Defeat, as defined by Merriam-Webster online dictionary, is "frustration by nullification or by prevention of success" or "an overthrow[,] especially of an army[,] in battle" or "the loss of a contest." This same dictionary tells me that success may be described as a "degree or measure of succeeding" or a "favorable or desired outcome." Lastly, and most importantly, victory is "the overcoming of an enemy or antagonist." Why am I giving you dictionary definitions, you ask? The above three words — defeat, success, victory — have been used with such great frequency in respect to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that one needs to understand when and how they may be used. Politicians on each side have preferred words, of course, most notably the Democrats who hail the war as a disastrous affair with impending defeat (some claim the defeat has already happened) and the Republicans who tell the American public that the war is a success, that in some ways we have already won. How is it possible that something of a concrete and tangible nature can have two incredibly different results?
In reality, both sides are wrong. Wrong, at least, in their discussion of the war. Our government and our politicians speak of the war in past tense; their choice of words demonstrates they view the war as something conclusive rather than progressive. We cannot afford to use terms such as victory or defeat when a conflict is still occurring. It makes zero sense and it gives the American people — and the world — a false impression of what is really happening, to the point where we find ourselves confused, disillusioned or exhausted by the rhetoric.
It is no wonder the public holds contempt for the government when presidential candidates like Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who claimed in the Sept. 26 debate that "Sen. McCain, no one is talking about defeat in Iraq," still proposes on his official campaign Web site a "responsible, phased withdrawal" that alludes to a concept of "defeat with honor." Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has conceded the war has not been handled properly in the past, but in the same debate made a clear distinction between his policies and those of his opponent: "The important thing is, if we suffer defeat in Iraq — which General Petraeus predicts we will — if we adopted Sen. Obama's set date for withdrawal, then that will have a calamitous effect in Afghanistan and American national security interests in the region." In this case, we find ourselves in a precarious yet opportune situation: It is clear the war and our foreign policy strategy are at a crossroads, and, as McCain suggests, our choice in November will directly involve whether we win or lose.
McCain has repeatedly promised a victory, while Obama's camp spits out the number of casualties, the duration of the war and the pundits' pessimistic views of the conflict. All this leads me to wonder: What happened to American ambition? The desire to win? The obligation to aid others in time of crisis? The don't-stop mentality that helped us overcome slavery, communism, tyranny, fascism and oppression worldwide?
It seems whole-heartedly un-American to consistently denounce a war yet congratulate the troops upon arriving home (as the Democrats have done), and it seems even worse to suggest a withdrawal that has not been recommended by leaders on the ground — most notably Gen. Petraeus, who as early as May 2008 testified before the Senate about the benefits of maintaining American presence in the region: "[Deployment in Iraq] has the potential to counter malign Iranian influence against the government of Iraq, build common cause in the region and expose the extent of malign Iranian activities to the world." This, in addition to the promotion of democracies in the Middle East, the progression of human rights and the enhanced stability American troops have brought to volatile regions, seems to point to the fact that, despite negative words by the press, the Democratic Party and Obama, success is not only possible, but may have been achieved on certain levels already.
Our objectives in entering the war, while varied and many, included the overthrow of a tyrannical regime, the installation of democratic structures, and the protection of individual and human rights. Since the war started, we have seen the end of a malevolent empire, the crippling of insurgency operations and the rumblings of democratic dialogue and governmental foundations. It seems, then, that to evacuate at so crucial a moment is likely to cause vulnerability in the structures that the Iraqis have struggled to create with U.S. assistance and guidance, and as such will cause a tragic security vacuum. We cannot let this happen, nor can we continue to call this a defeat. Bemoaning a fate that has not occurred is the same as calling a game in the third quarter simply because it is raining. We should not — and cannot afford to — think this way.
I agree that we cannot have a dragging or unclear strategy in the area, but advances in recent months suggest that the tide will continue to turn in our favor and, if given the chance, both the Iraqi and American forces have an inevitable victory ahead of them. The American public needs to be reminded that this is not a conventional war with a conventional enemy, and that conflict in and of itself requires time, patience and determination to resolve. We owe it not only to the American people, who have waited with patient arms for their brave ones to return, but also to the persons of Iraq who yearn to see their country prosperous, independent, and, most importantly, peaceful. I guess what I'm trying to say is, give victory a chance — you'll be surprised at what you get.
--
Stephanie Brown is a senior majoring in international realtions.
