Classical Values :: "Surrender" may not have been the right word

July 10, 2007

"Surrender" may not have been the right word

By linking my "'stab-in-the-back,' analysis-free, Instapundit-approved grand-standing blog-post on the Iraq civil war," Glenn Reynolds drew the ire of Andrew Sullivan. If Glenn can get in trouble just for linking me (and not even expressing "approval"), I must be really bad. And obviously, I don't even have to analyze; all I need do is plug myself into the "stab-in-the-back" mode. As to the backstab, my analytical skills may need sharpening because I'm unclear on how the concept aplies. It might have to do with the fact that "sooner rather than later," the "far right" (presumably in the form of me) will "surely have to accuse Dick Cheney of 'surrendering'."

Do I have to analyze, or can I just continue the "stab-in-the-back" mode, and accuse Dick Cheney of outright surrender? (Um, since we're dealing with Cheney, wouldn't that be "shoot-in-the-back"?)

"Surrender" seems to be a pretty strong word -- even for "stab-in-the-backers like Glenn Reynolds" who doesn't seem to have used the word "surrender" to characterize the Times' position.

I did, and I think it withstands analysis.

"Surrender" in the military sense means literally handing over an army to the enemy, and I don't think anyone who is familiar with this blog would imagine that I characterized the Times' position as advocating handing over U.S. troops to the enemy. Militarily, I think the closest analogy to what the Times wants would be the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Vietnam in 1973. This was not a formal surrender, but it led to a successful invasion of South Vietnam by the North (once the latter became convinced that the U.S. would no longer back its ally), and ultimately to a formal, unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975.

Was this conduct of withdrawal followed by a refusal to help a surrender by the United States? Not in the formal, World War II, military sense of the word. Nevertheless, I do think that under the totality of the circumstances it was a surrender. Certainly the majority of the American public felt demoralized and dishonored watching the final evacuation of the American embassy, and saw their big, strong country has having abandoned a tiny, weak ally.

In the moral sense, the abandonment of the weak and tiny by the big and strong can be seen as worse than an ordinary surrender, because surrender can be and often is grounded in the honest recognition that one is beaten, defeated. Abandoning a weak ally to certain doom constitutes a surrender of a moral duty, especially if there is still the ability to defend that ally.

In my opinion, it is far more dishonorable than being beaten. Seen this way, my use of the term "surrender" actually understates the moral case against the Times position.

The word surrender has a number of meanings:

1. To relinquish possession or control of to another because of demand or compulsion.
2. To give up in favor of another.
3. To give up or give back (something that has been granted): surrender a contractual right.
4. To give up or abandon: surrender all hope.
5. To give over or resign (oneself) to something, as to an emotion: surrendered himself to grief.
6. Law. To restore (an estate, for example), especially to give up (a lease) before expiration of the term.

If "give up" doesn't apply to the "leave Iraq now" movement, I don't know what does.

Again, here's the Times:

It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.

Notice that (unlike Vietnam) there's not even to be a pause for a peace treaty. The only condition the Times is willing to allow is that the exit be "orderly" -- the ultimate consequences be damned.

My concern is with the consequences. Does anyone doubt that the enemy would see a U.S. withdrawal as a surrender? That they would intensify and redouble their efforts? That the government which is today begging for help might very well be forced to formally surrender?

Because I see surrender as an inevitable consequence of what the Times advocates, I don't think I was wrong to say that they are advocating surrender.

If anything, what the Times advocates is something worse.

(I don't know if there's a word for deliberate and conscious moral self defeat, though.)

posted by Eric on 07.10.07 at 10:15 AM

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/5234

Comments

Dick Cheney, and a lot of other people, are using the word "surrender" inappropriately in relation to Iraq. The reason for this is to stir up people's passions. No one likes to surrender. An orderly military withdrawal is not the same thing as a surrender. The British did not surrender at Dunquerque; they withdrew. The U.S. army did not surrender at the end of the Korean War or Vietnam; they withdrew. Cheney knows perfectly well that the critics of the Iraq war in Congress are talking about a withdrawal, not a surrender. No one is seriously suggesting that U.S. soldiers in Iraq raise the white flag, lay down their arms, and surrender to the various armed militias there.

Chocolatier · July 10, 2007 11:21 AM

Yes Chocolatier. But when the US does withdraw from Iraq all those people who split hairs as you do will shout the word "surrender" from the rooftops.

Gordon · July 10, 2007 11:45 AM

"(I don't know if there's a word for deliberate and conscious moral self defeat, though.)"

Cowardice.

nobody important · July 10, 2007 12:57 PM

Not quite, Chocolatier.

The British left Dunkirk to come back to Europe and drive the Germans back.

The US left Korea with a stable border that holds to this day.

The US, as Eris says, didn't surrender in Vietnam... but the US' actions did directly ca use the South Vietnamese government to do so, and the moral and political effect of US withdrawal and the cutting of funds to South Vietnam was exactly equivalent to surrender.

The "critics" in Congress is not talking about literal white-flag surrender, indeed.

But they are talking about a Vietnam-style equivalent, which will be in all other was, in terms of incentives and repercussions (outside of the Army itself, given that nobody actually surrenders to our enemies there), identical.

Given that, I'm willing to give Cheney a pass, and call what amounts to surrender, surrender, even without a white flag and prisoners.

Sigivald · July 10, 2007 03:02 PM

Sigivald - You are right about Dunquerque. The British withdrew from Dunquerque in order to continue the war with Hitler, not to end it, and that is not what is being proposed in Iraq. Now on a more trivial topic....I have noticed that political conservatives always seem to spell Dunquerque 'Dunkirk'. Is that just to annoy the French? The French don't like the letters "k" or "w". On the French TV show "#5, Rue Sesame", the French version of Sesame Street, the show is never "brought to you by" either the letters "k" or "w".

Chocolatier · July 10, 2007 08:12 PM

Allow me channel the spirit of Ann Coulter:

So go ahead. Withdraw all US troops from Iraq. Let the place spiral into a sinkhole of genocide and violence. If a rabidly anti-American extremist dictator takes power... Bomb the hell out of his government until some other, less offensive warlord takes power.

If America's enemies see the withdrawal as weakness, convince them otherwise at the runway end of a carrier battle group, parked on their prime holiday beach and blocking the sun from reaching sunbathing tourists. That should knock their GDP down a little. No country can beat the US in a straight, flat out war.

If terrorism increases because of the withdrawal of American targets in Iraq, then use your common sense. You all know who the plane-crashing extremists are - kick most of them out of the country for good, ban their like from entering, and keep draconic tabs on the remainder. Openly install mandatory monitoring devices in mosques and madrassa-esque schools. They are open to the public, right? Or do the muftis have something to hide?

The war will be far from over. Americans just have to return to the attitude of the Cold War, when McCarthy made it clear that no Communist undermining fifth columns would be allowed in the free nation of America. Replace 'Communist' with 'certain-religion extremist' and throw out all the politically correct tolerance bullshit, and the War on Terror never has to leave the borders.

Scott · July 10, 2007 09:49 PM