This really should be required reading for anyone out there laboring under the illusion that there is something uniquely awful and unAmerican about our involvement in Iraq — or in Vietnam, for that matter.
You think the American public is turning against the Iraq War in a big way? Well, get back to me when we’ve had a reaction as awful as the New York draft riots that Abe Lincoln had to deal with.
John Prine was not expressing such an unusual sentiment when he sang: "We lost Davy in the Korean war/And I still don’t know what for, don’t matter anymore."
Basically, it’s tough to maintain public opinion in favor of military operations in a democracy, even when they are necessary. The reasons why a war may be just and necessary are usually far too complex to keep before the electorate for an extended period of time. That’s why you see oversimplifications. All anyone who is now against the war seems to remember is "WMD," when it was and is much more complicated than that.
Anti-war activists almost always have the advantage, because their message is simple: Stop the killing. That’s why in the long term, opinion starts to sway their way. And that’s a serious problem when you engaged in something as extremely long-term as the War on Terror.
Related Posts
In the years leading up to WWII, the American population was heavily against any American preparation or involvement in war. The NY Times praised the regime of Hitler as a bright light in Europe. Even the American Legion, at its annual meeting, just before Pearl Harbor was attacked, voted overwhelmingly to stay out of any military actions in Europe.
9-11 swung American sentiment to see the enemy as a tangible entity. But, as you correctly note, the left, and yes led again by the NY Times, continue to propagandize in their Orwellian newspeak way that the US is the aggressor in the War On Terror. To them, they see the US as the world’s superpower being a real injustice to the rest of the world. As such, they believe that whomever attacks us has some justification just because we are as big and successful as we are. So, leftist fraud professor Ward Churchill can claim that the World Trade Towers were filled with thousands of “Little Eichmans” and he is celebrated by the radical left. The office workers there deserved what they got according to many on the left.
The weakling leftists of our society rant and rave against actions to protect our citizens while enjoying the freedoms afforded by that same US military. Irony at its best.
After Pearl Harbor, there were still liberals who wanted to avoid war and cut a deal with Japan.
I have no doubt that it ties directly to the prewar admiration expressed in the New York Times for the social welfare programs of Adolf Hitler. I have a collection of articles by famous liberal journalists of the 1930s that I should drag out and quote here.
you sum up a problem with democracies when a war is started and continues far past what the leaders stated as a timetable for success (the draft riots were in 1864 after a long and debilitating campaign); anyone remember george bush on the carrier with the mission accomplished banner? two problems with simply blaming “left wing” or media influences for today’s ambivilance–the war on terror is now a murky concept with no clear goals or timetable for success; an endless war will not be supported; similarly the lack of a draft and any shared sacrifice (like raising taxes to pay for the war)make many of us at best ambivalent or frustrated by open ended commitments — of course, if you reinstitute a draft or raise taxes many in the electorate will then demand accountability for lives and tax money that we ignore at present. your blog comments kind of remind me of the state’s fight against the lottery–well argued but out of touch with the forces pushing its adoption
David: If you get this worked up when your party and philosophy control ALL the branches of government, I can only imagine what you must have been like in the Clinton era.
Basically, your mode of argument consists of setting up straw men and knocking them down. But then again, that’s vintage George Bush “either you’re with us or you’re with the terrorists” nuanced logic. Believe it or not, it is possible to disagree with the Iraq war and our approach there without subscribing to Ward Churchill’s lunatic ravings or the view that there is any “justification” for terrorist attacks on America. Those views are held only by a very few on the radical fringe.
If you’re going to debate, then debate the arguments made by the mainstream opponents of the Iraq war, not Ward Churchill. Mr. Warthen, to his credit, has done that in this blog and columns. David, you’re not going to score any points by arguing against people who think terrorist attacks are “justified.” That’s just too easy a target.
And a pro-Bush person calling the left “Orwellian?” Now THAT’s irony.
What exactly constitutes support for the “War on Terror”? Talk is cheap and empty rhetoric about “weakling leftists” a la David is foolish.
