How To Lose By Winning
How to Lose by Winning
I recently received an email presenting an essay by General Vernon Chong entitled “This WAR is REAL.” The sender had checked the veracity of the authorship and found the writer is a retired Air Force surgeon. As an eloquent defender of our war on terrorism, Dr. Chong is more articulate than our elected Inspirer-In-Chief, so I read his essay hungrily.
After reading the seven pages, I realized Chong had encapsulated his whole argument in his first sentence: “To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it.” On this wisdom his perspective stands. But it is half-cooked wisdom. The idea seems to be that when in trouble, push ahead until you break through on the other side. There is no hint in this adage that one might need to make adjustments in the face of terrorist threats. To Dr. Chong, terrorism is not a trial, it is a threat--a key distinction. Rather than learn from trials, Chong would have us respond from old lessons.
Nowhere does our essayist question the adequacy of old lessons, despite the international success of terrorism, which he graphically describes. Chong’s answer, his response, to the threat is plug on, “go through it” with increased determination.
We have learned that when President Bush speaks, we have to put his words on hold until we have better, more accurate information. Dr. Chong does no better; he speaks resoundingly about the fearsomeness of terror and pronounces the end of western civilization if we don’t win this war, now, while we have the power. Power being the key word. Chong gives a good informational account of terrorist havoc, but his wagon is too creaky for a load of panic. If we have power, why panic?
The problem for Chong and Bush is they have an adolescent’s understanding of power. They only recognize power in military intimidation. To “win” in war, your enemy has to stop fighting. You have not won until they stop. Yet sometimes the strongest country does the stopping. So where was the intimidation factor? Often in history two fighting countries have decided that both sides win by ending the (military) fighting.
Neither Chong nor Bush define what “win” means, but they would have us believe that winning is only determined by who fired the last bullet, the last man standing. So keep shooting; as Chong says it, “go through it.” That is what army generals say; that is their job. We should be glad that soldiers have this determination, for that is what we hire them to do.
But I am not a soldier; I am in tune with other considerations. And this is why our Constitutional writers made our Chief an elected civilian.
In addition to a barebones concept of winning, our essayist entertains other vaguenesses. Just as President Bush ignores the generals, the Baker Study report, even departing Secretary Rumsfeld, who have said our troops aren’t and can’t win militarily in Iraq, so Chong spurs us on to win without even mentioning Iraq in his essay. Bush and Chong both practice the art of advertising a bum product in mislabeled packaging. We are not fighting a war in Iraq (look in vain for a Declaration), we are fighting a War on Terror (Bush). We are fighting a war in Iraq (look in vain for the essay’s mention of it), but, by the way, we “must go through it (Chong); and we must “succeed” (Bush). We are spending 2 billion dollars a week fighting somewhere. By proxy Iraq must be where .
The electorate, the polls, the generals, the Congressional Study Group, and numerous high level individuals agree that a new approach is needed. George Bush is currently doing a dance on the matter. Chong’s advise is not what we need at this juncture of failure in Iraq. No alert person would disagree with his ringing warning about the seriousness of death threats by terrorists, but his pandering to fears about the end of western, non-Muslim civilization is overdrawn. This is the kind of language a military man resorts to when the reputation of his profession is maligned and his Commander-in-Chief is questioned, and he has no faith in the strength, cleverness or energy of a principled, democratic people who have met two centuries of crises without the panic of self-doubt.
I won’t impose upon you the length of Chong’s discourse, but I will presume to point out a couple of flaws in his argument that may help us recognize the bankruptcy and danger of “stay the course” strategy, so that we can wisely scrutinize the manner in which President Bush dresses his “new way.” If the President in the next few weeks sounds like Chong, beware.
At least Dr. Chong acknowledges that war can not be “clean, lawful and honorable.” This is classic “end justifies the means.” In fact, he goes farther and says the means is the end. The Constitution is more than irrelevant; get it “out of your head.” Successful warring means intimidation and military superiority, and this is the pillar on which our country stands. The concepts enumerated in the Bill of Rights are useless in the face of threats.
This is equal to saying the only friend love, beauty, and happiness have is the hate, ugliness and despair of war--so plow through it.
Is the devil a trial or a threat? Chong votes for the latter, and thereby hands the terrorists their victory. Is God so defenseless? Dr. Chong’s message is simple-minded. (Simpleness is clear sighted; simple-mindedness is horse-blinded.) We have to win this war, he says. That is all there is to it. Such language is so simplistic it shouts its blockheadedness. To Chong every violent act is a component of war.
