Once upon a time, there was a mighty nation. So powerful was its military, its economic, and its political muscle that its rule could be–and was–exported the world over, regardless of the willingness of the importer. The nation had many far-flung interests, some directly under its control and others in a more of a “sovereign-but-depedent” relationship.
One of its overseas interests surprised this nation, rebelling over the nation’s repressive policies. Our protagonist was taken aback; it was utterly shocked to learn that its policies were construed as repressive. So naturally, the nation brought its foreign province to heel with an iron fist…
…and that’s when all hell broke loose.
This reads like a corny little allegory, I know, except it’s not: it’s actual history, and it applies equally well to ancient Rome, 18th, 19th and 20th century England, colonial France and Holland, and modern day America.
Didja catch that last name in the list? Americans like to think of ourselves as the underdogs who stuck it to the British with the Boston Tea Party and then some, and we often times forget that we’ve grown up a bit these last 231 years. As for our foreign interests, we may not call them “colonies,” but let’s face it: between our economic might and gunships, we don’t need to. Mix in an infestation of CIA operatives, and the foreign nation in question, whether it’s Iraq, Panama, or Guam, is as good as the 51st state.
But a refusal to learn from history is not our leader’s worst sin. Worse even than that cardinal faux pas is that at home, he refuses to acknowledge the error in judgment. Instead, his team obfuscates the difference between progress and results.
“We’re making progress in Iraq.”
“We’re making progress against al Queda.”
“We’re making progress in the war on drugs.”
We should take comfort in all this progress? We should wear it like a blanket, resting our worried minds that progress will keep us safe–that the next tactical victory will spell the end to all our problems? We should accept progress as the ultimate reassurance and fork over blind faith in our leadership in return?
Maybe we should remember back to high school algebra when we learned about asymptotes, and how sometimes, you can approach something forever without ever arriving at your destination. Maybe we should remember that there is no nation here with whom to sign a treaty, and no one to enforce an agreement even if one is signed. Our future, if we continue to fight, will look like Israel and Palestine. That would be progress? The proverbial runner who, every second, closes half the gap between him and the runner in front of him is forever making progress, but he can never win; no matter how long he runs, he is destined to lose.
Now don’t get me wrong, it’s not that I don’t think progress is important. In fact, I have fought on the side of measuring progress over absolute results myself, most notably during my freshman year of high school, when my gym teacher graded performance in the mile run by straight time, rather than by how many seconds we shaved off our initial trial run. In that case, I moved my gangly, 14-year old frame 5,280 feet in 6 minutes–a full 2 minutes faster than my trial and fast enough to make me barf at the finish line–but I still got a B. Believe me, I argued on the side of progress!
Then again, that was gym class, and this is war, and progress is no longer good enough.
But let’s not stop there; I don’t wish to leave this diatribe resting on the unstated assertion that our current president wouldn’t know an asymptote from a handbag, or that he is mentally underqualified for the job, for two reasons: first, I have no need to leave the assertion unstated. I have seen enough footage of the man to know that he is, in fact, in over his head in his current role. This man would make an excellent commissioner of baseball… when ESPN interviewed him a few years ago about baseball’s steroids scandal, he spoke intelligently, knowledgeably, and with a passion that is sorely lacking from his comments as Commander in Chief, which are marked by the awkward pauses, misuse of words, and empty conviction that are the hallmarks of one hoping to bluff his way through an oral exam. Secondly, whatever we may say about Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, and other current and former WH insiders, while potentially misguided or immoral, or in at least one case, apparently soulless, have been anything but stupid.
What this means is that we have to assume that the misdirection–the willful substitution of important metrics with meaningless ones–has been purposeful, and in that case we must ask: to what end?
It could be ego, plain and simple. Perhaps these men truly believed what they were saying, so much so that they were blind to alternative possibilities. It happens–more often than people like to realize. It could be that we had a “Confederacy of Dunces” scenario, where a tragic compounding of many small errors leads to one colossal mistake. Or, maybe there has been a greater strategic goal here. A map of Iran suggests that possibility. We have invaded the nations on either side of Iran (though most Americans don’t know this… as a nation, we can barely find ourselves on a map let alone worry about Persia) and left occupying forces on her eastern and western borders. So while we look at “Imonajihad” and say, “This guy is nuts!” (which he is), we forget that there is also one small sliver of predictability in what he’s doing and saying, and that is the part where he reacts like a rat cornered by his American adversary. That piece is predictable because that’s exactly what the administration has done–whether by accident or on purpose, they’ve cornered him. Only time will tell if we have the power now to take the next step, whatever that might be, or if with Iran, “progress” will all we will be able to achieve there, too.
Unfortunately, whatever happens next, we have already lost. Just as those other mighty nations mentioned above learned, picking a fight with a smaller adversary elevates the status of the adversary, it also and opens us up to attack from other, stronger frenemies who have heretofore been sitting on the sidelines. One such potential American frenemy is a country whose name rhymes with “Dinah;” another, with “crush ya.” Both have been active, flexing more economic might than military might, but still, by depleting our military, economic, and political capital on a war we can’t possibly win, we have opened a door for them.
What a shame. Maybe our next administration, regardless of which side of the aisle s/he comes from, will get this right.
