Martyrs
provide a useful service. As a recruiting company commander, I knew that any perceived attack on the United States, especially one that caused casualties, would generate an uptick in enlistments. “Remember the Alamo,
Remember Pearl Harbor, the Twin Towers,” and other such jargony cultural icons
stoke the fires of patriotism, reminding us of shared loss and pain. Every
culture shares this penchant. Those in power often utilize martyrs to provide a
steady stream of recruits. When in Iraq, we watched as the “Banner-Wars”
unfolded.
Families
of those slain by a bombing would hang a large banner proclaiming their loss in
a prominent spot, often on a compound wall facing a public thoroughfare. These
public displays of grief and loss would blossom like grim flowers in
neighborhoods after an IED or suicide bomber struck. Their stark black and
white, flapping in the hot wind, served as a constant reminder of a family’s
loss to a seemingly endless conflict, and an encouragement for retaliation and
revenge.
When
we succumb to the desire for revenge or retaliation, even when it seems
justified by bad actions on the part of the person targeted, we also increase
the numbers of young men willing to throw themselves into the cauldron of
conflict. In his death, General Soleimani will continue to serve as a recruiting
poster for violent actions against a long-time foe. Hundreds will line up to
serve the cause he espoused. He will not be seen as a violent man who
trafficked in continual death; instead, he will be thought of as a noble
victim, slain in defense of a righteous cause. And in this, we make a grave
miscalculation.
We
incorrectly assume that killing a man such as Soleimani will deter future
aggression. That is not how we as humans think. Imagine our collective outrage
should an enemy successfully target a prominent public figure, be they military
or civilian. This tit for tat style of diplomacy will only prolong a seemingly
intractable conflict, serving to deepen the chasm that separates our peoples.
The killing of such a public figure will not deter further violence. The
lengthy nature of this asymmetrical conflict has provided battalions of
well-trained, battle-hardened men ready to step into the breach and continue
the fight. We should take no comfort in the relatively mild scope of Iranian
retaliation. They simply afforded us an opportunity to avoid a rapid escalation
into greater violence and death. They gave us a bit of space to reconsider our
options for future actions.
We
must give careful thought to what we want as an end-state in Iran and Iraq. We
launched this conflict with no thought to what our goals were. I participated,
in a small way, in the planning and execution of the invasion and at that time
there was no plan, written or stated, that addressed what we would do after the
invasion. At that time, our civilian leadership was chary concerning nation-building. Ostensibly we invaded in order to force out Saddam Hussein and deny
Iraq weapons of mass destruction. As a soldier in 2003, I saw first hand the
depravity with which Saddam treated his people and the remnants of his attempts
to obtain WMD. But that does not relieve us of the responsibility to secure
some sort of stable relationship with the Iraqis and begin building bridges
with Iran.
I
hope and pray that we will not settle for some sort of continual long-distance low-level
warfare with Iran. We must find other ways to interact with this country. It
took decades to sort out ways to interact with the Soviet Union, but we did so,
and they posed a truly existential threat to our nation. We must develop
creative diplomatic tools and find areas of common interest. Surely we’ve spilt
enough blood to satisfy the fires that raged after 9/11. Now we ought to turn
our hands to binding up wounds, feeding the hungry, and educating the ignorant.
The road back from entrenched hated may be long and filled with many fitful
starts and stops, but it is one that must be traveled. Let us start that
arduous journey sooner than later.
No comments:
Post a Comment