Sen Reid, Speaker Pelosi--Listen Up and Listen Tight!

The Iraq war is unpopular with most Americans. At least one of you thinks the war has already been lost.

The Geek has two comments: So what? and You're wrong.

Perhaps the two of you and many of your fellow members of the House and Senate should have paid some attention back when you took an American History course. (And, if you didn't, you are pathetically under qualified for your current job.)

The following wars were unpopular with many or most Americans for most of their duration.
The War For Independence
Mr Madison's War
Mr Polk's War
Mr Lincoln's War
The Splendid Little War
Truman's Police Action
The Vietnam War
The Iraq War.

The wars supported by the overwhelming majority of the country's population make a much shorter list.
World War I
World War II
Even though supported by the majority, World War II was not seen as a grand crusade, but rather as a tough, nasty job forced upon us to be ended as quickly as possible at the lowest cost in American lives.

If war fighting had been governed by public opinion polls, all of our wars with two exceptions would have been ended prematurely and at a definite loss to the United States.

Time to get a grip.

Mr Madison's War (The War of 1812) was so wildly unpopular in at least one area of the US, New England, that the region seethed with secessionist talk and schemes. The Federalist Party almost plotted at an American defeat. The outcome of the war was not an American victory, but we didn't lose and did obtain a better state of peace. To be blunt, if we hadn't "not lost," we would have been the low hanging apple plucked back into the imperial bag.

(It is always necessary to remember that there are three alternatives for ending a war: winning, losing and not losing. The third option is often the only realistic one.)

Mr Polk's War or for the historically challenged, The Mexican War, was also widely unpopular, particularly in the increasingly abolitionist oriented areas of New England and the upper Midwest. The war with Mexico was seen as an imperialistic venture by the Southern slavocracy, which it wasn't. The war was actually about who would control the Pacific coast south of the Oregon Territory including the enormous natural harbor at San Francisco--the US or Great Britain. Mexico was realistically seen as too weak to do the job. At the end of the short period of killing and dying, the US did achieve better state of peace for itself, and, arguably, the Mexicans.

In one of life's delightful ironies, a young Congressman from Illinois came to national prominence with his denunciation of Mr Polk's War. In barely more than a decade, Abraham Lincoln would have a war named after him by the many who thought it better to let the Confederacy go its own way, slaves and all.

The Democratic Party gnashed its collective teeth, wailed and moaned about the unnecessary loss of life, the incompetence of Lincoln as a war leader, his wholesale violation of American civil rights and Constitutional liberties, his constant lying to Congress and public and finally nominated a spectacularly unsuccessful general as its 1864 presidential candidate, who ran on a "peace now," platform.

Does anybody seriously want to argue that the North should have walked away from the war, told the Confederacy, "We goofed. You guys are right. Go in peace, brother?" True enough, the country and the new freedmen had miles of bad road yet to travel in the years ahead, but keeping on keeping on brought a better state of peace.

We Americans are not comfortable with the idea of being an imperial power. That's too much like those icky-poo empires run by the Russians, the French, and the British. It's no wonder that many, even most, Americans didn't support the Spanish-American War (aka The Splendid Little War or the War that Made Teddy Roosevelt President.) The Geek can't say he thinks it was a good idea, but the realpolitiker in him says that over the long haul it made for a better state of peace in the Philippines (maybe) and a worse state of peace in Cuba.

The Korean War was supported by fewer Americans according to public opinion polls than the Vietnam War. Many, particularly Republicans, hyperventilated about Truman's "no-win" strategy. They overlooked the reality that the war was intentionally fought without enlisting the American public's crusading zeal because it was our first limited war in support of policy. It was a war we didn't lose and it did bring about a better state of peace in that Containment Policy was given a greater credibility as was the United Nations. It also set a critical precedent regarding collective action under the UN against unprovoked aggression.

Vietnam was an unnecessary war, an unjustifiable war, a war we didn't need to fight. Fortunately it was a war which we could afford to lose since that is exactly what we did. It is important to keep in mind that the North Vietnamese didn't defeat us. We did that job ourselves. The military used a soup sandwich wrong theory of victory. Politically, in the streets seemingly, on Capitol Hill certainly, we lost our will to continue. Congress wrote off sixty thousand American lives and voted for a worse state of peace.

Good precedent?

Now there is Iraq. The Geek is of the opinion that the invasion of Iraq was unnecessary, unjustified, and unsupportable. He is of the view that the civilian leadership--Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfewitz, Feith, et al were, if not criminals, at least world class blunderers in their planning and direction of this act of unprovoked aggression.

The Geek also believes that the senior military commanders should have had the intellectual and moral courage to resign their commissions rather than execute an operation which all credible intelligence showed would of necessity lead to the current armed political turmoil and massive Iraqi butcher's bill.

Now that we are there, we have to stay the course. We have to lose more American lives so that those already lost will not be casually and callously written off. We must stay on the ground until the Iraqis can finish the job of developing a legitimate government and a capable military force. But, what the hey, I've written all that before.

Believe me, the Geek is pained to be in agreement with George W. Bush, a man for whom he has nothing so gentle as contempt. Still, realpolitik and a decent regard for the future of this nation compels agreement--at least in principle.

The alternatives, the consequences of some sort of cut and run approach even one with a Vietnam style "decent interval," is simply a terrible state of peace from our perspective as well as that of the Iraqis and much of the world.

Get a grip on this.

If we leave before the Iraqi government and military are up to the task, Iraq will join the ranks of failed states. The multi-party war will invite regional intervention. Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and perhaps Syria will move in directly or through proxies.

The Islamists will be pumped up by orders of magnitude. Remember, Osama bin Ladin and many others think it was the Arab jihadists who not only expelled the Soviets from Afghanistan but caused the collapse of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact as well.

They are as wrong as grilled watermelon in that belief, but that doesn't erase its subjective power. Previous weak US responses as in the case of the embassy bombings and the attack on the USS Cole gave rise to the events of 9/11.

If you liked 9/11, you will love the violence which will lap across Europe and the US in the wake of a premature American withdrawal. If you are comfortable with living under more threat and in more of a security oriented garrison state, if you are pleased with a diminished stature and role for the US in the world, then you should join with Senator Reid, Speaker Pelosi and their public opinion driven view of responsible statesmanship.

The United States may not be the last, best hope of mankind, it may not be the shining city on the hill, but the Geek believes that it is, at the least, a flickering candle against the wind and the dark.