If I put a yellow ribbon bumper magnet on my car, am I now fully supporting the war? Nope.
If I name call and denigrate the character of those who have served my country, questioning their patiotism, am I then supporting our troops? I doubt it.
I would also encourage David and Lee to read a past article by Ted Rall. He focused on the ’80’s movie “Red Dawn”, noting how people in the US cheered for the rag-tag band of high-schoolers who terrorized the Russians and Cubans in the fictional attack on the US. I ask the two of you if you have ever seen the movie? If so, who did you root for? The high-schoolers wreaking havoc with roadside bombs and missle launchers, or the commies? Now ask yourself, how is that different from what is going on in Iraq?
Preston –
Phillip tries a nuanced view and you cite Ted Rall, leader of the Bushitler gang and self-acknowledged “Cultural Elitist”? Sheesh!
David, Brad, Phillip, Lee, James, Ma, et al. –
It’s difficult, if not misleading, to use the labels “liberal” and “conservative” when discussing early 20th century politics. Even “left” and “right” gets tricky. Isolationists were all over the spectrum, Communists were all over in the sense that some dropped out of the party after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Non-aggression Pact, others supported the war to advance the USSR’s goals, und so weiter. You couldn’t tell the factions even with a scorecard – it gives me a headache almost as bad as Trotsky’s.
The same (need for a scorecard) seems true of the modern left’s attitude toward the war. Phillip asks that we ignore the lunatics, implying that we heed a Democrat or leftist mainstream. Who dat?
As for supporting the war and the troops, see my post here – there’s lots that can be done.
A recent and amusing — to me — exchange as to whether Iraq part of the war on terror occurred on MSNBC; download the video clip here to see Ron Reagan have his head handed to him by Christopher Hitchens.
But even I was surprised to learn that one of the first to draw a connection between 9/11 and Iraq was our very own Senator Fritz Hollings on 9/12/2002.
james,
The NYC draft riots occurred in 1863, not ’64. They happened just after the great Union victory at Gettysburg; a great victory with a heavy cost. Also, given that the forces behind the riots (Irish immigrants) weren’t what you’d exactly call “patriotic” anway, they concentrated on the “cost” and the fact that the method of conscription at the time was so unfair.
Also, despite all of the nastiness of the 1863 riots, the majority of Americans still supported the war and re-elected Lincoln in 1864 against an opponent who promised to negotiate an end to it.
Knowing all of this, Brad’s attempt to equate those riots with our modern view of war support by the American population is a stretch.
Phillip and Mike C,
David did not call the left “Orwellian.” You need to read more closely. He accused the left of “Orwellian newspeak.” Wikipedia that. In many ways I agree.
Phillip – Your points are well taken. I will be the first to admit that in posting brief comments on a blog, at least my tendency is to make points with blog sound bytes. Blogging doesn’t truly lend itself to thoughtful, carefully prepared writings. I chuckled when I saw your comment about how I may have been during the Clinton years. For what it is worth, I was not, and am not now, an angry American. Billy Jeff was elected with 43% of the vote, thank you Ross “I’m all ears” Perot back in 92. I didnt vote for him but I was not a big fan of Bush I either. Then with Bill’s tax increases and the scare of Hillarycare, the GOP took control of the legislative agenda and brought the nation back to earth. So, Bob Dole was a poor candidate and since the American public could see that Willie couldnt do too much harm surrounded by the Class of 94, he was re-elected. I must admit I was embarrassed for our nation at the presence of Maddy Albright as Sec. of State, Joclyn “Lets teach the kids to masturbate” Elders, Sandy Burglar as head of security, I mean these are like Saturday Night Live caricatures of real people. Slick Willie went out in disgrace, having been impeached, lost his law license, pardoned the swindler Marc Rich, etc. etc. I never hated the man but had very little respect for him.
So now I kind of marvel at the extreme hatred espoused by the left for Bush 43. Some of my thoughts would be considered on the radical side, but only as radical as our founding fathers would have been. I don’t believe in the government having all the power, we as free citizens should have the power. In simple terms, I see the left as favoring government control of our lives, much like the Euro model. I am very much in favor of privatization of government entities, like schools, prisons, etc for that very reason. It doesnt take a math major to see that once this nation has over 50% of its citizens working in government jobs, we have then become a socialist state.
