Shifting goals in war nothing new

The Michigan Partisan

By Page W. H. Brousseau IV
TIMES STAFF WRITER

With as much enthusiasm as a gang of children at play, many Democrats gleefully point to any of the countless reasons President Bush has given since 2002 for our invasion and continual operations in Iraq and say, "gotcha." Truth be known, wars seldom maintain their original goals throughout their continuance. Political, social and strategic factors guide politicians as much as generals in any military endeavor.

The liberal intelligentsia of the country refers to the Administration's war intentions as if they caught Bush flagrante dicto, scheming to keep war going by brining up needless new war aims despite calls for troops to return home. The initial invasion was undoubtedly justified by world intelligence estimates that Iraq's nuclear program, once reconstituted, was merely a year from joining the world's exclusive nuclear club. Then there was the estimated WMD threat, weapons that the Saddam regime had used in the past and failed to prove to the UN inspectors he destroyed. There was then the dozen plus UN resolutions with which Iraq was in noncompliance, including the final one promising "serious consequences." Then there is the Persian Gulf War cease-fire. Then there was Saddam's link to global terrorism with his funding suicidal bombers in Israel and the al Qaeda ties with the Ansar al Islam base of operations in Northern Iraq, and the wounded Abu Musab al-Zarqawi recuperating in Baghdad. Lastly, there was the Congressional resolution authorizing military force.

That much is fact. Of course, WMD remain unfound. Thus, somehow Bush "lied" to lead us into a "fictitious" and "illegal" war. Believing the worse case scenario in the age of global terrorism is not a "lie," in fact, I would call it responsible to do so. Calling the prewar WMD fear of Saddam a "lie" is both intellectually dishonest and ignorant, regardless what John Dean says. A lie cannot be a lie if the parties, in this case Bush and Blair, involved believe what they are saying is true. The anti-war rhetoric built upon this "lie" continues to reach terra incognita in terms to the political hyperbole. Yet changing goals accurately reflects a changing situation, not some devious plan of world conquest.

After the end to major combat in late spring of 2003, the war in Iraq shifted dramatically both in terms of focus and prosecution. The goal of removing Saddam was complete, yet there was no law and order, or government for that matter. Iraqi police and army had to be trained and local politicians and religious leaders needed protection. None of those missions found debate in Congress during fall of 2002. Not surprisingly, politicians have said, "If I'd known there was no WMD in Iraq I would have voted differently." Other spineless pols express outrage over the amount we are spending to rebuild an infrastructure suffering from 30 years of neglect and three major wars. "We never voted for this in 2002," is on the lips of many in Washington and on the pages of many editorialists throughout the country. Nevertheless, many could learn a thing or two to look at our relatively short past to see that wars shift in direction.

America's beginning wars were about the expansion of territory, in particular the War of 1812 and the Mexican-American War. The Civil War's underpinnings emanated less noticeably from the expansion of territory, but in effect, it was. Slave states sought to expand slavery into new territories, Free states sought to contain the slave institution to the south. The victory of the Republican Party in 1860 inaugurated the disunion of the Republic.

Lincoln held firm that the Republic had to remain whole, and that states possessed no inherent right of secession. Ending slavery did not become a goal until after the battle of Antietam when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, thereby freeing the slaves living in the rebellious states. Thus, the war turned into the Crusade that the Radical Republicans so desperately wanted Lincoln to proclaim.

World War I and World War II were even more drastic in shifting goals. "The world must be made safe for democracy," President Wilson said in 1917. Hardly a more ambiguous goal in war would have been possible. Wilson's ambitious post war goals collapsed under divergent partisan rancor and an international community more determined to punish Germany than bring about a stable democratic government. Originally used for the preservation of current democracies, his "safe for democracy" spirit went with him to Versailles to create new democracies and sow the seeds of a much larger war.

Congress declared war on Japan, Germany, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Italy in WWII. Shortly thereafter, President Roosevelt and British PM Churchill proclaimed only "unconditional surrender" would be accepted. Most members of Congress widely cheered the new war aim, but Roosevelt did not consult them, nor did they need to take a vote. The most grievous and significant aim of the war was developed at the Yalta Conference of 1945. Roosevelt and Churchill made a deal with Stalin that effectively sent millions in Eastern Europe to death under the yoke of Soviet oppression. A war to defeat the Axis then became a means for Soviet expansion. That could have used some debate in Congress. President Bush has said Yalta, "followed in the unjust tradition of Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact….Once again, when powerful governments negotiated, the freedom of small nations was somehow expendable." He could not be more tragically correct.

When presidents refuse to expand the goals given by Congress, or hesitate to venture too far from the original reasons for military action, disastrous consequences can result. The 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution gave President Johnson unlimited military discretion in defending American troops and equipment in Southeast Asia. Remembering the Korean War, and hampered by a growing dove wing of his party with increasing numbers of war protesters filling the streets, Johnson was reluctant to bring total war to North Vietnam, or bomb military supply routes and staging areas in Laos or Cambodia. The result was the war stretching out for a decade with an eventual Communist takeover of South Vietnam, and millions dead both from the war and the Communist brutality.

President George H. W. Bush stuck to the script during the Persian Gulf War. When total demolition of Saddam's army was on the verge of realization, he halted the army and proclaimed a complete success of the pre-war goal of expulsion of the Iraqi army out of Kuwait. The result was that Saddam maintained enough of a military to crush insurrections in the northern and southern parts of his country. Dealing with the dictator in the post war years brings us back to the current situation.

Yes it is true, the Bush Administration said precious little about post invasion commitments. That does not obfuscate the need for the US military to remain there. We are there now, the situation there is the situation there. The issues debated three years ago are meaningless to those Iraqis striving for a free country, and our brave men and women fighting so gallantly to ensure they have it.