Hey! Senators! Get This, War Is A Long Slog

Sometimes the Geek is convinced that the best experience for a presidential candidate is a couple of tours in combat, in the infantry. At least the Geek thinks that whenever he hears the wannabes quacking about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The other night at the Democratic debate, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, and ex-Senator Edwards agreed that the US could not "win" in Iraq and, presumably for this reason, US troops should be withdrawn. See http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695208775,00.html.

Although Representative Tom Lantos of California is not a presidential candidate, his "thinking" runs in the same vein. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2166326,00.html. Apparently his concern is not that we aren't winning, but the simple fact that US troops are there.

The Geek has never believed that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea. He has always been of the view that our invasion of Afghanistan was conducted in the wrong way. From the giddy-up in both wars, he has seen bright intimations of disaster.

But none of that matters. The reality is that we are there. We can't turn the clock back. We've got boots on the ground in both countries. Now the problem is simple.

How do we retrieve two, count them, two policy blunders from the failure they so richly deserve?

The Geek agrees with candidates Clinton, Edwards, Obama, and Richardson. We cannot win in any meaningful sense of the word in Iraq. Neither can we "win" in Afghanistan.

And, to add to the comments of the wannabes, we cannot win in the "global war on terrorism."

As the Geek has written before: It is impossible to win against a tactic, a means of waging hostilities. Only an enemy can be defeated, not a method.

Terrorism cannot be defeated. Islamists and their ideology can--and must--be.

Only resolve, firmness and patience can defeat the Islamists.

This means that we must not--absolutely must not--lose in either Iraq or Afghanistan. As the Korean War demonstrated beyond a doubt to anyone well oriented in place and time, not losing is the necessary prerequisite to eventual victory.

Enter the combat infantry experience. Get a grip on it, candidates,

To make it simple, the basics of combat infantry life are simple. Hump a heavy weight on your back, preferably over rough terrain in weather that is either too hot or too cold. Even better do it with the wind in your face. This is improved if it is raining.

Add boredom to exhaustion. Then, just as the boredom numbs your mind, have someone shoot at you. Or have a mortar round land nearby. At your option, you can substitute rocket or improvised explosive device for the mortar round.

Fear spikes. You'll wake up beaucoup schnell. If you're real lucky you can fire your weapon at something. That will discharge some fear. Make you feel a little better.

If you're really, really, really lucky, you'll actually see a live hostile to shoot at. Maybe you'll hit him. Maybe you'll see him fall. This will make you feel even better. Or, perhaps not. Everyone is a bit different at that.

Then, when the noise stops, get up, and start humping again. The straps on your shoulders won't hurt for the next few minutes. Then they'll hurt worse. The rain will start up again. You'll get thirsty. Reach for your canteen. Find out its empty. Shit.

Have you won your little encounter with whoever?

Maybe. Maybe not.

It doesn't matter.

You haven't been hit. None of your buddies have been hit. You didn't lose. That's what matters. You didn't lose.

You feel a little better. As long as you can put one foot in front of the other, as long as you can keep on slogging, keep on yomping, you haven't lost. You haven't let your buddies down. You've done your job.

Senators Clinton, Edwards, Obama, Governor Richardson, Representative Lantos, the Geek has a question for you.

Do you, any of you, have the guts to keep putting one foot in front of the other? Do you have what it takes not to lose? Not to let your buddies down? Not to let your nation's future go down the tubes? Do you, any of you, have the right stuff to do your job?

It's Gonna Be a Foreign Policy Presidency

Like it or not, the next administration will have no choice except focusing on foreign policy. It won't be a four years given over to such crushing issues as school uniforms or smoking bans; it won't be "the economy, stupid," save as foreign affairs is inevitably linked to economic matters. Not even the ever popular health care issue(s) will loom larger than the messy realities of our relations with the rest of the world.

Of course, most Americans neither like nor understand foreign affairs, foreign policy and the strange doings of diplomats. Most Americans are like digital circuits when it comes to war: full on or full off.

Politicians, particularly those with eyes glassily fixated on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, are aware of the American distaste for the intricacies and nuances of foreign affairs. As a consequence, the current packs of Republicans and Democrats avoid the quagmire except to cater to the current prevalent disenchantment with the war in Iraq.

Get a grip on this. No matter how much people (including candidates) want to ignore the world, it isn't going away. Neither are the problems.

Problems?

