Nonzero, Damnit

"Any rational observer would say that if the war's lost, then someone won the war," according to John McCain, "Al Qaeda will win that war." This is very insightful if you're dumb. By the same token, if buying my MacBook was a smart idea for me, I must have been ripping Apple off. Similarly, again, if Japan got rich by exporing goods to the West, the United States and Europe must have gotten poorer during Japan's great expansion.

In the real world, interactions between human beings are often other than zero sum (see Bob Wright's book). The Iraq War is, at this point, far beyond matters of "winning" and "losing." Saddam Hussein certainly lost the war, so does that mean we won? No, it means that both Saddam's regime and the American people are worse off than we might have otherwise been. There's little evidence that America's failure to accomplish its mission in Iraq is likely to lead al-Qaeda to taking over the country (as opposed to, say, a lot of factional warfare -- Sunnis versus Shiites, al-Qaeda versus Sunni nationalists, Sadrists versus SCIRI, Kurds versus Arabs) and certainly no reason to think we should keep compounding a policy error just to show Osama bin Laden that we're really, really stubborn.

Comments

Via Frank Rich:

It's not even the same al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11.

Posted by Rich | May 6, 2007 10:51 AM

Actually McCain is correct. Al Qaeda did win the war. They are now much stronger than they were prior to the invasion while the US is much weaker. Which is a very good reason not to elect a new President who wants to continue the same policy.

Posted by Ron | May 6, 2007 10:51 AM

AQ won the Iraq war in 2002. Before it even started.

Posted by CharleyCarp | May 6, 2007 10:52 AM

Does any interviewer *ever* ask followup questions--(for example: "Senator, what specifically do you mean by "winning" in this context?" or, "Mr Giuliani, could you explain exactly *why* a terrorist attack will be more likely under a Democratic president?")--or is this kind of crap just going to go unchallenged forever?

Posted by James Gary | May 6, 2007 11:03 AM

You grovel to the lord of bloggingheads.tv!

Posted by otto | May 6, 2007 11:16 AM

just once (okay, way more than once), I'd love to see a reporter ask "so, John/Rudy/Mitt/etc. how long has your head been wedged that far up you ass, anyhow?" in response to a statement such as that.

Posted by Donna | May 6, 2007 11:25 AM

Thing is, much of the pain being suffered by all parties right now is a result of overambitious war aims, and indeed, war defining.

I tend to see the conflict with totalitarian Islam as being eerily similar to the Cold War. It will undoubtedly take a long time. And undoubtedly much of the “fighting” will be accomplished via non-military means (i.e., economic development, diplomacy, propaganda, intelligence, etc.). Occasionally military intervention by the West may be called for (as in Afghanistan).

With respect to Iraq, I find myself belonging to the (no doubt dwindling) camp of persons who still believe the impetus for the original action — ending the regime of the mass murderer Saddam Hussein — was both morally justifiable and consistent with long term US geopolitical interests — but that the whole project was mismanaged with a shocking and genuinely tragic degree of incompetence. We should have, in other words, gotten in and gotten out, quickly.

Anyway — getting back to the Cold War analogy — I’ve always thought it very much an overstatement to say that the United States “lost the Vietnam War.” I state this not out of some warped sense of jingoistic American gunghoism. Rather, I state this because it’s simply insufficiently accurate to say the US lost “the war.” The right way to describe what happened to the US is that she suffered a series of bloody, tactical defeats in a single large-scale campaign (The Southeast Asian) in an ultimately successful war (The Cold).

So, I think, needless to say, Senator McCain has gotten his geopolitical sums wrong by forgetting his history lessons. The War itself is winnable, and indeed must be won. But the campaign has now become a deadly albatross, and needs to be disengaged from.

Posted by Jasper | May 6, 2007 11:29 AM

I'd quibble with your characterization of the Vietnam War, Jasper-- it sure seemed like a war in full to the Vietnamese-- but I think your larger point is very insightful.

The fact that we are engaged in a long-term political, military, and diplomatic struggle against a violent and extreme adversary does not mean that we must engage them militarily wherever we happen to be, and decline to ever withdraw from one campaign in that larger struggle.

