Consequences of Failure

The consequences of failure in Iraq will be dire. This is the mantra of those supporting the newest plan to surge American troops into Baghdad. This oft repeated phrase in design to convey the idea that those opposing the new push have nothing to offer except white towels to be thrown, signaling complete defeat. Failure, according to the President, is not an option. This only means that if these newest tactics fall short of the goals they have set, then the outcome will have to be redefined as something else entirely. The plan to surge troops is a, “new way forward,” not an acknowledgment of the failure of the previous policy.
When is the last time our government admitted to failing at anything? After we spent thousands of lives and millions of dollars trying to secure the nation on Vietnam only to withdraw our forces without any of the basic goals met, President Nixon described the failure as, “Peace with honor.” No matter what the future holds for Iraq, regardless of how terrible the situation becomes no President, Bush or his replacement, will label the final outcome with the adjective, “failure.” Like all politicians that have come before, they will use spun language to describe reality in terms of our own victory, even if that victory is pyrrhic and more costly than it‘s worth.
Plans for a way forward in Iraq, rejected by the President, have been criticized for not being detailed and precise enough to be practical. Most of these plans require talking and negotiating with our enemies. Discussing the future of the region with the leaders on those countries in not failure. Diplomacy and compromise is what has made this country a symbol of liberty and fairness throughout the world. Giving Iran more diplomatic power than it deserves is not a perfect solution, but we are long past hoping for perfect solutions to a problem we created. Asking the president of Iran to help bring security to the region may pain the pride, but better a sacrifice of pride than a sacrifice of our soldiers.
Why then would the administration use the word “failure” so prominently to describe a possible outcome in Iraq? Could it be because, despite the show of getting outside options and councel, the President believes that only his chosen path is capable of bringing us through this crisis? The term “failure” is being used to manipulate the population into fearing alternative points of view. If the President intended to use “failure” honestly he would have described the outcome of his own previous choices with the word. In the recent address to the nation he acknowledged and took responsibility for mistakes, but for his failures he remained silent.
With hope, the President’s newest strategy will work. I want the goals set forth by his plan makers to succeed with speed and clarity. The consequences of success using the current strategy far outweigh the frustration that might come from a smug and grinning George W. Bush addressing the nation with “I told you so.” However, the inability to see failure as an option blinds them to creation of contingency plans. Worst than an inability of this surge to secure the population of Iraq may be the continued lack of preparation for life never going as planned. Failure to plan for negative outcomes, to actions taken, is always more detrimental than the setback itself. The Bush administration never anticipated not finding WMD’s in Iraq, not being greeted as liberators, or the influence and involvement of Iran and Syria. It was this lack of preparation for the unforeseen that has brought us to the point we are today. As long as the President is prepared for his own success and no other contingency, the rest of the world will be insecure and fearful of the word, failure.