The Iraq War is not a topic I approach with great relish.  I’ll be the first to say that I supported the decision to invade at the time.  To me it was clear that Saddam left us with little alternative.  I’ll also be the first to say that the government’s policy makers screwed up the subsequent execution, placing our soldiers in an extremely difficult situation - and I have frequently been critical of the decisions made in D.C.

Should we spread our goodness at the barrel of a gun?  No.  Should we be the policemen of the world?  No.  Would I have supported the initial invasion if I knew then what I know now?  No.  Unfortunately we do not live in a world where we have the luxury of making decisions today based on hindsight or regret for previous choices.  We have to make decisions based on current circumstances and anticipated consequences.

I’ve heard a certain local speaker that some readers might recognize a couple of times who talks about military history and Islamic extremism.  One of the points that he hammers across is that in the modern era our government has a history of not finishing off military conflicts (Korea, Vietnam, Mogadishu, etc.) and that our adversaries, many of whom have a governing structure that affords them a longer term view, have taken notice.  As such it is to our countries strategic disadvantage to leave any current (or future) conflict prematurely.  It shows weakness and emboldens the enemy.

Now that particular speech, that viewpoint, is just one of many that I’ve heard.  It could easily get lost in the recesses of my mind, but I constantly think back to an article that I read earlier this year.  It was a think tank type study of open source Chinese military documents.  One particular passage from the article became lodged in my head:

Because the American public is “abnormally sensitive” about military casualties, according to an article in China’s Liberation Army Daily, killing U.S. airmen or other personnel would spark a “domestic anti-war cry” on the home front and possibly force early withdrawal of U.S. forces. (“The U.S. experience in Somalia is usually cited in support of this assertion,” according to the Rand report.)

The report concluded that China has no illusion that they could defeat us in an all out war.  One high ranking officer said that would be like “throwing an egg against a rock.”  However they think that they can psychologically defeat us by turning off the public and using our responsive, representative form of government as a means of ending hostilities - even if it results in a defeat for us.

That resonated with me.  Whatever my personal thoughts on the appropriateness of the war or the flaws of its execution can we afford to again signal our potential adversaries that we don’t have the stomach as a country to see through something we started?  Would that lower the threshold for future hostilities?  Potential adversaries, possibly including China, might elect to engage us militarily when they normally would not because they can envision an eventual win due to our lack of fortitude.

As a staunch fiscal conservative, I find it appropriate to debate whether we can financially afford this war.  Quite honestly, I don’t believe we can afford it (or much of what our government spends money on for that matter).  But at the same time we must factor in the cost, in more than just dollars, of once again signaling to our adversaries that we lack the will to achieve victory if it proves elusive.

What constitutes victory in Iraq? I’m not entirely sure.  Justice Potter Stewart infamously tried to define what constitutes obscenity by saying, “I know it when I see it.”  To somewhat paraphrase Stewart, I may not know what signifies victory in Iraq, but I know what does not when I see it.

Related content:

This entry was posted by Brian on Sunday, May 18th, 2008 at 5:33 am and is filed under Iraq. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Please note the copyright policy.