I agree that civilized people can disagree about Iraq and the approach taken. But let’s have that disagreement after a semi-democracy has been in place in Iraq. That will tell the tale.
All anyone who is now against the war seems to remember is “WMD,” when it was and is much more complicated than that.
Well, I remember “WMD” and “rape rooms” and “he gassed his own people!” Also, I seem to recall hearing “we know where they are” and “I doubt it will take six months” and “we will be be greeted as liberators.” Oh, I also seem to recall something about some General – Shinseki, was that his name? – saying that we were going to need a hell of a lot more troops than Rummy thought we would need. And then, as I recollect, that general just went away. Oh, one more thing I remember – some war proponents saying the war would pay for itself. With oil revenues. Yes. It’s all coming back to me now.
Is there something else I should remember?
Anti-war activists almost always have the advantage, because their message is simple: Stop the killing.
Well, for now I’ll leave aside the simplicity of the message the Bush administration used to sell this invasion. I’ll just say this: The message of many war opponents is a lot more complex than you make it out to be, though I get the impression that your reading is so limited that you may truly believe all war opponents are long-haired hippies in tie-dyed t-shirts with peace symbols on the front. Plenty of patriotic people opposed this war because they thought it would be against America’s interests and that it would make us LESS secure.
That’s why in the long term, opinion starts to sway their way. And that’s a serious problem when you engaged in something as extremely long-term as the War on Terror.
Of course, the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the “War on Terror.” As you may recall, NONE of the 9/11 attackers came from Iraq. Not one.
kc,
You said:
“Of course, the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the “War on Terror.” As you may recall, NONE of the 9/11 attackers came from Iraq. Not one.”
None of the “9/11 attackers” came from Afghanistan, either.
Wadiak: You’re right about David’s more precise invocation of “Orwellian.” I stand corrected.
David: As you didn’t hate Clinton the man, most of the progressives I know don’t hate Bush the man, just his policies. In fact I consider him a very affable CEO-type groomed for the job by a cabal of neo-cons and powerful corporate leaders, (esp. oil and energy). I don’t even consider him personally responsible for much of what’s happened since 2001.
Mike: As you guessed, my scorecard on the Wikipedia definition of Orwellian came out a bit different than yours, with four of the meanings practically defining the Bush presidency:
“Manipulation of language for political ends”
This is the definition most often associated with the term “Orwellian,” and here it’s a slam-dunk for Bush: “Clear Skies” Act, “Patriot” Act, “family values, “death tax,” etc.
“Invasion by the state of personal privacy whether physically or by means of surveillance”
See under “Patriot Act,” also surveillance of domestic political activity via Joint Terrorism Task Forces, etc. Luckily this is an issue that can and should bring liberals and true conservatives together:
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12633&c=206
“The replacement of religious faith with worship of the state in a semi-religious manner” Given this administration’s embrace of the religious right, I’d have to count this for Bush as well—increasingly, religious faith is being equated with worship of the (Bush) state.
“Active encouragement by the state of ‘doublethink’, whereby the population must learn to embrace inconsistent concepts without dissent”
They call it “staying on message.” For example, how else to explain the polls that for so long showed a majority of Americans erroneously believed Iraq was directly involved in the 9-11 attacks?
Mike C- You get on me for citing Ted Rall without even a reaction to the questions I ask, and then you go on to cite Christopher Hitchens. Give me a break.
The principal reason people are turning against the Iraq War is the crashing credibilty of the Bush/Cheney/DeLay cabal that employed lies and deceit to start the war against the advice and warnings of most of the leaders and peoples of the world.
Also playing into the administration’s self induced problems that hurt their credibility to wage the war are: war and oil profiteering; dissing scientific evidence and warnings about human induced (excessive CO2 emissions)global warming that causes catastrophic and extreme weather; tax breaks for the rich when we have a daunting deficit from the Iraq War and hurricane relief and astronomical public and private debts; and rending the social safety net for the poor and working class people in the U.S.
