This topic has been brought up in several other threads so I figured that it might as well be its own thread. Von Clauswitz said "War is politics by other means", that is especially true to a democracy. GW Bush has said that having more democracies makes the world safer because democracies are less likely to act belligerantly and aggressively. What Bush might not realize is that what's going on in the US regarding Iraq is that very principle in action. Many of the posters who support the invasion of Iraq have been accusing the anti-war posters of hurting the cause by criticising the President and pointing out problems with the war. They've brought up Vietnam saying that it wasn't a defeat of the US military but of the will of the US to sustain the conflict to US victory. I think its not quite that cut in dry but in general I agree that that is a major factor. As a democracy where our military is ultimately under the command of civillian elected politicians the will and consent of the population to wage war is of utmost importance. Pro-war people will inevitably place the blame on anti-war protestors by saying that they should be quiet when troops are in harms way. I agree that criticism and protest does weaken the war effort but IMO there's a larger problem from the pro-war side than just placing the blame on protestors. In any military effort there will always be an element that no matter what will oppose it. Even in what was nearly universally considered a just war WWII there still were people opposed to it yet that didn't lessen the overall commitment of the US to fighting it. With the situation in Iraq, at least according to most polls, opinion has been turning more and more negative against the war. I find it almost hard to believe that this opinion is merely due to the persuasiveness of the hard core anti-war side or Al Qaeda propaganda. For instance if it was just that peaceniks have gotten better at PR then we would also see opinion turning negatively against US involvement in Afghanistan of which there is very little. Obviously greater casualties play a role too along with difficulties in the mission but again casualties in Afghanistan have also increased and in comparison to Vietnam there the US suffered far greater casualties yet support remained high for many years and there wasn't even 9/11. A lot of the blame for flagging support for the war effort should be laid upon the failure of the Admin. to maintain political support for the war. Many war supporters agree that the Admin. presented the war for poor reasons and have done a bad job of prosecuting it but have argued that those who oppose the war should choose to remain quiet because criticism is hurting the cause of the war and now is the time we should be quiet and supportive. The problem with this is that first off many anti-war people don't support the war to begin with and their goal is to end the war as soon as possible. The second goes to the nature of a democratic open society where we are called upon to weigh in on how we are governed. This goes beyond just voting but also in what I consider to be both a right and an obligation to speak out even in times of crisis otherwise that right is meaningless. To the point that we should restrain ourselves from speaking out when we feel the government is doing something we disagree with that comes down to trust and essentially the argument of the pro-war side is, "Things look bad and the government made some mistakes but trust us now." Given all of the problems with the reasons for the war, the mistatements, the over inflated claims of progress and misconduct in the prosecution of the war it becomes more difficult to maintain trust in the Admin.. Trust is central to any political campaign and maintaining support for a war in a democracy is a political campaign. So while the pro-war side is blaming the anti-war side for undermining the war effort they should be looking at why is the Admin failing in maintaining political support for the war because if they could present a compelling case none of the Jane Fondas or Cindy Sheehans would make any difference now like the Charles Lindberghs in WWII.
Maybe it's because there is no rational political reason for the war and that's why they're having trouble sustaining political momentum. Okay, 9/11 showed us that radical Muslims despise us and that regular muslims simply hate us. We help the Israeli's, we weren't going to avoid that animosity. My question is, after 9/11, HOW THE HELL WOULD INVADING AND DEMOCRACIZING THE MIDDLE EAST HELP TO EASE THAT ANIMOSITY!?!? WMD's were the political reasons for this war, as well as circumventing the UN. Those WMD's don't exist, so now the reason for war is, well, war. Now we fight because we started fighting and now we can't stop. Why? Well, underestimation of the opposition and no clear exit strategy. But the point is, YES, it's hard to kill people under those circumstances. Those Iraqi's are fighting to protect their home land (right or wrong, it's how THEY feel). Do you expect a bunch of 18 year old american kids to understand that or compete with that kind of motivation. Their (our soldiers') country isn't under attack.
I hate to say it but the American Public is easily manipulated. Remember "The Summer of the Shark?" Shark attacks were at no all-time high. In fact they were in a normal range but we were made to feel like sharks were taking over the beaches. Given that the press is liberally-bent, it is no surprise that support has lagged. The constant demanding of the Administration to explain why we are there is dis-ingenuous. We already know the answer. Some of us just don't like it and are looking for ways to try and embarass the Administration-- just like the Sheehan Circus is. A speculative question: If every citizen who opposed our involvement in the war wrote a letter a day to their Congressperson and to their Senators for 30 days, would that not have more impact than the public demands for attention? You see, it's not about being quiet; it's about sending your message in an effective way. It took 7 years+ to stop the Viet Nam War by "taking it to the streets." I think that that is in some way self-satisfying in some kind of American-egoistic way.
