How To Stop A War

Mitt Romney dropped out of the Republican Presidential race today, stating, "In this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."

A surrender to terror?

Surrendering to terror is when you allow terrorists-- or the perceived threat of terrorists-- to interfere with the flow of your everyday life. When you get all worried and flustered with fear that you or your loved ones might get blown up by a bomb, you've surrendered to terror.

It is with that in mind that I challenge Mr. Romney's reasoning for dropping out of the race, leaving John McCain the heir apparent to the Republican nomination this fall.

McCain's stance on the war, taken from his web site, is as follows, verbatim:

We face an enemy that has repeatedly attacked us and remains committed to killing Americans and the destruction of our values. This election is about who is best prepared to lead and defend our nation and its global allies as Commander-in-Chief from day one. This election is about making sure we have the experienced leadership to guide us to victory in this war, protect the nation against future terrorist attacks, and support our troops and first responders who are on the frontlines of the war. This election will decide whether we choose to fight or announce surrender. It will decide whether we have a president who dangerously weakens U.S. security or strengthens it; whether we will flinch and retreat or fully engage the enemy on multiple fronts. We need decisive leadership with the vision and experience to guide our country and the world through this challenge. Having a courageous Commander-in-Chief who is willing to lead us in this war, rally our democratic allies and defeat our enemy to secure a broader peace is what's at stake in this election. (emphasis mine)

I underlined three things in his policy statement, that I'd like to take issue with:

1. VICTORY: Victory in war is an outmoded concept, and a short-sighted view of what the war even means. What does "victory" in the Iraq war mean exactly, Mr. McCain? The establishment of an American-style democracy in Iraq? That's never worked before. For most of the country's history, Iraq's presidents have been authoritarian dictators occupying an office without a clearly designed constitutional structure. Such presidents exercised all power single-handedly, operating only with the consultation of a small cabinet. Government after government has been overthrown, even prior to Saddam Hussein's accession to power. So what makes us think that we can come in and snap our fingers, and age-old differences between Iraqi power brokers is simply going the way of the wind? How long will we have to occupy Iraq to ensure they play by the rules we set up for them? Iraq is a failed state: its central government is so weak or ineffective that it has little practical control over much of its territory. We plunged it into civil war, and our soldiers are dying there. What do we "win" with "victory?" What's in it for the USA?

2. FULLY ENGAGE THE ENEMY ON MULTIPLE FRONTS: The war in Iraq, which is not against Iraq, but against insurgents, began as a political smokescreen to divert the attention of the American people away from our inability to capture Osama bin-Laden. Our failed war in Afghanistan was met with a failed war in Iraq. Now Mr. McCain wants to engage the enemy (singular), but on multiple fronts? Sounds like Mr. McCain defines "the enemy" as "our many enemies." We could go to war with Iran to get everyone's minds off the debacle in Iraq. What next? Venezuela to forget Iran? North Korea to forget Venezuela? "Do things our way or die" is not an instrument to peace. Previous American leaders effectively dealt with crazies like Muammar Qaddafi, Fidel Castro, Francisco Franco and Idi Amin, all without going to war with them. I don't Mr. McCain has any interest in pursuing peace with our enemies. I think he genuine wants to stay in a perpetual state of war. Maybe it's a holdover from his POW days-- I wasn't in 'Nam, I don't understand.

3. TO SECURE A BROADER PEACE: Again, a reductionist and short-sighted statement. How can one "secure" peace in an unstable world with factions and interest at impasses over limited and fixed resources and borders? A broader peace? Fighting to achieve peace, with all due respect, Mr. McCain, is like fucking to achieve virginity-- it won't work.

So... how do you stop a war? Both Democratic candidates have said they'll bring our troops home. And now that it looks like the only Republican choice will be John McCain... if you want an end to the war, you'll simply have to trust Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.