A long time ago, during the dark years of Bush the Younger, there was an article on Tom Dispatch mocking the increasing absurdity of the magnificently incompetent Donald Rumsfeld’s use of “metrics” to make the Iraq War seem something less than quagmire. A bit of Googling didn’t reveal the exact article, but the sentiment went something like this:
When you’re winning, you know it. When you’re losing, you have “metrics”.
Despite not being able to remember the precise quote or source, I think of that (forgive me) metric often. Every time some minor government poobah goes in front of Congress and talks about the number of Afghan soldiers trained, or one of our many harried diplomats addresses a skeptical foreign audience about the latest dubious count of areas pacified and roads opened, I’m reminded that when you have to cook up some numbers instead of pointing to victories, it means you’re losing.
The present irony of that simple but effective dictum comes from the way that, of the various wars that America is currently waging openly (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya) and on the down low (Yemen, Pakistan, and fuck knows where else not even counting the Drug War), the one in Libya is the one most obviously being won and the one most definitely illegal. American troops have been fighting for far more than the sixty days allowed under the War Powers act without Congressional approval, and yet no one seems to care. Glenn Greenwald noticed, and John Boehner has seen fit to try and score some political points (via), but neither of their efforts are likely to result in a sudden up swell of give-a-shit. Greenwald was long ago pigeonholed as a dirty hippie, and Boehner’s heart (assuming he has one) isn’t remotely in it. So what we’re treated to is the sight of Americans in combat near (if not on) the “shores of Tripoli”, which is in the fucking Marine song, and no one caring in the least.
This poses a nasty ambivalence for people such as myself, who oppose the overwhelming majority of our military adventures, but think that there are situations, such as Libya at present, where freedom bombs aren’t doomed to failure. It would be naive to think that a country this rich and influential doesn’t have a lot of opportunities to make people’s lives better without a great deal of risk. And yet, when one of those opportunities involves fighting, it’s impossible to say that a favorable analysis, however rational and officially sanctioned, trumps the right of Congress to tell the President “No”. Even if all Congress does is sit on its hands, the country isn’t supposed to go war without both branches signing off.
Complicating matters is the present political environment. One of the two major parties has settled on a right angled orthodoxy which commands that up is down, black is white, and gravity is a liberal conspiracy. As an American, I very much want Congress to check the President’s power. As an American who knows that there is such a thing as “discernable reality”, I’m very much concerned that considerations outside of that are accepted as bases for national policy.
Happily, no one cares what I think here in the boonies of IPv4. But one cannot help but notice that this is yet another testament to how badly broken our political and governing systems have become. There’s a good case to be made for intervention in Libya, but Obama hasn’t made it to Congress. Instead, he just went and did it, assuming that no real notice will be paid. That alone should be a scandal of epic proportions. Even worse is that he’s probably correct in his assumption. Matters as grave as war and the sanctity of checks and balances have been relegated to the status of minor issues. The conflict in Libya didn’t cause that state of affairs, but neither can any outcome there, no matter how rosy, justify it.
