Page 2 of 2 The general and the trap
By Ira Chernus
myth holds broad appeal across the political spectrum. Millions debate the
question of military success because they want to know whether they should, or
can, still believe that America is the champion of order and stability in a
dangerously unstable world. Asking "Did the surge work?" is a symbolic way of
asking not only "Can America be a winner?" but "Can the stories of the America
we once knew and loved still work?"
When the charismatic general, known to colleagues as "King David" Petraeus,
comes before the cameras with his charts and statistics to "prove" that
violence levels are lower, and so that the "surge" has worked, he will once
again dangle the sweet smell of success before Congress. As soon as the pundits
and the public get a whiff of that bait, it's not just conservatives who will
be sorely tempted to swallow it, regardless of what they know is happening in
Iraq. If Petraeus can offer anything that might look like plausible
evidence of "progress toward stability", or even the possibility of progress,
the whole web of patriotic myth and symbolism will automatically kick in and
the usual spell will be woven.
If Democrats and war critics go on the counterattack against the "surge"
success story, they will keep that mythic drama on center stage in the theater
of political battle. No matter how logically persuasive their arguments may be,
they will ensnare themselves in the general's - and so the president's - trap,
because they will make America and its cherished myths look like losers. And
that may very well end up making the Democrats losers.
Just check the latest polls on the presidential race. McCain is basing his
campaign on unstinting support for Bush's war and his economic policies, both
of which are resounding failures, especially among moderate and independent
voters. Yet he is running roughly even with both Clinton and Obama, and some
polls even show him ahead.
How could this be? The polls show that most voters do indeed oppose the war and
think that the decision to invade Iraq was a mistake. Yet they also reveal that
more Americans trust McCain than either Clinton or Obama to make the right
choices on Iraq (and on national security in general). McCain scores
particularly well on these issues among independents.
As the mainstream media touted "reduced violence" in Iraq in the second half of
2007 and early 2008, the level of support for McCain's "no surrender" policy
rose steadily. McCain's campaign survives, and thrives, only by ignoring
reality and relying on its mastery of a language of American identity centered
on the symbolism of an American "good war". Any debate about military success
in Iraq, however contentious, keeps his strong suit in the spotlight.
Escaping the general and the trap
Yes, the Democrats might win by making military success or failure in Iraq the
central issue of the coming election - if Iraqi violence continues to rise. But
that violence would have to go on rising until election day (or the
McCain-boosting "success" image would once again kick in). It's a big gamble
that depends on factors utterly beyond their control and it threatens to leave
them trapped in a narrow corner.
Of course, Petraeus has trapped himself in a corner too - and Bush and McCain
are there with him. They must also wait for events largely beyond their control
to unfold, helplessly bobbing like corks on the tides of Iraqi violence.
The Democrats, however, can turn General Entrap-Us into General Entrapped by
refusing to treat the issue of military success or failure as the central
question of the moment. The fact is: the competing sides in Iraq have always
been ill-defined and constantly shifting. Once the Sunni insurgency started
there in 2003, no one has ever been able to say what an American victory might
really mean. It's no small truth that "success" in an Iraq where even Petraeus
can't imagine "victory", might well prove more damaging than any failure.
Wise Democrats would heed the words of media critic Norman Solomon: "Arguments
over whether US forces can prevail in Iraq bypass a truth that no amount of
media spin can change: The US war effort in Iraq has always been illegitimate
and fundamentally wrong." The longer we stay in Iraq, the longer we perpetuate
the wrongs we have done, regardless of whether we achieve military success by
anyone's measure.
We are uninvited intruders in Iraq. We invaded the country on false pretenses.
It's long past time for us to admit that truth and leave. The longer we stay,
the longer we tell the world that invasion and occupation are okay with us, and
the longer we leave America's moral reputation around the world in tatters.
When our troops leave, we will set an example for countries that have occupied,
or might be tempted to occupy, other lands. And we can begin to heal from our
moral bankruptcy, not to mention our impending financial one.
If Democrats take that approach, they will shift the terms of the debate. Then
they can speak truths about the war that the American people might be prepared
to understand. They can pose hard questions - and not ones of military strategy
either - that the administration simply cannot answer. That would push war
supporters deeper into their self-made trap whose tripwire is the irrelevance
of their quest for military success.
But neither Democratic candidate for president is likely to take such an
approach. Both argue that the US should remove some substantial number of
troops from Iraq (though not all), and cut back military expenditures in Iraq,
so that we can spend more and fight more on other fronts. Their arguments are
all about the most "effective" ways to protect what are always termed "American
interests" around the world. Some dare call it empire, though in any
presidential campaign that word will be politely avoided.
Criticism of the US military is politely avoided, too. The candidates compete
with each other to see who can offer the most fulsome praise of "our troops",
while heaping all the blame on the feeble Iraqi government of Prime Minister
Nuri al-Maliki.
As long as the Democrats are committed to sustaining a neo-liberal imperial
project, they have to try as hard as the Republicans to revive the myth of
American troops as a force for global stability. The bipartisan guardians of
empire need that myth to mask their economic and political goals - if only to
keep the public paying the exorbitant bills.
The Democrats have already demonstrated that they value a myth of American
stability even above winning the presidency. Think Florida in the weeks
following election day 2000. In the months preceding election day 2008, they
may very well make the same choice again, and that would be tragic.
With the polls showing that many Americans may consider voting for the
war-makers even while opposing the war itself, this year's election offers a
rare opportunity to confront the difference between symbol and reality. It's
time to insist that war should be seen not through the lens of myth and symbol,
but as the brutal, self-defeating reality it is.
Ira Chernus is professor of religious studies at the University of
Colorado at Boulder and author of Monsters To Destroy: The
Neo-conservative War on Terror and Sin. He can be contacted at chernus@colorado.edu.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
