If you're going to fight, fight to win

[rowyn]

I'm not really sure where I stand on the prospect of going to war against Iraq.

On the one hand, there's no denying that Saddam Hussein is an enemy of America. He is, in point of fact, the only honest enemy America has in the world. After 9/11, when the Taliban was the first to rush in to express sympathy for the plight of America, when Arafat issued a statment to say 'Oh, those poor Americans', Saddam Hussein stood up and said: 'They deserved it.'

And America might gain just a little credibility in the world if we carried through on all of our threats. If, having postured and screamed and declared that we were going to teach Hussein a lesson, we actually went and kicked his butt. It's got to be hard to take America's threats seriously if you're an opposing power, knowing that America will back down before it comes to blows.

On the other hand, the Bush administration keeps saying "We have all this evidence linking al Queda and Iraq," but they won't tell anyone what it is. And we said that we'd abide by the UN's rule on this, and the UN inspectors aren't going to turn anything up, whether or not there is anything to be found. (Back in June or July, I bet a friend $10.00 that we wouldn't go to war with Iraq before mid-January. He conceded on the bet as soon as the UN got involved. 'We may yet go to war, but now that the UN's involved it's clearly going to take a whole lot longer.')

But there is one thing I feel certain about: If we are going to war, we should do it to WIN.

Machiavelli wrote, "Do no man insufficient injury." This is almost a tautology: what is 'insufficient injury'? It's whenever you attack someone and they -- or their friends/relatives/country -- are able to come after you later for it.

But I interpret it this way: Don't injure anyone unless you really, really have to, because it's hard to know how much force you have to use to do sufficient injury.

And if you really, really have to, then DO SUFFICIENT INJURY. Do massive overkill. Don't drop ten billion dollars' worth of bombs on Iraq and then walk away from what's left. To use a more colorful phrase, "Kick his ass, don't piss on him!"

If you're going to war, INVADE. Take over the damn country when you've won. Impose military rule. Erect a puppet government. Brainwash the citzenry. Build roads and infrastructure and schools and whatever the heck else it takes. Be prepared for the war to take decades to end. Be prepared for it to cost trillions of dollars to succeed. Be prepared to STAY until it's OVER. Until you are sure that country isn't going to bother you again. Ever.

Otherwise, you're just going to be back again, ten years later, having the same debate, fighting the same battle, spilling the same invective.

Do it right, or don't do it at all.

Comments

[casey-withabat.livejournal.com]

You're absolutely right. No doubt about it. Japan and Germany are the best examples I can think of that demonstrate the need to win, then rebuild from the ground up.

Casey

[rowyn]

Thank you. Gosh, am I your very first comment to LJ? :)

[casey-withabat.livejournal.com]

The short answer is "Yes".

Most often someone has already said what it is I'm thinking about, and I see no reason to add a 'me too'. It's not often that I'm the first person on the scene, with the time to read the entry and respond.

Casey

[chipuni.livejournal.com]

I have a small disagreement, and a big agreement.

I disagree that Saddam Hussein is our only enemy. Osama bin Laden and Kim Jung Il, in my mind, remain serious threats.

However, the rest of your post is dead on. It's also a restatement of the "Powell Doctorine". And I'm convinced that Bush will ignore it, just as he ignored it in Afghanistan. And I'm also convinced that Afghanistan will become a problem in 5-10 years because he ignored it.

[rowyn]

I did not say he was America's ONLY enemy. My exact words were "He is, in point of fact, the only honest enemy America has in the world." By that, I meant: the only world leader willing to come right out and say to America's face, "Yeah, Americans are suffering, and I'm GLAD! I want them to suffer more!" I'm not aware of any other leaders of nations who did that after 9/11, or who are willing to do it now. Osama bin Laden isn't a leader of nations, and I think Il Jung still pretends to want peace with America. That doesn't mean he isn't our enemy; he's just not HONEST.

[level-head.livejournal.com]

Even this honest enemy still has U.S. citizens going to Baghdad to stand arm and arm and protect "poor Saddam Hussein" from "imperialist agression". He must privately laugh at this.

===|==============/ Level Head

[prester-scott.livejournal.com]

I can't find enough to disagree with in here to bother arguing over it. :)

yep

[telnar.livejournal.com]

I strongly agree with the concept (if not every exaggeration for effect were one to take them literally). Some months ago, I claimed that the best US policy on North Korea was to defeat Iraq and regain some credability (since trying to deal with N. Korea using our existing level of credibility would have required going to war to achieve anything). I still believe that considering our lousy options in Korea that we don't have anything better to do that deal with Iraq first.