War and commitment: It runs both ways

“The people who write that kind of stuff never fight; possibly they believe that to write it is a substitute for fighting.” — George Orwell, 1938.

To fight in a war can be a test of courage; demanding other people fight while you’re safe at home doesn’t test much of anything.
This is a lesson that escapes some conservatives. In David Brooks’ column on Afghanistan last week, for instance, he quotes anonymous sources who “are worried about (Obama’s) determination ... They have no idea if he is willing to stick by his decisions, explain the war to the American people and persevere through good times and bad.”
Brooks assumes Obama can only prove he has “raw determination” by committing more troops, money and resources; if Obama stuck by a  decision to end the war, explained it to the American people and persevered despite opposition, that wouldn’t be determination in Brooks’ eyes, it would be wimpy.
War supporters have been strumming that banjo since we went into Iraq: Demanding other Americans fight and die in the Middle East is proof you’re a warrior too; calling for an end to war is proof that you’re gutless.
In 2006, a number of columnists pushing for war against Syria and Iran said doing so was “strong” while opposing war was “weak” and “quivering.” After all, those pro-war columnists were sitting there, right at their keyboard, telling other people to fight — didn’t that PROVE how strong and heroic they were?
In the same heroic spirit, pundit Hugh Hewitt informed a critic — who’d said it was easy to talk tough on Iraq an ocean away from the front lines — that he was on the front lines just as much as our soldiers.
There are plenty of war supporters who don’t posture like this, but Hewitt’s not the only warmonger apparently convinced that he’s as courageous as if he’d earned a Purple Heart or a Silver Star on the battlefield. It’s that attitude that gives us bloggers insisting that al-Qaida is a more terrifying threat than the USSR or Nazi Germany: That makes them part of the most thrilling, epic battle in America’s history, even if they’re fighting at their keyboards.
It’s why we have columnists Tom Friedman and Jonah Goldberg arguing that invading Iraq was justified because waging a war every so often will teach the rest of the world to be afraid of us — the machismo of school-yard bullies (or more accurately, the bullies’ lackeys and suck-ups).
It’s why we had the constant refrain during the Bush years that we have to “stay strong” and avoid a “failure of will” because as long as we were strong and determined to keep fighting we couldn’t lose. Seven years after we supposedly won in Afghanistan, you can see how well that’s worked.
All of this, of course, ducks the serious questions about whether we can win, what it would cost, and whether the cost is too high. It explains away all failures as failures of will, rather than errors of strategy: If we’d only showed determination enough, everything would have been fine.
For people whose pride is this wrapped up with our military, suggesting that withdrawal is sensible (and has solid public support) or that the war might not be winnable destroys the vision of themselves as John Wayne and Captain America combined. They have my sympathy; that must be a hard fantasy to give up.
But they need to face reality, because they’re not the ones dying for their dream.

For more from Fraser Sherman, visit his Destin Log blog.