Defining victory by examining Non-Victory

Posted By Uncle Jimbo

The Victory Caucus is busy working on some ideas about what victory is in our current context, Matty O' is representing quite well. I will add my bit by providing the ground to their figure, maybe not as well as MC Escher but as I am able.

To explore victory it is helpful to know what not victory is. That is something we can frame up pretty easily, although a complete look is really no easier than it's contra.

Non-Victorians and the sub species known as the Defeateds:

Russ Feingold
John "Meathead" Murtha
F Jacques Kerry
Barack "Cakeboy" Obama (I know he wasn't in Congress, I have good reasons to include him)
Nancy "AF 3" Pelosi
Chuck "Didn't I used to be a Republican?" Hagel
Dennis Kucinich
Hillary Clinton (trust me she will join the Defeateds)
John "Breck Girl" Edwards

a
There are two flavors of Non-Victorians and they split based on the strength of their convictions. There are those true to these like Russ Feingold and Dennis Kucinich, who have consistently opposed a military effort and still believe we should disengage as quickly as possible, period. Then we have the others, the Defeateds. These folks were sharpening spears and standing in front of all available cameras proclaiming the threat posed by Sadaam was intolerable. I will give credit that at the time many of them believed in the cause and voted accordingly, but showing their true colors (the white flag) the Defeateds now consult the polls and sway with the breeze.

A vote for war should anticipate that it may not be a quick or clean thing. It should focus particularly on this possibility because war at it's best is our most horrific activity as humans. The best war will involve  the violent deaths of some and there is no way to anticipate all the exigencies that will come into play during it's conduct. There is no way to vote for a swift and successful war, and the decision to authorize one must include the possibility of a longer and dirtier fight than we would like. It must include support for victory, even a painful and costly one. If a cause is important enough to justify invading a country to depose a dictator and free tens of millions, then it is important enough for us to steel ourselves for battle.

Once a war is undertaken, a Rubicon has been crossed and the rules change. We launch an expedition and engage the enemy on their ground. We will spend the currency of war, people's lives. The lives of the enemy, the lives of our troops, and the lives of innocents will all be part of the cost of such a decision. There can be no guarantee of a victory in war, but there should be no acceptance of defeat, absent the ability to actually win. We have the possibility of victory still in front of us, but we have to prevail at home against the Defeateds in order to allow that chance.

Let's look at the tactics of the Non-Victorians, and once again they split along the convictions v. politics line. Those who can at least be respected while we disagree vehemently with them, advocate a withdrawal NOW. They feel we have no chance to win and that no one should be the last, or really the first, to die for a lost cause. Wrong, but a respectable position.

The Defeateds are trying to triangulate between their previous support when war was popular, their attempts to cut and run from those positions now that it is unpopular, and the need to appear at least slightly credible regarding the many threats we face. Good luck with that.

The Non-Victorian policy ideas include:

Immediate withdrawal from Iraq to nearby or perhaps Okinawa

Phased withdrawal by (insert date here)

Refusal to fund additional troop deployments

The Defeateds offer only weasely alternatives as they try to pander to the zeitgeist:

Non-binding (i.e. political BS) resolutions stating their disagreement with the President's attempts at victory, unless they work

The Slow Bleed

That is not leadership or service to our populace, that is cowardice. We have an executive Commander in Chief because war is not possible via continual plebiscite. Once undertaken it needs to be won or lost, not managed. We will vote again in less than two years for the executive who will command our military, in the meantime our current C in C is trying to win. Congress can decide to end the war and declare defeat, but they need to clearly and consciously make that choice, if not they owe it to our troops whose lives we risk and the country as a whole to support a policy that aims for victory.

---

Mission: To protect and promote the reputation and dignity of America's Warriors.
Join us!

Comments

Defining victory by examining Non-Victory

The Victory Caucus is busy working on some ideas about what victory is in our current context, Matty O' is representing quite well. I will add my bit by providing the ground to their figure, maybe not as well as MC Escher but as I am able.

To explore victory it is helpful to know what not victory is. That is something we can frame up pretty easily, although a complete look is really no easier than it's contra.

Non-Victorians and the sub species known as the Defeateds:

Russ Feingold
John "Meathead" Murtha
F Jacques Kerry
Barack "Cakeboy" Obama (I know he wasn't in Congress, I have good reasons to include him)
Nancy "AF 3" Pelosi
Chuck "Didn't I used to be a Republican?" Hagel
Dennis Kucinich
Hillary Clinton (trust me she will join the Defeateds)
John "Breck Girl" Edwards

a
There are two flavors of Non-Victorians and they split based on the strength of their convictions. There are those true to these like Russ Feingold and Dennis Kucinich, who have consistently opposed a military effort and still believe we should disengage as quickly as possible, period. Then we have the others, the Defeateds. These folks were sharpening spears and standing in front of all available cameras proclaiming the threat posed by Sadaam was intolerable. I will give credit that at the time many of them believed in the cause and voted accordingly, but showing their true colors (the white flag) the Defeateds now consult the polls and sway with the breeze.

A vote for war should anticipate that it may not be a quick or clean thing. It should focus particularly on this possibility because war at it's best is our most horrific activity as humans. The best war will involve  the violent deaths of some and there is no way to anticipate all the exigencies that will come into play during it's conduct. There is no way to vote for a swift and successful war, and the decision to authorize one must include the possibility of a longer and dirtier fight than we would like. It must include support for victory, even a painful and costly one. If a cause is important enough to justify invading a country to depose a dictator and free tens of millions, then it is important enough for us to steel ourselves for battle.

Once a war is undertaken, a Rubicon has been crossed and the rules change. We launch an expedition and engage the enemy on their ground. We will spend the currency of war, people's lives. The lives of the enemy, the lives of our troops, and the lives of innocents will all be part of the cost of such a decision. There can be no guarantee of a victory in war, but there should be no acceptance of defeat, absent the ability to actually win. We have the possibility of victory still in front of us, but we have to prevail at home against the Defeateds in order to allow that chance.

Let's look at the tactics of the Non-Victorians, and once again they split along the convictions v. politics line. Those who can at least be respected while we disagree vehemently with them, advocate a withdrawal NOW. They feel we have no chance to win and that no one should be the last, or really the first, to die for a lost cause. Wrong, but a respectable position.

The Defeateds are trying to triangulate between their previous support when war was popular, their attempts to cut and run from those positions now that it is unpopular, and the need to appear at least slightly credible regarding the many threats we face. Good luck with that.

The Non-Victorian policy ideas include:

Immediate withdrawal from Iraq to nearby or perhaps Okinawa

Phased withdrawal by (insert date here)

Refusal to fund additional troop deployments

The Defeateds offer only weasely alternatives as they try to pander to the zeitgeist:

Non-binding (i.e. political BS) resolutions stating their disagreement with the President's attempts at victory, unless they work

The Slow Bleed

That is not leadership or service to our populace, that is cowardice. We have an executive Commander in Chief because war is not possible via continual plebiscite. Once undertaken it needs to be won or lost, not managed. We will vote again in less than two years for the executive who will command our military, in the meantime our current C in C is trying to win. Congress can decide to end the war and declare defeat, but they need to clearly and consciously make that choice, if not they owe it to our troops whose lives we risk and the country as a whole to support a policy that aims for victory.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfadb53ef00d8351944ec69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Defining victory by examining Non-Victory: