it might help end the war and consequently save some American (and potentially Iraqi) lives. On the other, it might forestall the cries of “stabbed in the back!”, although, since the wingnutty have been almost as enthusiastic about blaming defeat on liberals as actually winning the war, that’s probably a forlorn hope. Another reason why someone might argue that the war ended in victory is reputational; denying victory to the enemy by claiming it for ourselves enhances our global position, or at least stops the bleeding. I don’t buy that argument myself, as the Iraqi insurgents and Al Qaeda will claim victory no matter when we leave or under what circumstances, but it is nevertheless a case for declaring victory.

Mostly, though, I agree with Brad Plumer:

More importantly, these myths have consequences. Part of the reason so many people supported the war in Iraq—and why they support all sorts of ill-conceived wars—is that many Americans believe that the United States is always virtuous; that our leaders’ intentions are always honorable; that when the president says that he’s going to war for the sake of freedom and democracy, he means it; and that the U.S. military is only ever used for benevolent and noble ends. Not to be too shrill about it, but these are the sort of myths that enable war and imperialism, and Tester is trying to perpetuate them.

I would put it a bit differently; the use of force has real, often unpredictable consequences, and any assessment of using force has to take into account the practical difficulties of doing what we want to do. The Iraq War was sold as platitude, with predictable disastrous effect. The point, though, remains the same; the only way to learn from a complete disaster is to recognize that it was a complete disaster.

Cross-posted to TAPPED.