Losing Wars

Napoleon and his Wrecked Army Retreat from Moscow - 1812

There is something rather compelling about the idea of a politically correct public relations strategy in time of war.   It is even more engaging in a society tied together by a republican form of government.   Specifically, a government constrained by a balance of powers among the ruling class as is ours.   The executive, by law, can wield the army and navy but only with the permission of the people whose voice is carried to Washington by elected representatives.   With deference to political rather than practical necessity, the executive polls the electorate to plumb out their "feelings" about employing the military or their "approval or disapproval" about using force to achieve or to even simply maintain the national interests.  The executive also panders to the world and the media and does so not necessarily in the best interests of the military mission.  That's all well and good prior to the first shot being fired.  In fact, I encourage such discourse with the American people and the world.  But, once the first round heads down range, the only way to fight a war is to win.

This democratic approach to warfare, and I mean the nuance of war fighting, rightfully and traditionally held in the hands of the generals and their civilian bosses, is now also subject to the ebb and flow of public whim and a public that does not at all live within the borders of these United States.   The smartest, most capable, most entrepreneurial, best equipped and freest people on earth, when choosing to use bombs and bullets to achieve an international objective, rely on not only their own diverse and conflicting opinions but on those who have no skin in the game.  With that as a guiding light on the battlefield, we can only hope to lose.

William Saletan, a writer for Slate, recently published a piece on why identifying al-Qaeda as the enemy rather than calling out the more general "radical Islam" or using the term fighting the "war on terror" made all the difference in our fights around the globe:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2012/03/war_against_islam_bin_laden_s_documents_show_obama_was_right_and_gingrich_and_santorum_were_wrong_.html 

The only problem with his conclusion is that no matter what the lexicon, America is on the verge of losing its fights around the globe.   The idea that calling the enemy something differently today than you called him yesterday will in fact change the outcome on the battlefield is ridiculous.  While, admittedly, it got the current administration elected, its effect plays to rave reviews in Washington but falls on deaf ears in the Hindu Kush.  Weary of the previous administration's tom-tom on the war drums and aggressive "war on terror" language, the country put a different set of ideologues in power to change the tone of the debate.  But, one does not debate with an RPG or an AK-47.      

Now, with hardly a civil conversation ongoing between us and our allies in Afghanistan, a reinvigorated enemy there with a strangle-hold on power, our forces pulled from a dangerously unstable Iraq, an Iran running unchecked on course for nuclear weapons and Syria in chaos we are worried about the tone of the discussion.  All we seem to be able to do is pander to the idea that focusing our efforts on what one terms the enemy or labels a conflict makes all the difference in magically bringing about victory.

History, not politicians, tell us that victory in war, generally,  is won by an energetic and motivated people, rich in resources, led by the wise and fully pitched in the fight with a vibrant and stoic younger class.  Those brave and valiant leading the charge are highly trained in the latest in the martial art.   The reasons those young men and women got in the fight in the first place is the fodder for democratic debate.  But, when the dogs of war are let loose, the next time I prefer to hear politicians' gums flapping is introducing diplomatic niceties at the surrender table.