Churchill on War

Is our War against Terror working? Is there any possibility of it ever working close to the way we envision it working especially in Iraq? Are our goals of victory even feasible? It seems that this region is in constant turmoil and has been for a long period of time. Read the article below by Robert Freer to see how Winston Churchill reacted to a like situation in 1921. Was he correct in his assessment? Or if he had reacted differently would we be un this mess today?

By Robert E. Freer, Jr., President of The Free Enterprise Foundation

As all wars do, Iraq is testing the resolve and staying power of the combatants. Long wars are particularly difficult for democracies. That has been particularly true for us as to the World War Against Terror. Will power is never monolithic in a democracy. It forms in pools around the various outspoken proponents of the rainbow of opinion that thrives in our republic and in part reflects divided world opinion. The various pools of sentiment expand and shrink in concert with the war’s progress. This war has presented some particular challenges. The burden has not been evenly shared and has taken on the aura of a false war for many of our homebound citizens. Our expanding economy and our domestic freedom since 9/11 from the foreign bloodshed except in the growing casualty list makes it seem unreal to much of our population which feels disconnected from what is at stake. Additionally the relative freedom from incessant combat everyplace but Iraq has confused the public into thinking Iraq is the focus of the war when in fact we face an implacable foe with a worldwide intention to cause mayhem. Much that we don’t see or know about happens in Cyber space and financial counting houses as we fight to interrupt terror’s financial pipeline. Some time ago I wrote that we would reach a time such as this which would sorely test our staying power. While continuing to support staying to see the mission through to its end, I question what an acceptable definition of success is. If it is defined as the creation of a democracy that mirrors ours, that is an unrealistic goal unworthy of prolonged loss of American blood. Pursuing freedom does not mean that the adoption of our political model is required or even desirable in all cases. The President has stated our policy is to assist all those thirsting to be free and sees a peaceful world that is assured by democracy. I doubt this is true. The adoption of that policy as an aggressive goal of the United States would put us on a collision course with many countries on whom we must rely in order to win the present contest. We would be guilty of great hubris to insist that “victory” result in a democracy looking like ours. A democracy reflects the best and worst of the people it governs. Just as that is so for us, it is true in the Middle East. The result in the Middle East is likely to be far different than here. Without a Pax Americana, it is not likely to be peaceful for years to come. In 1921 Winston Churchill speaking about the Cairo Conference said, “I feel some misgivings about the political consequences to myself of taking on my shoulders the burden of the Mesopotamia entanglement”. With the addition of Israel into an already boiling tribal and religious cauldron that stretches back a thousand years, the intervening years have done nothing to make matters any better. Churchill saw an ungovernable morass, and it hasn’t improved. To quote another statesman, Bismarck cautioned that, “[N]ations do not have friends. They only have interests.” We would do well to remember that. We are on a slippery slope if we insist on defining a Middle East that looks like us. In 1921, Mesopotamia responding in part to Woodrow Wilson’s ringing words favoring national self determination, perceived France and Britain as betraying them in the Sykes-Picot agreement that carved up the region and went on a rampage. The Cairo conference was called to see if a more palatable result could be found that would limit the need for occupying troops and all the consequential expense and exposure to entanglement in Mideast intrigue that would necessarily ensue. The result was the acceptance of borders that to an extent reflected tribal concentrations and the protection of traditional trading relationships. Occupying forces would be kept out of the way in a few selected spots and local administration would be encouraged. The political turmoil that still exists is a reflection of the continuing aspiration for nationhood by those long denied a place they could truly call their own. Displacement caused by the creation of Israel, oil politics and the religious differences that I have mentioned previously all have conspired to make the situation worse. Wiser heads than mine are saying much the same thing. While his spokesman says he strongly supports President Bush’s strategy of promoting freedom around the world, Chairman Henry Hyde of the House International Relations Committee, while waiting for Secretary Rice to appear before his panel on February 16, questioned whether the United States can produce peace and stability around the world by financing and encouraging democracy. “The magic formula of democracy alone” will not work. It must be supported by “unbounded power” and “an open ended commitment of time and resources which we cannot and will not do” The administration seems to be putting its hope in Sunni and Shia clerics forging an agreement that will allow the new Iraqi state to carry forward a new government. Given the ancient nature of the feud, it remains but a hope that they will be successful in stifling the already existing internecine tensions. Like the administration, I am hopeful that a national unity government will take office before the summer in Baghdad. At the end of the day, we may, like Churchill before us, have to accept that the best presently achievable is to adopt a neutralization posture and rethink our long term strategy against the religious terrorists that threaten us and the rest of the modern world.

Copyright © 2007 by Robert E. Freer, Jr. All rights reserved

About the author: Robert E. Freer, Jr. is President of The Free Enterprise Foundation. He is a Visiting Professor, at The Citadel and elected in 2005 to be their first John S. Grinalds Leader in Residence. A regular contributor to the Mercury, He can be reached by E-mail at The Citadel . Copies of his earlier columns can be found The Free Enterprise Foundation.

If you’d like to contribute an article to this collection please e-mail it for review .

Note: A new article appears about every 2 weeks. Sign up below for our newsletter to get each new article mailed to you the day it is published.

Go to 2006 Business Ethics Articles from Churchill on War