Peace through Victory

Putting oneself in a location such as a State Fair booth, secured, as it is, from avoiding discussion with whoever happens along, can be interesting. When that booth is clearly identified as libertarian (actually Libertarian), and is conducting a poll on the question "Should the U.S. have invaded Iraq?" there are bound to be a few individuals who don't even like that such a question be raised. That was evident by the apparent grim faces of many of the YES voters. It seemed clear that some were saying, with their looks, that they felt compelled to vote YES just to counter the fools they knew were voting NO.

It is a divisive question, because it is, of course, after the fact... the U.S. did invade Iraq, which allows for hindsight. I'm sure some of the NO responders would have answered differently before the invasion took place, but what some believed would be an easy "victory" has been anything but. Some voting NO verbally added that they never believed we should have invaded.
A couple of people even objected to the word "invaded", believing it should read "Should the U.S. have liberated Iraq?". Some few others added, with their YES votes, that they "would rather fight them over there than here".

Many of those voting NO seemed delighted merely to have the opportunity to express their opinion. That's understandable, because nobody asked their opinion before invasion, and because it's an issue that many would prefer to avoid in personal discussions, because the issue is so divisive and emotional. (Incidentally, 64% of those voting at the fair voted NO... the U.S. should not have invaded Iraq)

One older man literally hurled "Peace through Victory" at me in summing up his arguments, and got me thinking about that old catch phrase. Caesar used it in expanding the Roman Empire. Although it is possible to have "victory" without war, the current usage clearly involves being victorious in armed combat. The catch phrase really means "Peace through War".

It is certainly possible to create a period of peace following a war that essentially destroys one side, or at least humbles them to the point where they are no longer able or willing to fight. It is abundantly clear to me that such a "victory" and forced peace will always be a temporary "peace", at least if there was any ideological difference as a primary cause of the war. If the defeated people continue to believe that their position, even in defeat, is still a just cause, the peace will not last. In reality, it is likely to rise again, even stronger, because their defeat will enhance their cause... deepen their anger and resistance. One classic example is the humiliation of Germany's defeat in World War I... a defeat so humbling and destructive that the German people fell prey to a dictator, Hitler, who suckered them with promise of a return of pride in themselves. The German defeat in WWI literally planted the seeds for the rise of WWII... from the same nation that had been so thoroughly defeated.

The War in Iraq cannot, even with the most optimistic result, be anything better than a very temporary peace. Nations in that part of the world have warred for many centuries, without our involvement. Our involvement there has been not only unjustified, but, coming from us as outsiders, has turned it into a religious war. Being a primarily Christian nation, our invasion of Iraq has become seen as an attack on the Muslim world, creating long-term resentment of us. Our offensive presence there has resulted not only in resentment of us, but also in increased unity among Muslims of other nations. Within Iraq, our presence has also had the opposite effect; civil war between Muslim sects. By showing favoritism in trying to balance competing interests, U.S. presence has caused immense resentment. Even in nations where the government is oppressive toward its citizens, it does not follow that the citizens will welcome outside military interference.

By the end of WWII, the United States and Allies seemed to have learned that simply crushing an enemy will not insure peace, and provided extensive aid in reconstructing both Germany and Japan. In those cases, "Peace through Victory" might have been an appropriate slogan, but it took a lot more than just military victory to make friends of Germany and Japan. The context in Iraq, or in Afghanistan, is not at all similar to WWII. It's very unlikely that there will ever be anything that can honestly be called a victory in either of those countries. I envision that our exit from those countries will be as undignified and unsatisfying as our exit from Vietnam. It will probably be termed a "strategic withdrawal", a euphemism for unacknowledged defeat.

"Peace through Victory" is a slogan that is completely inappropriate for our escapades in the Middle East. Even if by some miracle, some sort of victory could become claimed, it will not result in peace. Our government is now seen, justifiably, as the aggressor by much of the Muslim world and even by many nations friendly to us. Once this disastrous era perpetrated by Bush and Company is over (if ever), perhaps we can learn a lesson from it. That lesson should be to keep our damned political noses at home and out of the business of other nations. That lesson can produce peace... at least for us.