Iraq's new direction

Over the weekend, an estimated 50,000 anti-war protesters gathered in Washington in order to express their opposition to the war in Iraq and demand immediate withdrawal of US troops from the region. Headlining the event was none other than Jane Fonda, referred to by the nickname “Hanoi Jane” by millions of resentful Americans because of her sympathy to the North Vietnamese communists during the last unpopular American conflict. Signs were carried by the self-proclaimed “peace activists” with demands to “Get out of Iraq now” and “I voted for peace.”

Behavioral psychology informs us that if you want something repeated, then reinforce it. Parents learn to reward their children with privileges or cash if they successfully accomplish something. Teachers learn to “catch students being good” and praise them or provide other tangible rewards in order to hopefully produce more of the good behavior. Unfortunately, the same is true for bad or undesirable behavior. What do you think will happen if, in order to pacify a screaming toddler in a store, a frustrated mother caves in and buys the toy or the candy bar? The child’s misbehavior has been rewarded and reinforced, and he will repeat the tantrum to a worse degree the next time. If you want more whining, just give the whiner what they want.

The Jane Fondas of this world learned something about their Vietnam experience. Organize anti-war rallies, praise the virtues of the enemy, criticize the brutality of US troops, use the media to create the image that the war is unwinnable, even when victory is at hand. Execute this strategy using beautiful stars as spokespeople. Slander American presidents as evil liars and murderers. Guess what? The United States lost in Vietnam not because Gerald Ford evacuated the troops from Saigon in 1975, but because Congress refused to provide any additional funding for the war effort.

If you want behavior repeated, simply reinforce it. The previous paragraph could be applied equally to the “peace” crowd in both 1971 and 2007. All we have to do is sit down and come to an understanding of our enemy, adherents of the “religion of peace.” Assert that the US military is not peopled by sacrificing servicemen and women who are trying to rebuild a democratic nation, but by torturers and abusers at places like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. Introduce legislation in Congress to cut off funding for the war effort. Above all, lay all the blame upon President Bush. And when he’s out of office, take no responsibility for what happens for the decision to abandon the fight, just say “It wasn’t our decision—I voted for peace.’

Things looked pretty bleak for the American soldiers in the winter of 1777-78. Certainly the Loyalists/Tories advocated for “peace.” George Washington had generals who were actively and openly questioning his ability to command and to win, and making their case to the Continental Congress. What if they had only given “peace a chance?” Things also looked bleak in the fall of 1862. No Union general seemed willing to prosecute the war to win. Even with the fortunate discovery of Lee’s battle plans at Antietam, McClellan refused to take advantage of his victory in the single bloodiest day in the Civil War and pursue the enemy into Virginia. Lincoln’s management of the war was publicly criticized and he received personal attacks that were worse, incredibly, than those President Bush receives. What if they would only have given “peace a chance?”

Nobody in the modern world is pro-war. The days of the battlefield being a place of glory are a thing of the past. But when an enemy who is hell-bent on making you submit to their religion or die declares war on you, what is the cost of “peace?” You either fight the war you did not wish for and defend your citizens, or you refuse to fight (“peace”) and surrender your freedom. In Iraq, if the enemy perceives that American citizens cannot stomach the fight, then their aggression will be reinforced. They will assume that America cannot tolerate 3,000 deaths, and will do anything to live—including surrender and run away.

In the State of the Union address this past week, President Bush indicated that he has directed an increase in troop deployment (the “surge”) to secure Baghdad and the Anwar province. If this fails, it will in all likelihood mean that our troops will be brought home and Iraq will be abandoned to civil war or to being overrun by Iran. Instability in the region will drive up energy prices, causing a cataclysm on the world’s economy. Israel’s security will be threatened. But who cares? At least no more American blood will be shed for one of Bush’s lies. At least we in America will have peace.

UPDATE: A recent poster questioned whether the enemy actually declared war on America. This is a bit of semantic dissembling that implies that "Al-Qaeda attacked us on 9-11, not Iraq" and that the war is justified against them alone. Remember how John Kerry used to say "He (Bush) took his eye off the ball" by not going after bin Laden and instead going after Saddam Hussein? The "enemy" is not just one terrorist group in caves somewhere along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. The enemy is far broader than that. Follow this link and see when "jihad" was declared against America and by whom. Are we going to take their declaration of war seriously or not?