When I saw the above headline on the NYT’s homepage, I couldn’t help Tweeting the following:
How can they be weary of war? Most of them haven’t BEEN to war. “Americans Weary of War, but Favoring Airstrike Plan” http://t.co/mROWzLq2uF
— Brad Warthen (@BradWarthen) September 12, 2014
My point, in case it isn’t clear, was that I keep hearing all this talk about how war-weary Americans are, when the overwhelming majority of them haven’t experienced a minute of it.
So what is it that they’re weary of? Hearing about it? That seems really — superficial, for want of a better word.
I’m glad polls are showing that the president has backing for his limited plan for dealing with ISIL. But I am disturbed that American public opinion can be so flighty with regard to such weighty matters.
One day, they’re all “We don’t want any more war! Don’t talk to us about war! We’re going to make loud noises and repeatedly cover and uncover our ears until you stop talking about war! WAH-uh-WAH-uh-WAH-uh-WAH-uh…”
The next day, they’re all “We gotta stop ISIL! The president wants to bomb ’em! Go for it! Bomb ’em! (Then, maybe we don’t have to hear about them any more!)”
The day after that, they’re all “Are we still bombing ISIL? We’re tired of that! We don’t want to hear about that any more! We’re war-weary! What time does ‘American Idol’ come on?”
And what’s bad about that is that our elected leaders respond to those impulses. No matter what sacrifices are made on the battlefield by the few, politicians will pull out before the aims are achieved if the people get fed up — which they do very, very suddenly.
Anyway, those are the thoughts that go through my mind when I see headlines such as that. And for a brief moment, I don’t want to commit military forces to any cause ever in the future, if it’s going to be fought with politicians’ fingers in the wind.
But then, I think, Well, regardless of all that, out in the real world, we really need to stop ISIL…
Related Posts
Andrew Sullivan nails it:
“I can’t believe I have to say this in the Obama era:the only way the blight of this modern-medieval bloodlust can be turned back is if the Muslim world does it. If we do it, it comes back again more potently, fueled by hatred of the distant empire. If we do it, it gains strength. We may bomb it into some kind of submission, but it will only come back, like a virus, mutated and stronger. Why on earth do you think we are confronting ISIS anyway? It’s because we destroyed the country of Iraq, allowed al Qaeda a foothold, and ISIS exploited the shift to Shiite power in Iraq by becoming al Qaeda’s more brutal successor.”
Agree 100%. Why is this so hard to understand?
And this very succinct from another of our thoughtful conservative columnists, Ross Douthat:
“But unless something radically changes in Syria or the region, our anti-ISIS mission should be constrained by how far Kurdish and Iraqi forces can advance and how much territory they can hold, and shouldn’t be widened in pursuit of goals that are neither obviously justified by the threat to our own nation, nor obviously achievable given the tools and allies that we currently possess.”
I recommend the whole column as a thoughtful (as in, non-Lindsey-esque-panic-stoking) take from someone who does support limited action against ISIL but isn’t buying either our omnipotence in this situation nor the hype about ISIL’s being a direct threat to the US.
And then, there’s David Frum, again no peacenik liberal pacifist, who in this critique of Obama’s speech gets right to the core of the mess we are wading into: “ISIS does deserve it[being attacked]. The group is a nasty collection of slavers, rapists, thieves, throat-slitters, and all-around psychopaths. The trouble is: so are the people fighting ISIS, the regimes in Tehran and Damascus that will reap the benefits of the war the president just announced. They may be less irrational and unpredictable than ISIS. But if anything, America’s new unspoken allies in the anti-ISIS war actually represent a greater ‘challenge to international order’ and a more significant ‘threat to America’s core interests’ than the vicious characters the United States will soon drop bombs on.”
I think Sullivan, Douthat and Frum pretty much sum up my feelings. Thanks to Doug and Philip for the quotes AND links!
Which is why I am writing in Phillips name on the ballot in the Graham-Hutto race.
I don’t think there is a politician I would like to see lose more than Graham. Maybe Harry Reid. But, no, I’ll take Graham losing by 1 vote. Mainly because Graham is likely to hang around in office like Strom for another 24 years.
Phillip is not going to Washington. He’s too busy playing in NYC with Steve Reich, as reviewed in the NY Times. Sorry I cannot link from my iPad mini.
