savethehumans.com
Shock therapy for planet Earth.
Back to: home last page

Despite What Some Say, We Might Actually Win This War

Printable Version

by Jason Roth

In print, I've kept generally quiet about the war. For once, I haven't had a lot to say. The conservative columnists at townhall.com and elsewhere have done an excellent job of uncovering what the mainstream media have chosen to bury. With the exception of the occasional knee-jerk attempt to insulate religion against the attack by fundamentalists (who take religion dead-seriously), the quality of conservatives' analysis has been surprisingly good. It's also been surprisingly cynical.

For the first time in several presidencies, we have an administration which has promised military action on moral grounds, and has delivered on that promise. "We must rid the world of evil," Mr. Bush has said, and after making specific (if impossible to satisfy) demands to the Taliban, he kept his promise to them, and to us.

But still some fear that we are losing this war against terrorism. Some, it seems, even believe we have already lost. On one side of the activist coin, we have hippies protesting the war. On the other side, we have conservatives protesting the lack of one. I half-expect to walk down Madison Avenue and see some guy in a suit burning a peace sign.

So why the negativity from those who, unlike the hippies, actually love their country? The answer, I believe, is that some critics are judging our success in this war by our distance from their idea of perfection, rather than by the extent of our progress.

Some critics, for example, see the infamous food drops into Afghanistan as outright surrender. If we're willing to feed our enemy, they claim, we must necessarily lack the will to win the war. What they ignore, of course, are the other things being dropped. (The things that cause pain even when they don't accidentally land on your head.)

Some bemoan the lack of bombs, or the damage we "should have" done. These criticisms have been hurled almost up to the very minute the Taliban fled Kabul.

Some conservative critics have focused on the symbolic value of our actions, but not their actual value. Admittedly, feeding your enemy is counterproductive, if not traitorous. But there are other aspects of a war to be evaluated before breaking out the burial suits or "End is Near" signs.

We live in an age of contradictions. Our attorney general says he wants to protect our security, while in Oregon he attempts to eliminate the right to euthanasia. (Don't you feel "secure" in knowing that the government can tell you when you can and can't end your life?) Our president invites terrorism-sponsoring Syria and Iran into an anti-terrorism coalition (if you can't beat 'em, join 'em?), and now approves the use of secret military tribunals. (I love it, though the "civil libertarians" will complain that it's "unconstitutional" to try the bad guys without publishing the blueprints to the bank.)

So the administration makes some mistakes while it makes progress.

The question I find so hard to believe that has evaded so many critics is: what the hell do you expect? Do you expect a philosophic revolution to occur overnight? President Bush had the testicular fortitude to order military pilots to shoot down passenger planes that flew too close to Washington. Isn't that enough? Did you expect him to nuke Baghdad and privatize roads on the same day?

The origin of the societal contradictions I mentioned is a variety of very specific places. It is the minds of individuals. These contradictions give rise to some individuals calling themselves "compassionate conservatives", so as not to convey the impression that they want to profit from their profits. At other times, their contradictions impel them to serve their enemies equal parts food and poison, so as not be accused of being completely morally self-righteous. (Rather than Spam and Spaghettios, I would have preferred we dropped some "I got bombed in Kabul" T-shirts.)

An individual possessing such contradictions should be judged by the degree to which he overcomes them and rises above them. Acting on bad premises is par for the course. Finding new ones when the bad ones don't seem to apply is honorable and courageous.

Mistakes will be made in this war. Critics, myself included, will and should continue to identify them. But to pounce upon any blunder, however small, as a sign from God that Judgment Day is near, is more than impractical. It's undignified.

If you truly believe that all hope is lost, and civilization is making its final collapse, you need only state it once for the record. The second time makes you sound like you're rooting for it.

Back to: home last page