Along with this cloudiness, he offers no explanation for what he means by “winning.” . Chong gets around the widely understood reality that we can’t “win” militarily in Iraq by never mentioning Iraq. He stays on the high ground (the altitudes) of War on Terrorism. (Remember he was a surgeon, not a combat officer.)
Chong states that the Muslin terrorist goal is to kill “all non-Muslins.” Note how he conflates Muslims and terrorists as a unit. And he states that the U.S. is “the last bastion of defense” for the entire non-Muslim world. The future of western civilization depends on us “winning” the war (in Iraq presumably, for that is where our troops are); and we must get it clear in our minds that we have only one way to do it--we are up against “war.” We must fight as we have in our glorious past (as if nothing in our past is glorious except our wars). As in World War II, we must rally to the attack, drop all silliness about civil rights, and give the enemy (any suspicious Muslim) doses of their own medicine--all means of torture, even death.
And we should drop our scruples of democracy in this time of crisis. Regarding such scruples, Chong notes that our liberties have weathered the emergency measures of our past. But we might note that George Bush’s constitutional deviations have been more systemic and began before 9/11.
Chong also implies that Christianity is but a cloak donned by politicians with bigger agendas (he calls Hitler a Christian), so don‘t bring religion into it. Bush tries to have it both ways. He is a Christian leader who fights terrorists in ways they understand. I can’t judge George Bush’s personal piety, but I don’t see Christ in his politics.
Chong conflates the war on terror with war in Iraq and hopes you don’t notice the subtleness of the admixture. Maybe he learned this from Bush’s (Carl Rove’s?) clever implications that Saddam Hussein sponsored 9/11 without actually spelling out his name. Chong compounds his conflation by then saying the critics of “the war and/or the Administration” (he must mean Iraq, for that is where the Commander-in-chief has “decided” to fight) “would literally like to see us lose” (the War on Terror). Do you see the insidiousness of conflation?
The emotion of Chong’s eloquence, when the narrowness (the error) of his plea is undressed, becomes an indictment of all Americans who won’t panic. Chong serves as a surrogate for those who preach that if we continue to lose in Iraq, our country is done for. If we believe this, we deserve the prediction. How does he think such pessimism can bolster our resolve to resist terrorism?
His argument is eloquent half-wisdom, which under its wrapping harbors purblind misdirection. I don’t think we have heard the end of it though.
I recently received an email presenting an essay by General Vernon Chong entitled “This WAR is REAL.” The sender had checked the veracity of the authorship and found the writer is a retired Air Force surgeon. As an eloquent defender of our war on terrorism, Dr. Chong is more articulate than our elected Inspirer-In-Chief, so I read his essay hungrily.
After reading the seven pages, I realized Chong had encapsulated his whole argument in his first sentence: “To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it.” On this wisdom his perspective stands. But it is half-cooked wisdom. The idea seems to be that when in trouble, push ahead until you break through on the other side. There is no hint in this adage that one might need to make adjustments in the face of terrorist threats. To Dr. Chong, terrorism is not a trial, it is a threat--a key distinction. Rather than learn from trials, Chong would have us respond from old lessons.
Nowhere does our essayist question the adequacy of old lessons, despite the international success of terrorism, which he graphically describes. Chong’s answer, his response, to the threat is plug on, “go through it” with increased determination.
We have learned that when President Bush speaks, we have to put his words on hold until we have better, more accurate information. Dr. Chong does no better; he speaks resoundingly about the fearsomeness of terror and pronounces the end of western civilization if we don’t win this war, now, while we have the power. Power being the key word. Chong gives a good informational account of terrorist havoc, but his wagon is too creaky for a load of panic. If we have power, why panic?
The problem for Chong and Bush is they have an adolescent’s understanding of power. They only recognize power in military intimidation. To “win” in war, your enemy has to stop fighting. You have not won until they stop. Yet sometimes the strongest country does the stopping. So where was the intimidation factor? Often in history two fighting countries have decided that both sides win by ending the (military) fighting.
Neither Chong nor Bush define what “win” means, but they would have us believe that winning is only determined by who fired the last bullet, the last man standing. So keep shooting; as Chong says it, “go through it.” That is what army generals say; that is their job. We should be glad that soldiers have this determination, for that is what we hire them to do.
But I am not a soldier; I am in tune with other considerations. And this is why our Constitutional writers made our Chief an elected civilian.