Media manipulation can mask the truth for awhile and the Bushies get an A+ on “embedding” the big corporate media in the great action adventure called war in which truth is always the biggest casualty.
But public opinion has drastically changed as people are beginning to see through the swagger and staged “media ops.”. Bush’s average approval rating is now at 40% and falling, and those who disapprove of his Presidency now number 58%. The emperor is rapidly shedding his raiment in spite of constant repetition of the big lies about “Iraq WMD” and “avenging 9/11” by Fox News and other Bush-speak minions and sycophants to justify the invasion, destruction and killing in Iraq. It will go down in history along with “Poland invades Germany” as one of the most outrageous lies ever used to start a war and could even put Joseph Geobbels to shame.
There are several other reasons that Mr. Bush is in deep doo-doo. He is not only a cheerleader for war profiteers like Halliburton, but is also perceived of as a cheerleader for the oil profiteering giants like Exxon-Mobil, who always use a Middle-Eastern crisis to make windfall profits on gasoline while we can’t afford to drive our vehicles.
His administration has ignored and attempted to discredit a growing consensus of scientists, in the US and globally, who know that excessive CO2 emissions are causing global warming and catastrophically extreme weather conditions. His handling of Katrina, and, now the fury of Rita are further crumbling and crunching the support for the Bushies and people are beginning to understand that this administration is wrong on the issue of global warming no matter how much Rush Limbaugh and right-wing bloggers deny and lie.
Perhaps the greatest mistake and killer for the this administration are the gigantic tax breaks for the rich when the Iraq War and hurricane relief is so costly and our public and private debt is astronomical.
All this is at a time when the disparity of wealth and income is almost unparalleled in our nation’s history. Meanwhile, Bush/Cheney/DeLay are emasculating the social safety net for poor and working class folks as they cut medicaid benefits and attempt to privatize Social Security.
People are going to raise hell about the war in Iraq until the United States gets out of Iraq, simply because most of us have had enough of the inept leadership that trumped up lies and deceived us about the reason for going to war in the first place.
Did we invade Iraq to destroy all those terrible WMDs and avenge 9/11, or was it really done to control their vast oil reserves and set up some more permanent military bases in the oil rich Persian Gulf region? Remember,15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudis and our ol’ Saudi buddies might be getting a bit shakey and that is where we have our big bases.
Are we really more safe and secure because we invaded and are trying to occupy Iraq?
You guys that like the War on Terror so much had better find a new country to invade, because, as they say down home, “this dog won’t hunt”
Tom, you hit on so many issues I don’t have enough time to respond to all of them. One thing to ponder. Prior to LBJ’s War On Poverty programs, the federal budget was essentially balanced. I checked and now some $7 trillion (lots of zeros behind that 7) has been poured into eliminating poverty. There is our deficit for the most part. Have you seen any quotes from our founding fathers on how the federal government has no authority to collect tax dollars and give it away for many of these programs? The democrats controlled Congress and spending for about 50 years and spent us into oblivion. Now you want the GOP to reverse that trend in just a few years. Let’s be fair here.
FYI – the US pulled our troops and bases out of Saudi Arabia over a year ago. Also, once we “conquered” Kuwait, why didn’t Bush 41 simply confiscate all that oil? Please answer that one.
I have posted this before but the Hussein family was the WMD. End of that discussion.
David,
Thanks for your reply. I mis-typed and I meant to say “…our ol’ Saudi buddies are getting a bit shakey and that is where we have had our big bases.” Franklin Roosevelt cut the first deal with the Saudis for their oil in the mid-1940s and Jimmy Carter said in his State of the Union Message during the Iranian hostage crisis that the Persian Gulf area and its oil was in our national security interests and we would us military force to protect or interests there.
I am not as partisan as you might think between the Republicans and Democrats. As my ol’ boss George Wallace like to say “The Democrats and Republicans are like tweedle-dee-dee and tweedle-dee-dum on most of the big issues.”
