How to win a dirty war

My family just finished watching the excellent PBS documentary “The War That Made America,” about the French & Indian War of the 1750s.

That epic struggle determined who would control North America — and drove in the wedge that would soon split the American colonies from Great Britain. It’s a brilliantly produced, well-paced film, done entirely with top-quality reenactments. No dry history here. This is the kind of history you can reach out and touch.

One of the things that struck me in watching “The War That Made America” is how universally applicable the principles of counterinsurgency are. The British suffered humiliating defeat after defeat at the hands of the French and their Indian allies until they initiated something very like The Surge that has succeeded in largely stabilizing Iraq (at least for now).

For one thing, the British finally put sufficient troops in theater and built the American Provincial forces to sufficient strength to do the job. More importantly, they broke some key allies away from the French.

A group of strange bedfellows, including Quaker and Moravian missionaries and British General John Forbes initiated peace overtures to the Delaware and other Ohio Country Indians to clear the path for Forbes effort to take French Fort Duquesne (now Pittsburgh) in 1758. The French and Indians had destroyed a previous expedition to take the fort in 1755 and Forbes didn’t want the same thing to happen again.

The British essentially bribed the Indians away from the French with trade goods, liquor and promises (later to prove false) to leave their lands alone.

The key figure in the drama was a Delaware leader named Teedyuskung, who had converted to Christianity, then renounced Christianity and took up the hatchet against the British American settlers and who now sought peace for his beleaguered and starving people.

The man had plenty of blood on his hands, but the British cut a deal with him anyway and he used his influence to peel the Delaware and Shawnee away from the French at a crucial moment. Unable to hold Fort Duquesne without the protection of the Indians, the French retreated into Canada, where General James Wolfe would soon conquer them at Quebec.

So, what’s the point of this history lesson?

Roughly the same thing has worked in Iraq. The U.S. has cut deals with tribal leaders who have American blood on their hands (at least indirectly) and has succeeded in breaking a coalition of resistance groups. The most intransigent foes are increasingly isolated and placed under pressure. al Qaeda in Iraq seems to be fleeing to Pakistan (which is not entirely a good thing, but still...).

Anbar Province, once the worst place in Iraq, is being handed over to Iraqi security forces.
No matter what you think about the war in Iraq, The Surge — as a tactical approach more than a simple increase in numbers — is an excellent piece of counterinsurgency work.

It’s distasteful to some, inside the military and out, to cut deals and essentially buy the loyalty (or at least non-hostility) of former enemies. But that’s what works.

It’s a dirty war, just as the French & Indian War was a dirty war. That’s how you win it.

Jim Cornelius, Editor

The American Idea

The United States of America is unique among nations in that it was founded on an idea — not on blood and soil.

The idea is encapsulated in the Declaration of Independence — that mankind comes into the world with rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Rights exist naturally; they are not granted by a sovereign. Rational man will act in enlightened self-interest in a way that will benefit all.

This idea was the product of Enlightenment thinking and it prevailed in part because the British culture from which we grew and from which we violently broke away half believed it, too.

The trouble is, it’s hard to sustain emotional attachment to an idea. patriotism is so much easier to engender out of blood and soil, a tribal sense of identity.

You have to work at holding tight to an idea. And only an educated citizenry has the tools for that work.
I wonder if our schools (I’m speaking nationally now) are teaching the idea. It doesn’t seem like it. In my darker moments, I sometimes think that the founding principles of America are but a ghost now.

We have grown comfortable with a massive state and orient our lives by its leave. That is dangerous to liberty and an abdication of our own pursuit of happiness.

That goes for both “liberal” who want the state to do more for the welfare of its citizens (ignoring the unintended consequences) and for “conservatives” who want to state to do more for their security and to regulate behavior.
So, here’s the question: How do we hold onto the founding idea in the 21st Century?

Jim Cornelius, Editor

On anonymity

The post on Steve Swisher quickly veered off into an interesting debate over anonymity on the blog.

Much as I respect Todd Dow’s point of view (and, I’m sure, as he expected), we’re not going to change our policy on anonymity on the blog. We have two forums — Letters to the Editor in the print edition and Article comments on-line — that require verifiable identification.

This forum offers something different.

Part of the origin of the blog was the belief that there is a well of opinion in the Sisters community that isn’t given voice for precisely the reasons that many of the anonymous commenters cite: fear of retaliation in various forms in their off-line lives.
It is our belief that these opinions should be aired.

I have to say, however, that I regret the need for anonymity, both real and perceived. People should own their beliefs and be willing to stand behind them. On the flip side, people should respect others’ opinions and beliefs and not retaliate against them in business or socially because of them.

There’s tremendous power in standing up for something. I’ve aired an unpopular opinion or two in my day — with my name attached — and have been threatened with every kind of retaliation, including violence. That’s not much fun, but at the end of the day, there’s some satisfaction in facing it down.

I can’t opt for anonymity and wouldn’t if I could.

But everyone has to make such decisions for themselves. The choice is there on this blog — identify yourself or don’t. I don’t think anybody has abused their anonymity or been inflammatory for the sake of being inflammatory.

So far, I’ve only had to reject one comment — not because of the opinion, but because it was expressed in scatological terms that we don’t want to encourage.

Would I like to know who’s talking? Sure. Do I think the opinions expressed have no value if I don’t? No. I think it’s good to know what folks are thinking out there, even if I can’t put a face with a name or a name with a thought.

Jim Cornelius, Editor

The Perils of Ben Westlund

Nothing like a little salacious detail to get the political press excited.

State Senator Ben Westlund has been taking a pounding in The Bulletin over the past few days over new details given an underhanded release about an incident that occurred 11 years ago.

A sealed letter was leaked to the Associated Press by Westlund’s political opposition. It included embarrassing details that neither Westlund nor the woman involved chose to reveal when the incident broke over a decade ago.

There was no real news here. Westlund had already acknowledged his inappropriate behavior and the woman involved and Westlund put the incident behind them years ago and have become friends. Yes, there’s a gap between an “unwanted hug” and what was described in the letter. So what? The woman involved didn’t want to go any further than what they originally described and was satisfied with the outcome. There was no crime; there was bad behavior, for which Westlund apologized profusely.

The matter has been closed for a decade.

Trot out any pious excuse you want to: this is just dirty election year politics with the political media piling on.

Earlier in this election season, the political media got all atwitter about a story linking John McCain to a lobbyist. An attractive, blonde lobbyist who looked smashing in an evening gown.

Nobody believes that the story was about McCain’s cozy relationship with lobbyists. It was about sex, or the hint of it. McCain’s opponents seized on it because sex sells and sex scandals can damage or destroy a candidate.

This is nothing new. American politics has indulged in sex-scandal mongering since Thomas Jefferson’s opponents first broke the story about his “relationship” with a slave. European politics is rife with scandal, too.

Let’s be honest. This isn’t about moral rectitude. It’s about gotcha and titillation. It’ll never stop, but nobody covers themselves with honor by indulging in it.

Jim Cornelius, Editor