Try the following partial list. The Islamist terrorists. They'll still be with us. Collapsing states. The number may well grow (try adding Pakistan to the roster and remember, the Pakistanis have the Bomb.) The Mideast. Do you really think that the Palestinian question is going to be finally resolved before January 2009?

Now consider these questions. The regrowth of Russia as an adversary? You bet, the Russians have never been satisfied with second class status. Then there is the Peoples' Republic of China. Trade deficit, anyone? How about the steroid injections Beijing has been giving its military?

By the way, don't forget about South America and the growth of neo-Castroism. Of course there is global warming. Consider the term "global," might not that imply a foreign dimension?

Ah, yes, that nifty term "global" as in "global economy," and "globalization." That brings the relation between economic and foreign policy into very sharp focus, doesn't it?

Yes. The next administration is going to have its plate plumb full of foreign dishes. Most of them won't be tasty.

If that view of the future doesn't upset you enough, stop and consider the foreign policy capacities so far demonstrated by various front running candidates.

First there is Senator Obama, who would meet with any hostile despot for face-to-face talks "without preconditions." Now the Geek is sure the Senator is a nice young man who means well but who is hopelessly out of touch with the realities of summit meetings--even with friendly foreign leaders of allied countries. He apparently thinks that face time with a foreign jefe is either an exercise in public relations or a mere shake and grin session.

Senator Clinton is a little sharper about the reality of summit meetings and acknowledges that they must be proceeded by serious and prolonged diplomatic interchanges if anything substantial is to emerge at the other end. Good for her.

Still, Senator Clinton has a major credibility problem: her vote on the Iraq invasion. The Geek admits he was bemused at the time. He considered the names that must have been on her Rolodex and the ease with which she (or some beaver on her staff) could have found out that the President's justifications for the invasion were not even up to the soup sandwich level.

(Heck. The Geek had no problem with concluding that the President and his henchpeople were lying using the intelligence analyst's favorite sources: the library and the newspapers both foreign and domestic as well as a modicum of brain power.)

But the Geek isn't in the Senate and Hillary Clinton was. With her finger stuck in the winds of public opinion she voted with the majority. This tells the objective observer that she lacks the intellectual and moral courage to deal with foreign affairs in any meaningful fashion.

The Republicans aren't any better. Mitt Romney thinks the American public is "sick" of the war in Iraq because of the "lack of progress." Duh? That's a no-brainer. So is the rest of his "thinking." He'll wait until after the mid-September report to say what he would do differently. Beyond that platitude, if he has any foreign policy notions, they aren't apparent to the Geek.

The former Mayor of New York City is so hazy on his view of the world beyond being opposed to terrorism that one wonders if he has ever stopped quacking about how "tough" he was as a prosecutor and mayor to think about the planet outside of the borough of Manhattan.

Senator McCain is right on Iraq. The US has to stay. His trouble is simply that he can't say why. He hasn't given a single reason to justify his conclusion good, bad, or indifferent. Other than that, his foreign policy seems to be a stale recycling of the usual Republican platitudes such as support for Israel and a love affair with free trade--whatever free trade might be these days.

Now, let's take a fast peek at Congress. The ham-handed, public opinion driven, brain dead efforts by that body--particularly the House--to meddle in foreign policy makes the Geek join spiritual hands with Colonel Pride (although without the presence of troops behind him) when dealing with the Parliament during the English Civil War.

If you think the Geek is being too hard on Congress, take a firm hold on the amendments to the new Anti-Terrorism bill designed to put pressure on countries such as Pakistan to take a more effective stance regarding al-Qaeda and their ilk. Mr Lantos, the Chair of the House Foreign Relations Committee and a man without any notable credentials in the field, sponsored these destructive amendments, which if passed into law will help further destabilize Pakistan and alienate other shaky "allies" such as Saudi Arabia. (The cliche "with friends like that who needs enemies?" comes to mind."

What choice have we got?

It's simple but oh, so hard. The politically articulate minority of this nation has to insist that foreign policy be given pride of place in the upcoming election. We have to ask the hardest of hard questions. We have to insist that individuals who aspire to leadership have the intellectual and moral courage to lead. We have to know, positively know, that they have a coherent vision of the United States' role in the world as well as a vision of how to get us there and the ability to sell their vision and road map.

In short, we have to demand that they be true leaders, willing to sail against the transient winds of opinion with a firm fix on the harbor ahead.