What does change mean? - 1.22.2007.2

I have been listening for months now and I have a question. Since shortly before the mid-term elections of 2006, there has been a cry to ‘have a political solution’ to the war in Iraq. There have been calls to end the war because it has been going on for too long. There needs to be a ‘change’ in our policy. And so on.

I want to consider each of these demands. The first I have to question is the political solution. Can anyone mention to me a single war, or even a conflict, that has ended solely via politics? Seriously, just name one. The American revolution, The French revolution, The American Civil War, Viet Nam, Korea, WWI, WWII, The Six Day War, the IRA vs. Britain, and everything else. None have ended due to political action. In each it was the actual fighting of troops that caused the cessation of combat.

As I recall, in each battle there has come a point where one side realized the futility of continuing aggression and then engaged in talks. It is not the political talks that ended the conflict, just the observation that the most probable outcome of continued action would yield no further positive results. Thus one side loses and another wins, the spoils of war being divided accordingly.

In the Civil War it meant the surrender of the South. In Viet Nam, regrettably, it meant the creation of Southern Viet Nam and huge numbers of troops being constantly stationed there. With the IRA, as I understand it, it has lead to Britain making concessions; In the Six Day War Israel gained new lands. It is the way wars go. Perhaps the only case where I think there might have been a viable political cessation to fighting was with Mahatma Gandhi. Like all things there is an exception, and Gandhi was an exceptional man. Considering all the conflicts of all sizes in the history of man, I believe he is the only exception.

So all the calls to have a ‘political solution’ are just a PC, soundbite friendly way of saying ‘we give up, you win.’ At least that is what I think, and I suspect it is what those who would want us to lose are thinking as well. Oh, and by the way, what EXACTLY is a political solution? Has anyone asked what that means? Is there an example that anyone has or can point to of a political solution that has worked, or even existed?

As for those that believe a war is like a video game or a sporting match, wake up. There are no preset timeframes. There are no rules, no overtime. It takes as long as it takes. WWI was never expected to last 4 years. As I recall there was fighting still going on in isolated areas in 1947. The Civil War was expected to be over in 1 year maximum. And so on. There is no way to determine how long anyone is willing to fight for their home, religion, or beliefs. The Afghan rebels fought the Soviet Union for over a decade, if I recall correctly. War is not a game, nor can it be calculated on a checklist like a football match. It sucks, but that is the facts. To assume otherwise is to invite defeat.

Most important I must ask those who have cried for a change, what is the change. It’s easy to say ‘do something different,’ but what is that different thing? Nuking the largest cities in Iraq would be a change. Taking the country over and declaring our status as a colonizing empire is a change. Running away in defeat is a change. Instituting isolationist policies is a change. Are any of these the options we want as a nation? Are any of these the option that is being proposed by those politicians heralding the need to do ‘something’ different? It’s nice to say change; it is a far cry different to actually state what should be done differently.

Imagine a corporation selling widgets. The shareholders and a few of the Board of Directors want a change because sales have slowed; profits are not quite what they were. A new CEO is hired, drops the sale of widgets and starts selling children’s books. The scale of economies plummets, the cost of new equipment skyrockets, marketing budgets balloon, and sales are non-existent as the customer base is abandoned. Shareholders are enraged. The CEO holds a conference and says, “You wanted change, I gave you that. You never said what you wanted changed so I had to improvise. Don’t complain now that it’s not what you wanted, you should have been clear.”

I think my point is clear.

This is what I think, what do you think?