Hawks vs. Doves

I hear conservatives argue repeatedly that progressives are soft because they don’t want war. While this is an ironic misstatement, since most progressives I know to this day still believe the war in Afghanistan was the right thing to do, there is merit to the argument that for progressives, war isn’t our first course of action. We believe, and rightly so, that it is a last resort.

For those who say that not wanting war is considered being ‘weak’, I argue that just because conservatives want war doesn’t make them good at it.

Case and point, of course, is Iraq. Read an excerpt from a “strategic communications” report written this autumn by the Defense Science Board, “a Federal Advisory Committee established to provide independent advice to the Secretary of Defense."

On “the war of ideas or the struggle for hearts and minds”, the report says, “American efforts have not only failed, they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended”.

“American direct intervention in the Muslim world has paradoxically elevated the stature of, and support for, radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single digits in some Arab societies.”

Referring to the repeated mantra from the White House that those who oppose the US in the Middle East “hate our freedoms”, the report says: “Muslims do not ‘hate our freedoms’, but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favour of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing support, for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states.

“Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy. Moreover, saying that ‘freedom is the future of the Middle East’ is seen as patronizing … in the eyes of Muslims, the American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. US actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self-determination.”

The way America has handled itself since September 11 has played straight into the hands of al-Qaeda, the report adds. “American actions have elevated the authority of the jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims.” The result is that al-Qaeda has gone from being a marginal movement to having support across the entire Muslim world.

Excerpt pulled from this link

dailyKOS has a more in-depth look at this report (and a link directly to it)

Certainly the belief by Muslims that US actions are based upon ulterior motives and controlled to best serve American national interests at other’s expense is a legitimate argument.

To read more about the blatant fraud and abuse of funds in Iraq, follow this link

Josh Marshall has more follow-up here

Let us hearken back to the days of Vietnam. Professor Loren Baritz, who, in his cultural history of the Vietnam era, Backfire : A History of How American Culture Led Us into Vietnam and Made Us Fight the Way We Did (New York: W. Morrow, 1985), made the point that “an overwhelming sense of hubris led Americans, including members of the military, to the notion that as a nation we were both righteous and invincible.”

Pause for a moment here and reflect on this, please. Sound familiar? Okay. Let’s move on.

Col Harry G. Summers, Jr. (On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War (Novato, Calif.: Presidio Press, 1982)’s central thesis was that a lack of understanding of the fundamentals of military theory and strategy, and a major disjunction in the relationship between military strategy and national policy fostered a flawed approach that ultimately led to America's defeat in Vietnam.

Adm. Ulysses S. Grant Sharp who, in 1978, published Strategy for Defeat, blamed policies devised by Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara for America's defeat in Vietnam.

Current Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, the subject of a recent report on Frontline which probes in-depth into Rumsfeld’s efforts to assert civilian control of the military can be found here:

Frontline

An archive of articles from The Washington Post that began January 12, 2001 and ends with a report dated October 18, 2004, chronicles his ongoing battle to ‘rebuild’ the military, can be found here:

Rumsfeld Washinton Post Archive

Progressives care more for their soldiers' welfare than monetary rewards and are more likely to insure competent, ethical warfare practice than our hawkish conservatives brethren, and would certainly take tremendous steps toward repairing our damaged image. Progressives without military experience wouldn’t presume to be experts on warfare and tap instead the vast knowledge and expertise available to them to allow for better planning and perhaps even *shock* an exit strategy or two.

We are what Communist U.S.S.R. used to be – aggressors struggling to promote our own beliefs at the expense of others. We’re losing the hearts and minds of not just the Iraqis, but the world.

The next time some conservative calls you a ‘dove’, argue that ‘hawks’ have done a marvelous job in Iraq. Oh, and by the way, progressives *can* be against the war in Iraq and still know there’s a lot we have to do to clean it up.

The Pottery Barn principle, as Kerry once said, applies here: You Break It, You Buy It. However, only progressives are willing to shell out the time, energy, manpower and effort to do it properly, while conservatives are busy trying to hide the proken pieces under the nearest rug.