If we had a better media, McCain would not be able to get away with these debating tactics that would seem clever for a sixth grader. The measure of our presence there isn't whether it's funner to say "victory" vesrus "loss," but rather whether it serves American interests (which include humanitarian concerns). There is no evidence that our presence is furthering a political solution or preventing a civil war-- and it may well be hindering progress on both counts.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | May 6, 2007 11:40 AM

Maybe he should check with Victor Hansen to find out that everybody lost the Peloponnesian War -- with the possible exception of Persia and Carthage, not among the original parties to the war.

Posted by Gene O'Grady | May 6, 2007 12:06 PM

One thing is certain:

McCain lost the Vietnam War.

Posted by Warrior Mike | May 6, 2007 12:09 PM

James Gary,
Who controls the media in this country? Do you really think they are gonna go against their corporate interests? Besides, it's too tough to ask follow up questions. They can't miss or be late to their cocktail weenie parties after all.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | May 6, 2007 12:11 PM

JK'sC-

Yeah, I know and agree. The meta-issue here is the depressing reality of corporate media anti-intellectualism in America. (Matt Taibbi and "The Daily Show" regularly get it across better than I ever could hope to.)

My point here (and in many other threads, both here and elsewhere) is that "debating" McCain's "position" is completely, utterly useless--you can parse till the cows some home, but there's just absolutely no content there.

Posted by James Gary | May 6, 2007 12:29 PM

Per Gene above, what I've been saying since 2003 is that the winner of the Iraq war is Iran.

We've eliminated their chief enemy (Saddam) enabling them to set up a client state next door that the US (not Iran) is supporting at US taxpayers' expense (not Iran's).

Also, they have their cheif Western nemesis (us) tanlged up indefinitely in a morass in Iraq, where despite much saber-rattling there isn't much damage we can really do to Iran despite the tough talk.

Add to all this the stupid American backing of the Israeli miscalculations in Lebanon and Palestine, which have made Iranian client groups (Hamas and Hezbollah) thrive and more popular than ever.

Additionally Iranian coffers are overflowing due to the skyrocketing price of oil due to US Saber-rattling causing market jitters, and the shutting off of Iraqi spigots.

No wonder Teheran endorsed Bush for re-election in 2004. I've always wondered why the media ignored this.

Posted by Twit | May 6, 2007 1:23 PM

Uh, John McCain has not heard of a "lose-lose" situation?

John McCain needs to get out more.

Posted by anonymous | May 6, 2007 1:29 PM

Jasper/Elvis--

Interesting discussion. I have the opinion that losing Vietnam led directly to winning the Cold War. How?

Vietnam encouraged the Russians to convince themselves that they had us on the run, that persistence and plenty of Russian largeesse would lead to Russian victories everywhere.

Consequently, Moscow went on a spending spree, propping up any and all non-viable regimes everywhere and anywhere so long as they professed hositility to the US.

On the other hand, we got 'smart' and picked certain spots to provide support to insurgencies against these regimes, rather than getting involved ourselves (as in Angola or Ethiopia).

The resulting drain on Russian capital and resources could not be sustained, turning what seemed imminent victory (as recently as perhaps 1982) to crashing collapse.

Posted by twit | May 6, 2007 1:34 PM

We should have, in other words, gotten in and gotten out, quickly.

That would have left a security vacuum in which Iran-backed Shi'ite militias would grapple with the remnants of Saddam's forces, while Saddam himself was still at large.

That doesn't necessarily make it a bad idea, but I don't think it's obviously a good one either.

Posted by David Tomlin | May 6, 2007 2:02 PM

David--

The get-out quick scenario is now the neocon non-culpa du jour. Just listen to Richard Pearle sometime.

This whole storyline, of course, involved plunking our great and valiant ally, Ahmed Challabi, into place as the supremo in Baghdad. Then all would have been perfect--why, Israelis would be vacationing at the nightclubs and casinos of Baghdad! Anyone (other than Pearle) REALLY believe this?

The best solution was NOT TO HAVE GONE IN AT ALL!

Posted by twit | May 6, 2007 2:32 PM

The follow up question to McCain is: why do you believe that a Sunni fundamentalist sect, backed by the House of Saud, can establish territorial control within a Shi'a dominated country?
As the Anbar sheikhs are showing even among Sunnis their philosophy is not favored. Al Qaeda has no place in the north or he south. So, how can it be that Al Qaeda wins?

Posted by TJM | May 6, 2007 5:17 PM