We gather with family and friends on Whidbey Island each Fourth of July for a softball game and picnic. We split into teams of twenty or thirty which makes fielding hits in tall field grass almost possible. Batting rotations work alphabetically and all get their turn, from seniors to T-ball tots.
The pitcher moves forward for a little slugger who draw cheers from both benches. Strike one. Strike two, three, four, and onward until bat meets ball. A shortstop stumbles when fielding the micro-hit. She rights herself and deliberately overthrows first. The little batter, of course, stands stock-still at the plate, mesmerized by the rolling ball and the fact that he actually hit it. The crowd yells, Run, run, lofting him down the baseline on a flood of good wishes. Safe at first. The little one glows when awarded a high-five and understands from smiling faces that he is part of a team.
Or both teams could have played to win, but I dont think that would have flown when love and good fellowship ruled the day. Not when each action toward younger, smaller or weaker ones among us was committed to weave them into our midst.
Vince Lombardi used the line, Winning isnt everything, its the only thing. He borrowed that bit of excess from Red Sanders, erstwhile coach of Vanderbilt and UCLA. Not that Lombardi couldnt come up with hard-nosed quips of his own. Hes credited with: Show me a good loser and Ill show you a loser, and If winning isnt everything, why do they keep score?
As a people, we embrace competition. Everything we do, whether bicycling, running, cooking, dancing or roughing it on remote islands becomes winner-takes-all competition. The amount of time Americans spend competing amounts to such a major slice of life that winning has become a pillar of our culture.
But if we allow it, life teaches us that there are times to forego the adrenaline rush of winning, that winning isnt the answer to some issues and, in fact, might be the cause of others. Whether in sports or military adventures, the humiliation of defeat can cause backlashes that leave the vanquished groveling in shame while dreaming of ways to bring grief to their conquerors. Think of whats going on in the minds of over 15,000 Islamic captives weve stashed away here and there. Undoubtedly dreams of blowing America off of the map.
We have at least two choices regarding Iraq. Staying the course until international terrorism is completely defeated, or working toward a Best Solution, whatever that might be. I lean toward the Best Solution scenario because a war against terrorism cannot be won solely by force of arms. It is as un-winnable as my campaign for complete and final victory over moles and crab grass. So long as one mole or sprig of crab grass lurks near my property line, there can be no Mission Accomplished. Complete victory is impossible so, if I am ever to have some measure of peace it will spring from a Best Solution.
Mona Charen, syndicated columnist featured in The Herald, said: Democrats offer only defeat in Iraq. It seems she expects us to defeat all the Iraqi insurgents, unify separatists, pacify anarchists, calm Muslim extremists, appease disgruntled Baathists and westernize Arab political culture. Mission Impossible. We are an army of occupation, an unwelcome foreign presence that cant help but step on toes. Yet the hawks continue to clamor for total military victory in spite of widespread acknowledgement that any meaningful resolution must be political, not military.
Yes, a political solution. Politics is defined as the art of compromise, which sets it apart from winning versus losing. As Edmund Burke put it, All government indeed, every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue and prudent act is founded on compromise and barter. So lets have more talk and less shooting. More of engaging people we dont like in dialogue instead of battle and if that doesnt work, give it up and go home. But that cant happen so long as were saddled with an administration that will talk only with people who agree with them.
What, if not absolute victory, might be a best possible outcome in Iraq? There is no assurance that any outcome would be complete or enduring. Iraq might embrace al Qaeda. Syria and Iran might continue to stir the pot. Sectarian violence might escalate, leading to widespread civil war. The Kurds might enter the fray. The Sheiks could perpetuate their eye-for-an-eye vengeance that ends only when everyone is blind. Non-sectarian democratic government might turn into Koranic dictatorship.
What our policy ignores is the global impact of the Iraq war on radical Islam. The call for a pan-Arab caliphate, a radical Muslim alliance stretching from the Straits of Malacca to Morocco, draws fuel from Americas involvement in Iraqs plight.
We must be satisfied with measured progress against those threats. After all, its the Iraqis country to screw up however they choose, just so long as they dont export terrorists our way. But we cant continue to leave our troops sandwiched there between anti-American nations that are all too happy to cheer-lead and equip Iraqi insurgents bent on doing them harm.
If we suffer another terrorist strike on our homeland, it wont be because we left or stayed in Iraq. It will be because Islamic hate-mongers organized the funding and volunteers to hurt us. Theyre working on it, but probably not in Iraq.
When they strike again, I hope for a cool-headed international response. Terrorism is more a global problem than a one-dimensional threat against America and Americans. Attacks can and do happen anywhere; on a London bus, in a Madrid train station, a commuter train near Mumbai, in a Tel Aviv market or a nightclub in Bali. The specific threat to us remains so long as anti-American hate prevails.
When it happens again, and it will, I dont want to hear our tacticians trumpeting Shock and Awe plans for revenge against nations. No politicians puffing themselves up over the bodies of terrorisms victims. I want to be surprised when international response teams, acting on certain-sure intelligence, discretely weed out terrorist cells and leaders wherever they are.
As our emissaries come to represent a government both friends and foes respect, using talk instead of bullets will stand a better chance of working.

Comments may be addressed to rgraef@verizon.net.