SNATCHING DEFEAT FROM THE JAWS OF VICTORY?

With recent polls showing the American people growing weary of the war in Iraq, and now a plurality in favor of a timetable for withdrawal, I have been giving the situation a lot of thought, especially in comparison with the historical experience of the war in Vietnam (and, to a lesser extent, Korea).

Clearly, the evidence shows that the American people cannot sustain support for a war when they cannot perceive a clear victory at the end of the tunnel. This was true in Korea, and even more so in Vietnam. The definition of success in a low-grade, anti-insurgency type of conflict is usually shaded in gray, when the average American prefers black and white scenarios and solutions (think WWII). Any attempt to quantify success is almost inevitably undercut by the images being beamed into their homes by the mainstream media. This was clearly the case in Vietnam, when Americans were told that the political and military objectives were being met, while they were seeing pictures of napalmed Vietnamese children running down roadways and the U.S. embassy under siege and, of course, the flag-draped caskets coming home. (Remember, in WWII what the American people saw was heavily censored and, besides, they could always chart the progress of our fighting forces toward victory by moving pins on a map...objectives taken, enemy armies and naval fleets defeated...inexorably until the enemy homeland was invaded and conquered or until their government surrendered). In Iraq, the President and his people keep telling us that the political and military objectives are being met (successful elections, training of police and security forces, re-building of infrastructure, etc.) while what we see on television are the awful effects of suicide bombers (and, sometimes, the actual bombing caught on videotape) and the recitation of the number of Americans and Iraqis killed every day.

If my conclusion is correct, we cannot expect the polling trends to reverse course. In fact, we can expect the trend to continue until only the hardcore pro-war base is left (I don't know what that number is, but my guess is that it would be around 30-35%). This is, of course, assuming that the negative images continue to come out of Iraq, even after the new permanent government is elected (which I fully expect to happen).

The tragedy of this scenario is that once again America will be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. In Vietnam, the Viet Cong was nearly destroyed by the Tet Offensive in early 1968. Thereafter, most of the fighting was done by the regular North Vietnamese Army. In 1972, President Nixon began what should have been done in 1966 or '67, the truly comprehensive bombing of North Vietnam. This effort drove the North Vietnamese to the peace table. When the Paris Peace Accords were signed, the government of South Vietnam was still in the saddle. If the U.S. Congress had not cut off military aid and, especially, if President Ford had decided to use all available air assets to pound the invading North Vietnamese regular forces during their invasion in 1975, it is very possible that South Vietnam would still exist today.

Perhaps we will, at least, learn that particular post-Vietnam lesson. If a timetable for withdrawal is adopted (and that scenario just got a big push by a non-binding pronouncement from Iraqi leaders at a meeting put together by the Arab League calling for a timetable) it should be done with the understanding that American troops will not vacate the country entirely, just drawn down to a much smaller force. If there are enough American troops to prevent civil war, but not enough to provoke Iraqi Sunnis (nothing will prevent the Al Qaeda types from continuing to attack Americans) we might be able to salvage a victory.

This would not be a new scenario. We have maintained a relatively small (in comparison with the other armies) presence on the DMZ in Korea since the armistice was signed in 1953. This troop presence is designed as a trip-wire to deter another North Korean invasion. It has worked pretty well for the last 52 years. We also maintain troops in Bosnia and Kosovo to prevent the resumption of ethnic warfare in that part of the world. Theoretically, we could do the same in Iraq. How many troops would be needed and how they would be deployed is something that could be worked out by the new permanent Iraqi government and the U.S. (with input and ultimate approval from the U.N., after all, the current military presence is governed as a legal matter under a U.N. resolution).

As you can tell, I am trying to maintain a certain degree of optimism. I cannot believe that President Bush would accept a retreat from Iraq that would result in a civil war. If he does, history will condemn him as one of America's worst presidents, and, unlike the retreat from Vietnam, America will suffer the consequences in a direct and, I fear, bloody way.