It's Easy, Too Easy To Be Against A War

Bill Richardson is to be credited with one plus in his run for the White House. He is completely, absolutely opposed to keeping any troops in Iraq beyond the normal Embassy security force of US Marines. No waffling. No yes-but's. No equivocation.

This sets him apart from his first tier rivals. Senators Clinton and Obama are not committed to a zero tolerance policy. Neither is ex-Senator Edwards.

Apparently a firm, unmistakable position is attractive to bloggers. Three front porch dogs of the blogosphere have signed on to the Richardson Zero Troops In Iraq policy. While they did not endorse Richardson, the thumbs up to his central message is tantamount to endorsement. See http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/bloggers-endorse-leadership-in-richardson-ad/.

The Geek is not one of the front porch dogs of blogging. Heck, he isn't really allowed onto the back porch. Even so, he is willing to risk his infinitesimal reputation on the assertion that the Geek, unlike the Big Three Bloggers and Governor Richardson, is willing to reject the easy course of decrying the ongoing war in Iraq.

History shows that realism in foreign policy is never easy. It involves making difficult choices from the base of an accurate understanding of both national interest and the threats or opportunities confronting national interest. Realism in foreign policy requires the utmost of intellectual and moral courage. It demands that an individual see the world as it is, not as he either wishes it to be or fears it might be. Additionally, realism in foreign affairs challenges the individual to act upon his understanding regardless of any negative effects upon his personal fortunes or career.

The current administration demonstrated its lack of realism in foreign affairs six and a half years ago with the invasion of Iraq. The pack of neocon ninnies in the bowels of the Pentagon and White House showed that they collectively could not face the world as it actually was and made decisions based upon a witch's brew of fear, neocon ideology, and hallucination.

The gripless crew threw away American credibility and the world's trust and sympathy, which had accrued over preceding years and in the aftermath of the Islamist attacks of 9/11. The deep thinkers of the Right forced a war upon us which was neither necessary nor relevant to the actual conflict with Islamism and its practictioners of terror tactics.

The time to have had a zero troops in Iraq policy was the day before the first missiles struck Iraqi targets. Before the first Made in the USA boot hit the sands of Iraq. Six and a half years ago the time came and quickly passed for opposition to the war and a demand that the troops, all the troops, come home.

Once the US invaded, once the conventional forces of Iraq were defeated, once the multi-party insurgency commenced, it was too late to back out. To leave now, to leave prematurely will assure that the only non-losers in the Iraq cockpit will be the Islamists, including those of the mullahocracy.

Wait one! The Geek knows he has beaten that horse before. He will refrain from hitting that target again. At least in this post.

The Geek is not in favor of war. He most assuredly is against the one in Iraq. At the same time, a realistic view of the world today, including the emergence and continued growth of Islamism as a potent and hostile ideology, does not permit the feel-good luxury of telling Iraq, "Get thee behind me." It does not allow the politically appealing and emotionally satisfying "Zero Troops in Iraq" notion advocated by Governor Richardson and his Big Time Bloggers supporters.

There are two very bad ideas bruited about currently. One is the Bring the Boys and Girls Home scheme. The other is the Blast Iran Back to the Stone Age weirdness.

Wars, history shows, should never be entered into lightly. If you don't believe that, check out the blithe way European statesmen let loose the cannons of August 1914 or the eagerness with which members of the House and Senate pushed for a war in Vietnam back in 1965.

Once war is commenced, it should never be abandoned easily. By the criteria of evident success, cost-benefit ratio, or unpopularity with We the People, the American War of Independence would have been abandoned shortly after the British took New York City. By those criteria the North would have given the South its independence in 1863. Even the Korean War, arguably the most important hot zone of the Cold War, would have been cast off within the first ninety days of US involvement or, failing that, during the long period of trench stalemate in 1952 and 1953.

Wars are fought to bring about a better state of peace. Indeed, it is antipodal understandings of what constitutes a better state of peace that calls war into existence. From the American perspective, considering only American interests, both short and longer-term, a better state of peace consists of credibly drawing a line over which the forces of Islamism cannot cross.

That was the real function of the Korean War. The better state of peace which came in the wake of the Korean Armistice was not peace undefiled. It was not such a good state of peace that the troops, all the troops could come home for once and for all.

The Korean Armistice ushered in an era of good-enough-peace. It assured another two generations of Cold War. It allowed for a misguided war in Vietnam. It also provided the basis for the effective containment of Soviet ambitions. It laid the foundation for the dying of the Marxist-Leninist faith.

In short, the Korean War, unpopular as it was with We the People and seemingly inconclusive as its end might have been, brought about a better state of peace, which eventually led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Governor Richardson and his supporters, blogger and otherwise, are to be commended for taking a firm stance on Iraq. Unfortunately, their stance is as wrong as grilled watermelon.

Leaving Iraq too soon would be like having left Korea before the Armistice. It is to abandon the necessity of drawing a line. It is to forsake the goal of successfully countering Islamism. It is to lose faith in us and our future.