Those of us who live in rural, sylvan areas, where wetlands abound, and have hiked through swamp and marsh, understand the dangers of the wet, bog-like places that vibrate with life. Mud and silt are remarkably deep in even the shallowest ponds; and even firm ground can give way beneath one's step. While getting trapped is always a possibility for the solo hiker, wetland hiking might not pose much mortal threat, though humans' tendency to avoid such places might indicate a passed-on trait given graciously by God or evolution; and thus explains why so few die in mud up to their ears. Bayous and the Everglades are not hospitable places save for the most informed and equipped adventurers.
The etymology of the word "quagmire" most assuredly includes the history of people describing why swamps are dangerous: one can easily get stuck therein, and, at times, it is impossible to escape from their mucky grasp. (Perhaps there is a relation to quahogs, clams stuck in the mud.)
That Senator Edward Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, should once again dredge the ditches and pull up in all its frothy mass the word "quagmire" during yesterday's Senate hearings on Iraq, makes those of us wince who understand the simple facts. And the simple facts are these: The United States military, at the drop of a hat, could and can leave Iraq, even today. There is nothing military preventing them from leaving; they are not stuck in a dog-fight; they are not surrounded; they have not lost strongholds or air superiority; they have not lost the seas or the streets (though some are problematic); they are not screaming for supplies and air support. The United States controls a foreign country thousands of miles from its own shores. And, though there are pockets of difficulty in Iraq, just as there are pockets of difficulty in the United States, there is no military reason the United States is stuck, trapped, or sunk in a quagmire. For "quagmire" connotes entrapment and paralysis; and the United States is entirely in control of its own destiny in Iraq. It owns Iraq, really. And it is trying to give it back.
That does not mean that there are not socio-political reasons why the US military must not leave Iraq. I have spelled out why the US's fight in Iraq has been slow, arduous (at times) and clinical in my essay, Trees from the forest, (posted in April), and it all has to do with "regime change", which was and remains the MAIN reason the United States entered Iraq in the first place. Regime change is not synonymous with "deposing" or "toppling" a dictator; it is much more comprehensive and outcome-oriented than the simplifiers among us perceive. For to change a regime is to also install one, one that is stable and permanent. And, ultimately, the goal is to install a regime that is an ally of America's fight against its broader, more elusive and fanatical threats.
Even if we grant that the insurgency is not in its "last throes", as Vice President Dick Cheney recently said, but that the insurgency situation is escalating at worst or "static" at best; the United States is not anchored militarily by that insurgency; it is not mired down and caught in its grip. Again, the US can always leave that insurgency behind, and my guess is that it in fact will, leaving its suppression for the new Iraqi regime to handle and define. That there might remain a wildly successful insurgency active when the US does finally withdraw its troops, does not prove failure or loss, if the regime is indeed changed. But I doubt any insurgency will be wildly successful; at least as a result of US failures.
What is clear is this: that critics of the war, Sen. Kennedy tallest among them, who believe that the difficulty of regime change proves that the war is a mistake, commit the fallacy of oversimplification. The converse of their argument is that the legitimacy of the war would be proven if the war were easy. But the legitimacy of the war might be proven by its difficulty, and not disproven by it. That there are pockets of resistance, that there are reported setbacks, does not discredit the war, just like setbacks in cancer treatments, or chess playing, do not prove the illegitimacy of either medicine or Kasparov's conceding a bishop to a pawn.
This is the reality: language is abused daily in this spin-war called politics, and it is most enthusiastically abused by the Democratic Party and its minions in the mainstream media. Understanding the word "quagmire" requires not merely aptitude, but humility, for the most learned are always the humblest: they can only learn if they admit their ignorance. And the smartest among us understand that using "quagmire" to mean "something that superficially looks difficult and protracted", is an abuse of language, and is so much double-speak. It is obfuscation and prevarication; it is bastardizing Babel-speak. Don't accept it. Ever.
And do not be deceived by the fallacious "If there is no exit-strategy, how is that not a quagmire?" For it is illogical to the core. An exit-strategy is always elastic; its plasticity is always necessary to ensure survival amidst the infinite variables of life. People enter into all kinds of relationships. We do not ask, "You've entered into courtship with James; what is your exit-strategy?" We do not ask, "Doctor, now that you've opened up the patient, what exactly is your exit-strategy, considering that there are complications you did not expect?" Nor do we conclude that the doctor is in a "quagmire"; nor that he is performing an "illegitimate operation." We do not ask, "Coach Belichek, if you get pinned down deep in your end of the football field, what is your exit-strategy?" Nor do we conclude that Coach Belichek's team is stuck in the mud should he say that he does not have an exit-strategy.
Not having an exit-strategy doth not a quagmire make. In fact, following a pre-conceived idea or plan may actually create a quagmire: read Black Hawk Down and learn how rapidly adherence to an exit-strategy devolves into a quagmire.
In battle, as in life, it is the combination of rigidity and flexibility in proper balance that most often guarantees success and survival. But the rigidity of thought, its constant and intransigent pounding on the podium by Sen. Kennedy and like-minded critics, is remarkably deadening.
If you want to see a quagmire, look at the Democratic Party leadership in the Senate. Talk about going nowhere, spinning ceaselessly in the same tired ruts, grinding gears down the same abandoned roads.
Too bad they don't have an exit-strategy. (Maybe we voters can give them one.)
Contratimes
©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment