Harry Reid's comment that the "war is lost" has prompted plenty of legitimate debate about what it means to "win" or "lose" a war.
Andrew Sullivan surrogate "Ross" weighs in:
Here's my question: Is there any imaginable point in any imaginable conflict where Mark Levin would admit that the United States had lost a war?
Sullivan's ability to take worldwide issues and turn them into personal pissing contests is beyond dispute - and he's found underlings to carry on in his stead while he's on vacation. (One wonders whether this factored in his leaving
Time.
The Atlantic is certainly more suited to narcissistic Eastern seaboard intellectuals.) But in this case, it's a fairly legitimate question that warrants answering rather than
dangling as a rhetorical salvo against someone who writes for a publication (
National Review) that occasionally calls you names.
That the left is winning the information battle also seems beyond dispute. Supporters of the campaign in Iraq would be well-served to figure out how to better communicate what's at stake. (Leadership from the White House here is almost non-existent. This administration's biggest failure is communication.)
It's been a mistake from the get-go to refer to what's going on in Iraq as a "war." We're guilty of it, too - just look at what category this post is in. Just as Vietnam was, this is a battle in a greater fight. We did lose Vietnam. The goal there was to stop the spread of communism, and we didn't. Many argue that the US wasn't threatened by Vietnam and therefore we shouldn't go there. But that wasn't the point. Vietnam was a battle in a greater war against the worldwide spread of a totalitarian philosophy. It was a lost battle in a war that was eventually won.
In that sense, it's been a mistake for the left to call it a "war" as well, because it provokes the fight's supporters to be more likely to dig in and refuse to allow a "loss." Who knows, we might be in the process of withdrawal from Iraq already if the Democrats had allowed President Bush to declare victory and get out, rather use the war as a cudgel to batter the president politically.
We lost the battle in Vietnam, but won the cold war. We're fighting Islamic radicalism (not terrorism - that's a tactic), and Iraq is a battle in that fight. If we "lose" - that is, come home before the objective of Iraq having a moderate, democratic government that lasts - we won't feel the negative effects right away. We've lost battles in the war against Islamic radicalism before. You could say the Iran hostage taking in 1979 was a "loss." You could say that the 1983 marine barracks bombing in Lebanon, and Ronald Reagan's subsequent pullout, was a "loss." September 11 was a "loss" in the sense that our intelligence failed to see that the Islamic radicals were prepared to ratchet up their fight.
In the 1960s, we didn't know that communism would collapse 20-odd years later, and the loss there was a tremendous blow to our psyche (not to mention disaster for a few million Southeast Asians). Those on the left who want to pull out of Iraq grossly underestimate the boost that would give to the Islamic radicals. As make no mistake about it: Like the communists, these people are evangelistic. They want to remake the entire world to reflect their bizarre bastardization of Islam. That's ultimately what's at stake.