Today appears to be the day of reckoning for the Iraqi War. Voters going to the polls in almost every region of the country say the war is the most important issue they will consider as they cast their ballots.
Just like the last election. The 2004 elections were decided on the war issue. In fact, the thrust of the Bush campaign then was that America should not change captains in the heat of battle. Having won on that issue last time, Republicans have tried to make the same case again, but this time the mood of the electorate may have changed.
I can understand the voter concern over the war. It is immediate; it is on television every night; it is a major focus in American foreign policy. Unfortunately, this romance with war has once again kicked major concerns to the curb, such as health care reform, global warming, international free trade, the future of higher education, and terrorism. When is health care ever going to come to the forefront as an election issue? Not as long as there is a war to fight.
And yes, the war is pushing anti-terrorist policy to the back burner. For the Iraqi War is nothing more than a subcategory in the war against terrorism. Any time an apologist for President Bush brings up terrorism, the argument always devolves to Iraq, as if no other aspect of anti-terrorism matters. The shame of it is that we may fight an entire war to protect us against terrorism, but the war may have eaten up so much of our resources that we are more vulnerable elsewhere. Who’s to say? Republicans won’t even talk about it.
Be all that as it may, the public is right about one thing. It is time to reassess the Iraqi War. A simple survey of the major conflicts in U.S. history reveals an interesting fact. Consider the major American wars and the dates they started and ended:
Revolutionary War 1775-1783
War of 1812 1812-1815
Mexican American War 1846-1848
Civil War 1861-1865
Spanish American War 1898
World War I 1917-1918
World War II 1941-1945
Korean War 1950-1953
Vietnam War 1964-1973
Gulf War 1990-1991
Iraqi War 2002-
There were, of course, many smaller conflicts, but these are the major military engagements in U.S. history. Of note, the dates reflect U.S. involvement, not the total length of war, which in the cases of the World Wars was much longer.
Just from a superficial glance at these eras, one thing stands out. The U.S. has only been involved in two wars, Vietnam and the Revolution, that were longer than 4 years. Now the Revolution is a special case, because in 1775 there was no U.S. government to declare war, and no standing army to fight it, which explains it length. The entire Revolution was in fact a protracted guerrilla conflict.
If I were to be so careless as to cast aside all of the fine points, I could easily conclude that, taking the Revolution as an exception, the U.S. should be very wary of expecting to win a war that lasts more than 4 years. We are 8-0 in wars lasting 4 years or less, 0-1 in wars over 4 years. The only war we lost, Vietnam, was a 12-year conflict.
Perhaps a trained historian would pick me apart over this, but sometimes superficial conclusions are the right ones. The U.S. has always been a prosperous country, and we tend to bring superior technology and financial resources to bear on any war. That we would win most of our wars in 4 years or less should be no surprise.
It should, however, make us pause over our current one. If we cannot, with superior weapons and wealth, finish off a war in 4 years, there are strong reasons to reconsider our need to be in it. The Iraqi War technically began when Congress passed H.J Resolution 114 on October 16, 2002. That makes this conflict almost exactly 4 years old. There is, that I can see, no clear end in sight.
In the 1940s it took the United States 3 years and 9 months to simultaneously defeat Germany, Italy, and Japan on two separate continents. We have been in Iraq longer than that and can’t even keep the lights on in Baghdad. That alone should be grounds to consider a major strategy revision.
War is supposed to be about achieving military aims. Our military aim, the deposition of Saddam Hussein, was accomplished in 2003. Our remaining aim is social – to establish democracy in Iraq. Since this is not a military aim, it may not be achievable with military force. This elementary observation is one the current administration does not even seem to be entertaining.
It would be easy for someone to retort: “Just because we have never won a war longer than 4 years doesn’t mean we can’t.” Of course this is true, but it overlooks the empirical point that we never have won a long war. There are reasons for patterns. Perhaps we have been successful in waging war because we typically choose wars we have the strength and resources to win quickly. In our history, we have picked our fights wisely. That is, until Vietnam.
Not all history lessons have to be esoteric. The American mood is changing about this war, and the swing is happening right around the its 4th anniversary. Americans seem to have a natural sense about how long a war ought to take. God bless common sense, it may save us yet.
Now if we can just transfer some of that common sense to health care reform.