In addition to a barebones concept of winning, our essayist entertains other vaguenesses. Just as President Bush ignores the generals, the Baker Study report, even departing Secretary Rumsfeld, who have said our troops aren’t and can’t win militarily in Iraq, so Chong spurs us on to win without even mentioning Iraq in his essay. Bush and Chong both practice the art of advertising a bum product in mislabeled packaging. We are not fighting a war in Iraq (look in vain for a Declaration), we are fighting a War on Terror (Bush). We are fighting a war in Iraq (look in vain for the essay’s mention of it), but, by the way, we “must go through it (Chong); and we must “succeed” (Bush). We are spending 2 billion dollars a week fighting somewhere. By proxy Iraq must be where .
The electorate, the polls, the generals, the Congressional Study Group, and numerous high level individuals agree that a new approach is needed. George Bush is currently doing a dance on the matter. Chong’s advise is not what we need at this juncture of failure in Iraq. No alert person would disagree with his ringing warning about the seriousness of death threats by terrorists, but his pandering to fears about the end of western, non-Muslim civilization is overdrawn. This is the kind of language a military man resorts to when the reputation of his profession is maligned and his Commander-in-Chief is questioned, and he has no faith in the strength, cleverness or energy of a principled, democratic people who have met two centuries of crises without the panic of self-doubt.
I won’t impose upon you the length of Chong’s discourse, but I will presume to point out a couple of flaws in his argument that may help us recognize the bankruptcy and danger of “stay the course” strategy, so that we can wisely scrutinize the manner in which President Bush dresses his “new way.” If the President in the next few weeks sounds like Chong, beware.
At least Dr. Chong acknowledges that war can not be “clean, lawful and honorable.” This is classic “end justifies the means.” In fact, he goes farther and says the means is the end. The Constitution is more than irrelevant; get it “out of your head.” Successful warring means intimidation and military superiority, and this is the pillar on which our country stands. The concepts enumerated in the Bill of Rights are useless in the face of threats.
This is equal to saying the only friend love, beauty, and happiness have is the hate, ugliness and despair of war--so plow through it.
Is the devil a trial or a threat? Chong votes for the latter, and thereby hands the terrorists their victory. Is God so defenseless? Dr. Chong’s message is simple-minded. (Simpleness is clear sighted; simple-mindedness is horse-blinded.) We have to win this war, he says. That is all there is to it. Such language is so simplistic it shouts its blockheadedness. To Chong every violent act is a component of war.
Along with this cloudiness, he offers no explanation for what he means by “winning.” . Chong gets around the widely understood reality that we can’t “win” militarily in Iraq by never mentioning Iraq. He stays on the high ground (the altitudes) of War on Terrorism. (Remember he was a surgeon, not a combat officer.)
Chong states that the Muslin terrorist goal is to kill “all non-Muslins.” Note how he conflates Muslims and terrorists as a unit. And he states that the U.S. is “the last bastion of defense” for the entire non-Muslim world. The future of western civilization depends on us “winning” the war (in Iraq presumably, for that is where our troops are); and we must get it clear in our minds that we have only one way to do it--we are up against “war.” We must fight as we have in our glorious past (as if nothing in our past is glorious except our wars). As in World War II, we must rally to the attack, drop all silliness about civil rights, and give the enemy (any suspicious Muslim) doses of their own medicine--all means of torture, even death.
And we should drop our scruples of democracy in this time of crisis. Regarding such scruples, Chong notes that our liberties have weathered the emergency measures of our past. But we might note that George Bush’s constitutional deviations have been more systemic and began before 9/11.
Chong also implies that Christianity is but a cloak donned by politicians with bigger agendas (he calls Hitler a Christian), so don‘t bring religion into it. Bush tries to have it both ways. He is a Christian leader who fights terrorists in ways they understand. I can’t judge George Bush’s personal piety, but I don’t see Christ in his politics.
Chong conflates the war on terror with war in Iraq and hopes you don’t notice the subtleness of the admixture. Maybe he learned this from Bush’s (Carl Rove’s?) clever implications that Saddam Hussein sponsored 9/11 without actually spelling out his name. Chong compounds his conflation by then saying the critics of “the war and/or the Administration” (he must mean Iraq, for that is where the Commander-in-chief has “decided” to fight) “would literally like to see us lose” (the War on Terror). Do you see the insidiousness of conflation?
The emotion of Chong’s eloquence, when the narrowness (the error) of his plea is undressed, becomes an indictment of all Americans who won’t panic. Chong serves as a surrogate for those who preach that if we continue to lose in Iraq, our country is done for. If we believe this, we deserve the prediction. How does he think such pessimism can bolster our resolve to resist terrorism?
His argument is eloquent half-wisdom, which under its wrapping harbors purblind misdirection. I don’t think we have heard the end of it though.
Labels: George W. Bush, Iraq war, Terrorism
posted by Doug at
3:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home