Wrong Question, Ms. Smith

The third letter to the editor of the book review complains, "If the U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual, reviewed by Samantha Power, is built around the theme of Gen. David Petraeus’s question “What have you done for the people of Iraq today?” then our defeat is assured." The letterwriter believes instead that the relevant question is, "What have you done for Americans’ security today?" She believes this because "[s]elf-defense cannot be provided by putting the enemy first." (Emphasis added.)

Fine. Then, Ms. Smith, let me first ask you this: who exactly is the "enemy"? Second, if it's all Iraqis, then aren't we fighting a massively uphill battle? Third, if it isn't, how can we minimize the number of enemies we're fighting?

That is, I'm not so foolish as to believe that we don't have enemies. Obviously we do. I'd just like to know who they are so as to be more efficient and effective in winning.

And, as an alternative line of questioning, might this singleminded focus on some nameless, faceless, massive, unified, abstracted "enemy" be giving them too much credit, overstating their power and reach, and, all in all, "putting the enemy first"? (Cf. Wesley K. Clark & Kal Raustiala, Op-Ed, Why Terrorists Aren't Soldiers, N.Y. Times, Aug. 8, 2007, available at url (arguing, in column I should have clipped and blogged about because it's great, that "[b]y treating such terrorists as combatants, however, we accord them a mark of respect and dignify their acts. And we undercut our own efforts against them in the process. . . . . Labeling [Al Qaeda's] members as combatants elevates its cause and gives Al Qaeda an undeserved status.").) Instead, might it not make more sense to live up to our own best ideals of ourselves as a nation and not abase ourselves counterproductively?