Two For Flinching

I think that there are many people who fail to remember the lessons of their childhood. Remember that big kid who used to prowl aggressively around the playground, suddenly thrusting himself toward some unprepared kid who would then flinch away from the faked rush? The bully would then claim his prize by proclaiming “two for flinching” as he pounded two punches into the shoulder of his victim. This process was repeated day after day during our youth until most of us learned that flinching is undesirable and inevitably leads to more pain than one seeks to avoid by flinching. I say that most of us learn this lesson, not all. Some of the ones who don't learn this lesson find another solution. They get elected to Congress.

What happens when a country flinches? What happens when we back away from a course of military action we pursued to topple a brutal dictator and his regime in order to close down the terrorist training and support that has been going on there for decades? The answer is that the bully returns to prowling the playground, seeking new victims to harass, intimidate and attack. The problem with this is that bullies are never satisfied and they continue to expand the amount of territory they patrol in search of victims. In the Middle East, we are dealing with bullies with a global reach.

The bullies are preparing. They are gearing up. But they are doing it quietly. You see, the playground monitor, the United States, has said that she may go inside as of a certain time and that the children must play nicely after she leaves. The bullies are waiting. They would be foolish to attack when they can simply wait a very short time to be the dominant force on the playground. If anyone believes these bullies will be satisfied with controlling their little corner of the world, they are in serious denial.

It has been said that the only thing that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing. Now our Congress proposes that our good men and women change from doing something to doing nothing. Senator John McCain said that this looks familiar. I quite agree. I remember the backlash of our last highly unpopular war.

I remember being concerned for the safety of my brother and brother-in-law as they served on the USS Newport News, often within range of small arms fire from the shores of Viet Nam. I also remember the protests here in the States. They started the same way as these protests. The protesters were opposed to the war, not the troops. But little by little, the protests came to be directed at the troops. In the end, people on the street were openly spitting on our own troops home on leave. Many of the people running our government today were among those in the colleges at that time. I think it is easy to correlate their behavior during either period by examining their behavior in the other period. Those opposed to that war want us out of this war, and vice versa. And even back then there were portions of the population who hadn't learned from our country's history.

In 1945, about the time our Marines invaded a little place called Iwo Jima, the citizens of our country had grown tired of war. They were tired of the rationing, the casualty lists, the appearance of the telegrams heralding the injury or death of countless young men. Incidentally, I find it ridiculous that the American media continue to report the death toll from Iraq as if it were monstrously immense. The death toll from the first day of the battle for Iwo Jima was far larger than the total for the entire time we have been engaged in Iraq, including Desert Storm.

Anyway, the American population of 1945 was ready to curtail World War II and bring our troops home. The arguments were the same then. Detractors of the war pointed to the cost, the casualties and the victory in Europe as reasons to stop the fighting. After all, the Italians and Nazis were whipped and the Japanese were back within their own island group, right?

Thank God that generation didn't flinch! Can you imagine how different the world would be now if Japan had been allowed to retreat with its military might still intact, it's phony, bastardized Samurai code still in force and Hirohito still in power? The Pacific might still be closed to gaijin.
Desert Storm had its detractors as well. There were the usual doves. There were also those claiming an outbreak of “US Imperialism” with their slogan “No Blood For Oil”. Fortunately there were enough Viet Nam veterans like my brother still around to build support for us. Due to their influence and the overwhelming success of our air campaign coupled with General Schwartzkopf's lightning strike offensive, things changed rapidly at home near the end of the war.

By the time we got home, there were parades everywhere in our honor. Television shows and specials became ubiquitous. During all this adulation, I kept wondering where all of this glory and celebration had been when the Viet Nam veterans came home. Where was my brother's parade? Why did my brother-in-law not appear on TV? However, there was a problem that nobody seems to talk about. We flinched.

That's right! We are in Iraq now because we flinched at the Euphrates . We wanted to court world opinion and we flinched. We could have been much more successful on the heels of our air campaign and that infantry blitz. The Republican Guards were surrendering to our news crews, and we wasted that momentum. The reason given was that there was no viable successor to Saddam Hussein. In World War II, did we have successors lined up for Mussolini, Hitler and Hirohito?

I guess I just answered my own question. What happens when a whole country flinches is something like Iraq. Oh, look at your reaction! Two for flinching!