I was a Goldwater Republican before Republican was cool. The Bush/Cheney/Delay cabal is not conservative at all on fiscal/spending matters. All they want to do is spend more and more to make their buddies in the oil/war profiteering business as well as the pharmaceutical and health care industry richer and the deficit be damned.
Their answer is always more tax cuts for the rich, and cutting spending only by further rending the social safety net for the poor and working class. Their favorite ideological answer is, “starve the beast” as Grover Norquist says.
The Kingdom of Kuwait is under the influence and virtual control of the U.S. and the U.K. Kuwait’s rulers do not try to be irritating independent asses to western interests like ol’ Saddam Hussein was in Iraq and Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran. In 1953 the U.S. and Britain did a coup and overthrew Mossadegh’s democratically elected government because Mossadegh had declared that Iran’s oil belonged to Iran rather than Britain.
Thanks again for your reply,
Tom T.
David,
The Republicans have have control of
Congress since 1995 and control of the
White House for 17 out of the last 25
years. How much longer do you think
they will need before they can get the
deficit under control? Even the communists
had ten year plans…
Tom – Had it not been for the WOT I think you would have seen a lot more budget cutting implemented. I am not real happy that the feds are still funding the Arts and NPR as two examples. I would like to see farm supports phased out and in some respects that is happening.
Keep in mind too that the GOP in the house and Senate is not one minded on many issues. It is a tenous majority at best. Lincoln Chafee is a good example of that.
As for oil, what Arab discovered oil? These people were backward camel riders living in tents and the US and Britain found the oil. If we were as fascist as some imply, we would own and control ALL the oil. At least we have the will and the guts to use our military to keep the oil supply open and out of the hands of radical Muslims who would use the oil wealth to destroy our way of life. I think a lot of our policies are headed in the right direction, but it is an ugly journey, no doubt.
David,
Your comments like, “These people were backward camel riders living in tents and the US and Britain found the oil”, are very naive, ethnocentric and frightening. Such dehumanization of “Arabs” to justify conquest and taking their oil is a bit too much.
When you use the term “fascist” you should be mindful of the fact that Adolf Hitler referred to the Jews and the Slavic peoples of the Soviet Union during World War II as “sub-human”.
Please take a moment and do Googles on the history of Persia(Iran is the colonial name), Mesopatamia(Iraq is the colonial name) and Arabia(now known as Saudi Arabia).
Here is one on Persia for starters:
http://www.mage.com/TLbody.html
“These people” developed very civilized and complex cultures when our white European ancestors were savage-like creatures living in caves.
Tom Turnipseed
David,
Your comments like, “These people were backward camel riders living in tents and the US and Britain found the oil”, are very naive, ethnocentric and frightening. Such dehumanization of “Arabs” to justify conquest and taking their oil is a bit too much.
When you use the term “fascist” you should be mindful of the fact that Adolf Hitler referred to the Jews and the Slavic peoples of the Soviet Union during World War II as “sub-human”.
Please take a moment and do Googles on the history of Persia(Iran is the colonial name), Mesopatamia(Iraq is the colonial name) and Arabia(now known as Saudi Arabia).
Here is one on Persia for starters:
http://www.mage.com/TLbody.html
“These people” developed very civilized and complex cultures when our white European ancestors were savage-like creatures living in caves.
Tom Turnipseed
About 700 military personnel are killed in accidents each year, in peacetime and non-combat activities.
From 1993 to 2003, more than 15,000 members of the U.S. armed forces have died in on-duty mishaps—compared with fewer than 1,000 killed by enemy action.
Silent Knights: Blowing the Whistle on Military Accidents and Their Cover-Ups
by Alan E. Diehl, former senior safety scientist of the U.S. Air Force.
Potomac Books (January 27, 2003)
ISBN: 1574885448
$18.95 paperback
Provides the only comprehensive treatment on the subject of military accidents and their immense social and economic cost Goes behind the scenes to explain how Pentagon blunders and tragic circumstances combine to cause accidents that kill