The pro-war folks seem upset that in a demcoracy you don't long fight wars when the majority doesn't think it is worthwhile. That is the way it is supposed to be. It stands to reason that the public doesn't think it is worthwhile to fight in a war against an enemy thousands of miles away that hasn't threatened us. Giddy says we are easily manipulated. True, we were manipulated by the Bush Administration into the war to protect us from wmd. There are new reasons put forward that just aren't that compelling to the American people; hence the ineffectiveness of his continual repetition of his pro-war pitches in front of carefully selected audiences composed solely of the minority that still believes him.
If the world is undergoing a p-r-o-l-o-n-g-e-d period without any war, how on earth can millitary-religious-industrial complex survive this hardship?
Giddyup the Press is most certainly not liberally bent. The NY TIMES even had to apologize for not doing its job in the lead up to the war, and not being critical enough of the President. In addition look at this. The press is lazy and doesn't do their jobs. Look at this. Remember when Bush said that the U.S. had tripiled our aid to Africa? That claim was false. There are figures that are easy enough to check, but the media didn't do it. Instead they repeated Bush's claim as if it was fact, or repeated claims that it wasn't true as if that was just the word of one side vs. the other. But it wasn't. There are cold hard facts in the matter. The supposed "liberal" media didn't check them and let Bush get away with another fib. Selections from the article If the media was determined to get Bush this was an easy chance to do so. They didn't. If the media wasn't determined to get Bush but wanted to report the actual facts and just do their jobs this was a chance to do so but they didn't.
You're not talking about WMDs as "new reasons" are you? Those have been around since January of 2003... if not before. What "new reasons" do you have in mind?
Bush and Cheney are both on record as saying there is no direct link from 9/11 to Iraq...but yet they still say we are fighting the war on terror. huh? The pro-war crowd needs to realize that Dubya has an army of PR folks and strategists. If they entered into a war without considering the public's potential backlash, then the blame should be placed on the administration ... not the protesters. Protesters are a given ...the administrations lack of planning is what is concerning! This is so old and tired. The media is lazily-bent. You said it yourself by providing the "summer of sharks" example (which I've brought up several times before). Yes, sometimes the media bashes W relentlessly. But no more so than the media bashed Al Gore for being boring, as if that's newsworthy, and no more so than giving the "Swift boat scandal" legitimacy by running that non-story into the ground (particularly when the press gave W a free pass on the National Guard story. Once the media smells blood, they just run a story into the ground. That doesn't make them liberal... it makes them lazy. Terry Schiavo. Please. Sad but it didn't need that much coverage.
Well though the media portrays it as if 90% of people are against the war, why did Bush win the election?? I think you have a skewed view of what the public wants and are furious that the public voted for Bush after he declared war and AFTER he said he would stay as long as it takes. Kerry ran on a platform that they would pull the troops out and lost. So I wouldn't base your opinion on what "Americans" want on what you read in the paper, but how they all voted on election day in 2004. By the way, if you forgot: Bush won.
There were no WMD's. There was little evidence that there was any. The administration believed what they wanted to believed and got burned. Why should people not be mad about being told we were going to war over something that didn't exist? In every job I ever had the person in charge has to take responsibility when their decisions are wrong. Why in the world should the president who started a war, who sent and is sending young Americans to die in a foreign land, not have to take responsibility for getting us into a war when the reason for that war doesn't exist? You are right about the manipulation aspect of the American people, people still believe FOX NEWS.
Two responses: First, the media portrays 90% war supporters because the media is lazy and loves to cover "outrageuos" stories of any sort. This time, it just happens to be war protesters. Next time, it'll be the NRA anti-gay convention or something (joke...sorta). Point being, it goes both ways. Secondly, at the time of the election... most people did (stupidly) support the war. That is now changing.
They may be lazy, too! How do you get around the well-acknowledged fact that the press self-reports 80-85% voting Democratic? Isn't that a little skewed? It may only be their professional obligations that keep them as centered as they are... Didn't Dan Rather get skewered in his attempt to give the NG story legs? They may be lazy; they just might be capitalists and will provide what sells.
Just a thought... I don't think it was so much supporting the war as it was not wanting to change administrations in the middle of a war. Just my opinion.
Please provide facts to back up your claim. I've heard you guys say this over and over but I've never seen that written down. Dan Rather was trying to break a story about a sitting president and was lazy. Journalists cover presidents...last time I checked...and journalists love ANYTHING juicy...regardless of their party. Doesn't prove a thing. I beleive the previous administration had a few stories too, IIRC. Whitewater...please. Now that is something we can agree on.
Ummm, Kerry did NOT run on a platform of pulling the troops out - he did the exact opposite. And at election time, the majority of Americans were NOT against the war in Iraq. That has changed today, thus the media portrayal of the public has changed today. The media doesn't portray as though 90% of people are against the war - they produce polls that actually show the real numbers, and those numbers supporting the war are dwindling. Why? Why would I base my opinion of what Americans want on something that happened 10 months when I know the situation has changed substantially and that public opinion has changed? To do so would simply be willfully ignorant and would only be done by someone who has no interest in acknowledging the truth but instead justifying their own belief.
