War Is Not a Game

Games have rules. In a game, both sides agree to the rules before they begin. To ensure that the rules are fairly enforced, games have referees or umpires. When a player breaks a rule, his side is penalized. If one side breaks the rules too often or too flagrantly, the game is forfeited. Observers of the game will favor one side or the other, but they do not influence the outcome.

War, especially the one against terrorism, is not a game. First and foremost, the terrorists have not agreed to any rules. They lie, they spy, they target civilians, they torture and behead their captives, and they state outright that they intend to annihilate the opposition, literally. They bomb first, then indicate they may talk later about their demands (annihilation) being met. And they don't even wear uniforms so we can tell who they are. There are no referees or umpires.

The observers of war (the United Nations, individual countries, and many liberals in our country) claim that there are rules--for example, the Geneva Convention. But, as biased observers, they seem to think that the rules should be imposed only on the United States. In fact, they want to add more rules that apply only to the United States.

The old adage, "two wrongs don't make a right," applies only in a game situation, where the two adversaries share a common moral background, and where a judicial system penalizes the wrongs that are committed. Such is not the case in a war. If your enemy knows your rule book, he can anticipate your actions, counter them, and defeat you. Nobody worries about the rules until after the war, when the victor's judicial system determines what rules were broken by the loser, and applies the penalties after the fact.

The observers can make all the rules they want. Osama Bin Laden and his ilk will not adhere to them. And if the United States does, the terrorists will win.

I'm not implying that the United States should do some of the vile things that the terrorists do. I am just saying that we need more latitude than the leftists want to concede in the methods of getting intelligence, the handling of captives, and in attacking the enemy's communications, finances , and soldiers.

The French government, for example, should know better. They followed all of the rules in dealing with Adolph Hitler. They followed rules until Hitler's Army occupied Paris. Today, France wants the United States to negotiate, to practice restraint with the terrorists. In spite of their experience, the French think that the terrorists will leave us alone if we appease them. The nation that invented arrogance has the nerve to call the United States arrogant, and many other people who deny the very nature of war are doing the same thing.

As time passes, however, it is getting hard to believe that the war in Iraq is a vital part of the war on terrorism. Assuredly, Iraq has a few thousand terrorists, but those terrorists seem concerned more about the future of Iraq than about world domination. The real terrorist threats seem to be from Al Quaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas. But instead of acting to destroy those organizations, the U.S. has 130,000 troops in Iraq. We have essentially handed off Al Quaeda to our semi-ally Pakistan, and the other two have been handed off to Israel (and the U.N.?). Additionally, we have not finished our mission in Afghanistan.

Despite our large presence in Iraq, we appear weak and vulnerable to the insurgents. Immediately after we took Bagdad, we demonstrated weakness because we did not come down hard on the looters. And we did not attempt to disarm our enemy. To Iraqis who were accustomed to swift and grave consequences for even minor crimes, the message to the insurgents was clear--"you can get away with it." The U.S. should not have invaded Iraq when we did not understand their culture, did not anticipate the magnitude of the chaos, and did not have a detailed plan to control it.

But I don't think we should abandon Iraq. If anything, we should apply more resources to quell the Iraqi terrorists, and to strengthen the government forces. The real problem is how to help them establish a government that is strong enough to maintain order, and at the same time fair enough to provide a square deal for the Sunni and Kurdish minorities. Nobody, conservative or liberal, has presented a solution to that one.