"There is many a boy here today who looks on war as all glory, but, boys, it is all hell." -- William Tecumseh Sherman.
As the debate over staying in Iraq continues to continue, I find myself wondering exactly how and when this country will find itself out of this mess. But with every passing day, I sense a country becoming more and more accustomed with tolerating stupidity and celebrating death. Not celebrating in a "Rockin' New Year's Eve" sort of way, but more in a "violence equals victory" sense.
That feeling was reinforced today, thanks to the testimony of a well-respected general. Much like another well-respected general, this man went before the people chosen to represent "We, The People" and tried to make the shaky intellegence and perverse ideology of others sound credible. And just like last time, the respect for the messenger outweighed the desire to ask basic, commonsense questions.
And thus, death was celebrated once again...
Today's House hearing was horrible; nary a quote-worthy question was asked. And it's not like there hasn't been time for anyone (despite their views on Iraq, the Surge, or this "War on Terror") to gather their thoughts and present something of substance for General Petraeus. We've heard nothing but "wait until September" for the last two months. That's more than enough time to come up with one good question.
One of mine is simple: where are we getting the troops needed to sustain this fight? I put this one out there first because I don't think Bush is looking at anything other than military victories. But I have more:
Why isn't the same level of intensity being given to the political aspect of helping Iraq? Is it just me, or did we stop getting updates after the "purple finger" election? It was like, one more election and than two years later the next thing I know the Iraqi government is going on vacation...most outside of their own country (how many American Congresscritters leave the country for their vacation?). Is it because Bush knows that in reality he doesn't have the influence of the Iraqi officials that he has over the American generals, people who have to support their Commander in Chief regardless of how hair-brained his ideas are? Is it because Bush knows that that politics makes strange bedfellows, and that eventually al-Maliki will have to make deals with some of the very people Bush says we have to destroy?
What is victory for the US military? Is it the complete surrender of "Al Qaeda in Iraq?" It is a truce between all of the Iraqi-born factions? Is it a video of bin Laden waving a white flag? Is it an oil contract between al-Maliki and Exxon-Mobil?
Why is success measured by levels of violence? Who was shot versus who was blown up. Five deaths versus fifty. An Iraqi versus an American soldier versus a foreign contractor. What happened to things like schools, a police force, cities that are self-suficient, and consistent plumbing and lighting? You know...infastructure? I don't expect Petraeus to be giving some of these reports, but I have expected Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker to say something (other than that Iraq won't meet the "demand requirements" for electricity until 2016).
Say what you will about General Sherman, the man knew warfare. Ironically he hated it so much that he was willing to use tactics that would make Alberto Gonzales flinch. Sherman's message was simple: You Want a War; I'll Give You a War...and Then You'll Beg Me to Stop.
Classic generals like Sherman knew that war was not something to celebrate or look forward to. It wasn't something used for the political or financial gain of one person or faction. It was the option of last resort, and it was something that was to happen quickly with as little bloodshed as necessary.
Back then, the point of war was to get everyone back to the negotiation table.