We are witnessing now, in real time, the construction of the Narrative that will arise to explain our inevitable defeat and (partial) withdrawal from Iraq. This Narrative, as it must, will shadow the Narrative that has taken hold regarding America's defeat in Vietnam.
Firstly, it must be said that certain types of people, such as the type of people who would read this blog, often delude themselves into thinking that their Narrative of the Vietnam War or the Iraq War is in any way similar to the dominant paradigm throughout the country as a whole. In order to understand how most Americans think about Vietnam, for example, we should not read Howard Zinn. We should watch Rambo.
The dominant Narrative of the Vietnam War boasts two villains. First, we have the natives who, despite the unending selflessness and generosity of the United States, steadfastly refuse to live up to their responsibilities and defend their own country. Second, and more central, are the liberals. Yes, the liberals, along with their elitist allies in the media, forced us to quit just as we were turning a corner and the war was becoming winnable.
The Narrative that has taken hold regarding Vietnam holds that if the Democrats and the media had been more realistic, more patient, more patriotic, more focused on the "good" news from the war zone, the war would have been won. Tet was a smashing military success for the United States and its South Vietnamese allies, yet the elitist pansies at the New York Times and CBS News found a way to portray it as a defeat, hence demoralizing the American people and making the war unwinnable.
When John Rambo is tasked with returning to Vietnam to rescue American POW's, he has one question to ask of his commander. This question sums up the Narrative with a clarity that only a punch-drunk steroid hound could muster. It is beautiful in its simplicity, in its embrace of the Narrative that we all owe it to ourselves to learn. What does John Rambo ask his government before being sent back to the 'Nam? All he wants to know is, "do we get to win this time?"
I don't have much sympathy for this perspective, but it needs to be understood, since it is happening all over again with Iraq. From my perspective, any American war in Vietnam was unwinnable by definition. Losing faith in the war after several years and countless promises of progress was less a sign of treason than of reason.
In the context of Iraq, we have heard for some time now the grumbling from politicians (I hesitate to call them anything as flattering as "leaders") about how the Iraqis need to "step up". Yes, those ingrates are going to have to learn to handle their own war and stop taking our kindness for weakness. We have been good enough to make their land the central front of a global war, and yet they seem to show no gratitude. Fucking Arabs.
So, just as in Vietnam, the natives are not stepping up. In both wars, of course, our local allies have taken far more casualties than the American military and have fought with far inferior weaponry. This does not matter in the construction of the Narrative, however, since any American failure (or crime) must surely be someone else's fault.
Our definition of "stepping up", of course, is "fighting for American interests". Why are there not millions of Iraqis flocking to fight for American interests? Because they're Iraqi, not American. And, since America will not stay in Iraq forever, the locals can perhaps be excused for placing their perceptions of their own local interests over the fulfilment of American interests.
And, just as in Vietnam, we have the liberals. I have no regard for the Democrats in Congress, and I have no illusion that their current "opposition" to the war has any trace of substance deeper than the most myopic political calculations. There is no genuine opposition to the war in the government. Since not even "the liberals" are calling for an end to the war, it is difficult to saddle them with responsibility for the coming train wreck. Indeed, the American people as a whole turned against the premise of the war long before the "liberals" caught up.
Then we have the media, with their incessant trumpeting of bad news and their studious ignorance of good news. There is a lot to be said for this. When NBC Nightly News opens its broadcast with a story about a car bomb, it does border on the surreal. What kind of way is this to report a war? It is so utterly devoid of context and proportion as to be essentially useless as "news".
Can we imagine what World War II would have been like on the home front if the top story of every day focused solely on what blew up and who was blown up with it, with absolutely no metrics of political progress or strategic objectives? For example, Iraqi Kurdistan is a smashing success by any standard. But don't we all know deep down that we won't hear a word about it unless and until shit starts blowing up there?
Despite the media's problems of perspective, they are not inventing the suicide bombers. There have been more suicide bombers in Iraq since America invaded than there were across the globe throughout all history until that point. Way more. The capital city, four years after the invasion, is the most dangerous place on the planet. If I were to walk down a street, any street, in that city, my life would be counted in minutes, if not seconds.
The danger of the Narrative, by virtue of who the Narrative seeks to blame, is clear to see. When America loses a war that it should never have waged and could never have realistically expected to "win", it attacks the very pillars of its system. We go to war to spread liberty, so we delude ourselves, and when we lose, we blame...freedom of speech and multiparty democratic representation. "Oh, if only the government controlled the media...... Oh, if only we had a one-party state..... We had this thing won, but free speech ruined it". The danger in adopting this view is glaringly obvious.
The war in Iraq is lost. The question now is what our Narrative will be. Why did we lose? Did we lose because those ingrate ragheads wouldn't know what to do with freedom if it came with printed instructions? Did we lose because those pussy intellectuals hate George Bush so much that they allied themselves with the terrorists by obligingly putting every car bomb on TV? Did we lose because the traitorous liberals gave up, as they always do, when the going got tough? Or, did we lose because we were aggressors? Did we lose because the war was illegal? Did we lose because we invaded a country we knew nothing about? Did we lose because people tend to resent being told what to do by a country that lies 6,000 miles away? Did we lose because we were.......wrong? Unless we entertain this notion, this will happen again.
No comments:
Post a Comment