Vos Meinsdie iz Seig?

    Yesterday, in a speech before a group in Columbus, Ohio, Senator John "The Presumptive Republican Nominee" McCain etched a portrait of America and the world circa 2013 that would make even M.C. Escher stand in awe.

   For in his speech, McCain predicted that by the end of his first term:

• The Iraq war will have been won.
• al-Qaeda in Iraq will have been defeated.
• A democratic government will be fully operational there.
• Taxes will be lower.
• Congressional earmarks will have been eliminated.
• Robust economic growth will have returned.
• The genocide in Darfur will be a distant memory.
• The Social Security crisis will have been solved.
• Construction on 20 new nuclear power plants will be underway.
• Osama bin Laden will be either dead or captured.    

    As Arlo Guthrie asked in his classic "The Pause of Mr. Claus," What's in the pipe that he's smoking?

   It is patently obvious that the senator's remarks are meant to distance himself ever so slightly from President Bush, and get away from his "100 years in Iraq" nonsense.  Never mind that he is attempting to open Napoleon Solo's "Channel D" in order to contact independents and so-called "Reagan Democrats." As the old saying goes, "All you who really believe this, I've got this dandy bridge for sale . . ."

   Beyond the hollow promises to fix the economy, remake Social Security,  eliminate all congressional earmarks -- which, as obnoxious as they may be, amount to just a shade under .007% of the entire federal budget -- there is the very serious question Vos Meinsdie iz Seig? -- Yiddish for, roughly, "What is the definition of victory?"

Oh yes, there are plenty of examples of victorious conclusions to bloody wars:

• Lee handing his sword to Grant at Appomattox.
• General Alfred Jodl signing the document of Germany's unconditional surrender at General Eisenhower's Headquarters in Reims, France.
• Japanese Foreign Minister Shigemitsu and General Umezu initialing documents aboard the U.S.S. Missouri.

  In these -- and dozens of other -- cases, the combined military might of one set of allies defeated those of their enemies.  That is, nations, countries with defined borders, established -- albeit murderous and dictatorial -- governments acknowledged that the other side had beat them, and it was high time to lay down their arms and take whatever medicine the victors prescribed.
   
   The situation in Iraq is, of course, totally different.   First and foremost, America and her "coalition of the willing" are not fighting against the combined forces of any government.  Insurgents, terrorists, guerrillas, and suicide bombers do not an army make -- at least in any traditional sense of the term.  When government-sponsored forces engage one another in battle, at least they wear different uniforms; one can frequently identify the enemy.  In Iraq, anyone -- and everyone -- is potentially the enemy.

   Second, armies, navies and air forces are trained to fight wars strategically --  "by the book."  In comparison, the conflict in Iraq has no "rules;" what passes for strategy is most often a muddle of murderous inconsistency. 

   Third, more often than not, when countries become a battlefield, they are defended by their own troops and those of their allies.  In Iraq, the lion's share of battle has been undertaken by a military force viewed by most not as a savior, but an invader.  When a country is at war with itself, it is neigh-on impossible to succeed, let alone struggle on to something as illusive as "victory."  The historic tensions and animosities betwixt Sunnis, Sh'ias and Kurds had been, in a sense hermetically sealed during Saddam's bloody reign.  Once he was deposed, the gruesome genie was unleashed, fueled by the pent-up fury of untold centuries.

   And out of all this Senator McCain has a definition for "victory?"

Vos meinsdie iz seig?

    Then too, there is the Arizona senator's vision of an Iraq with a fully operational, democratic government. To understand the full implication of this dreamy vision, let us take a page from rabbinic literature.

    As anyone who has ever read the Hebrew Bible [i.e. Old Testament] knows, the Children of Israel spent forty years wandering in the wilderness; forty years between the end of Egyptian servitude and the beginning of Judean self-governance.  According to the midrash -- exegetical commentary -- God had originally planned on keeping their journey to a mere seven weeks.  Why the change?

   Most commentators agree that the change was due to the Israelites' base sinfulness and utter lack of trust in the Lord.  When Moses did not descend from Mt. Sinai at the precise moment they thought he would, they gave in to their fears and had Aaron create the Golden Calf.  In other words, for many commentators, the change from seven weeks to forty years was a punishment for this collective sin.

   There is, however, another commentary which shows tremendous understanding of both human nature and political reality.  According to this, the forty-year trek was meant to teach a pivotal lesson: that while it is quite easy -- albeit deeply tragic and inhumane -- to turn free people into slaves, it is terribly difficult to turn slaves into free people. To have expected the Israelites -- who had been enslaved for four hundred years -- to suddenly shake off their bonds and fully grasp the ways of freedom, was ludicrous.  In making the Children of Israel to wander about for forty years, God was making sure that virtually every man, woman and child who passed over the  River Jordan [save Joshua and Caleb] had been born in freedom, not slavery.

   This ancient commentary is most instructive in the case of Iraq.  By declaring that the Iraqis will be fully self-governing within six-months, three years, a generation, Senator McCain is making the assumption that former slaves are both longing for -- and capable of -- governing themselves.  This is a dangerous, delusional trap into which Senator McCain and most of his Republican colleagues have fallen.

   Just as there is no hard and fast definition of "victory" in Iraq, so too should there be no illusion about just how difficult it will be for them to remake themselves into a modern democratic state.  It will take at least a generation, if not two . . . or three . . . or longer.

   Senator McCain is correct in beginning to talk about bringing our troops home at some point in the future. But to link the words "Iraq" and "democracy" with the year 2013 is sheer folly.

   Like the sign says, "if you break it, you pay for it . . ."