Losing David Broder and Two Generals in One Week

David Broder, respected among the wonks and policy geeks among us, has sidled up to the prospect of changing course in the Middle east. Some might say that he hasn't merely sidled up, but snuck his hand under the sweater and copped a feel. Maybe the relationship isn't consummated yet, but the windows are mighty steamy, if you know what I mean. In a recent column for the Washington Post he reminds us that overwhelming victory isn't always mandatory.

No one sane thinks that we should have stayed on in Korea or Viet Nam, even though we didn't win either of those conflicts. In the case of Korea, the peace has held and in the case of Viet Nam, after Saigon fell, communism did not spread through the Philippines and the Pacific Islands to threaten Australia. But I remember being taught the propaganda of the "domino effect" in my classrooms as a child. Communism was godless and evil and if called upon, it was the duty of every last one of us, male and female alike to do our part to defend our home and country. Many would die in the inevitable coming conflicts, we were told; but defeat and capitulation would not be options.

Now a faulty foreign policy on the part of the United States is to blame for the newly emerging problems with NorK, and a new US Embassy has been built in the united Viet Nam...In Hanoi.

Then late in the week, General John Abazaid and General Peter Pace appeared before the Senate and told the Senators that the violence is as bad as it has ever been in Iraq, and that civil war seems the most likely outcome. Senator McCain (whose 18-year-old son just enlisted in the Marines and could be in Iraq within a year) compared what is happening right now in Iraq as a "game of whack-a-mole." That is the best description I can think of to describe it, and I thank the Senator for this analogy. I shall use it freely, when appropriate.

Here is the thing: Guerilla warfare always has the advantage over a conventional force. The guerrillas are hidden, the conventional forces are visible. Guerrillas are fast and mobile, conventional forces are slow and sluggish and require semi-permanent support installations at the very least. Guerrillas usually have the sympathy of a local population. Given that they have no traditional supply lines, and no chow halls, local support makes a guerrilla insurgency possible. In fact it has a dual effect - not only do they tend toward support for the guerrillas in their midst, but they foment an air of non-cooperation with the occupiers among that population.

Think about it. What would you do if it was happening here? Would you greet invaders as liberators, or would you fight them with every fiber of your being until victory or death, whichever came first? I know the answer when I am asked...I would fight, and never stop. Not until the last invader left my soil or the last breath left my body.