Sure you can. It’s just a lot harder.
No, *I* cannot do it. YMMV
I’m with you Doug. It’s a mystery that Graham won the GOP primary so handily. Where were all the libertarian anti-warmongers when we needed them most? As offensive as the libertarian domestic agenda is I was willing to vote for a tea partier to get rid of the highly despicable Lindsey Graham.
Graham won because he is essentially a right-leaning moderate in his votes. Despite his rhetoric, he is a mostly thoughtful politician.
Graham is the worst politician?
Aw, c’mon. Enough of this serious stuff. Mark Sanford announced the end of his engagement to Maria Belen Chapur in a two thousand plus word post on Facebook. The State has the story, and a link.
I read the post and there is a lot more to it than just the end of the engagement. Quite honestly, if even half or one third of what he said is true, Jenny is a bona fide nut case and one of the most vindictive individuals I have ever heard of. What Sanford while he was governor was wrong and in the end, he paid for it. But, with some people, they are not satisfied until the last drop of blood has been extracted and then they want the skin stretched on the proverbial barn wall and the skeleton ground into dust. Based on the way she has gone after Sanford, I doubt either one would satisfy her seemingly unquenchable thirst for revenge.
At first, Jenny had my total and complete support but after her continued quest to continually punish Sanford for his transgression, I have no sympathy for her in any way, shape, or form. Personally, I hope his attorney demands that Jenny be subjected to the same psychological testing and Sanford sues her for joint custody and wins. At some point, enough is enough and I am glad to see that Sanford has finally reached that point.
I agree. I read the whole thing, and he makes a persuasive case for his side of things. He hardly seems like an intoxicated rager– more like the kind to induce those states in others, for example. He owns his foolish frugality, and I imagine he is just too cheap to indulge, if nothing else. He certainly had a fool for a lawyer up until now.
I was Team Jenny back when the Appalachian Trail broke, but she is clearly out for revenge far more than the best interests of her children.
What Sanford while he was governor was wrong and in the end, he paid for it.
-Bart
No he didn’t. He remained governor until his term was up. Aside from the titillating adultery he deserting his post and had his staff lie to the people of the state as to his whereabouts. Seems like an impeachable event to me. Only a bit of investigative journalism uncovered his sordid tale.
Then to top it off the foolish people of Charleston elected him to congress. I just hope they’re happy with all this drama.
bud, you would only be satisfied if Sanford had his head severed by a French mob using the guillotine, stuck on a pole for all to see. As for drama, the good people of Charleston can thank Jenny, not Mark. So far, Jenny has been the one consistently keeping their divorce and legal filings in the news.
I feel for their children.
The story might be amusing without them. As is, it’s not.
Agreed. It sounds like the oldest is looking out for his younger brothers, which is a lot to put on a kid, but at least they have the four of them.
Both Mark and Jenny are crazy as a loon! The real reason why Sanford broke his engagement with Chapur is because he wants to chase tail in Washington. Isn’t that what everybody in DC does? He’s found a Brazilian Bombshell with bigger bazookas than the Argentinian.
Proof or speculation? If you have proof, please provide. If not, why make the comment?
Re: Sanford–He is a total narcissist. He has just quit his “soul-mate” and is trying to make this round of trust betrayal sound like altruism. I would not trust what he says until I heard from her and from an independent analysis of such facts as can be gained.
Re: war weary–I cannot advocate another war until we are willing to pay for it. I haven’t seen anyone asking for a tax increase to fund our involvement.
I have certainly seen many cases, including my brother in law and erstwhile boss, where the strains of the never ending divorce killed the new relationship, and in my b-i-l’s case, second marriage. Sanford is indeed a narcissist who clothes himself in the cross of Christ, but he makes believable arguments in his post. Jenny is clearly not taking the high road, either.
I have a close relative who won’t let it go either. In the beginning, he had my total support and trust. Now, after years of constant harping over nothing, legal threats, and harassing calls and unannounced visits and especially after she has moved on with her life and has done everything possible to be supportive of my close relative, my support has flipped and I understand why she did what she did.
Mark Sanford tried to move on but Jenny wouldn’t. Which one needs an evaluation and counseling?
When I was guardian ad Litem in cases like this, I would recommend a psych eval for BOTH. Amazing what happens then….
…Nothing. Well, more money wasted and more acrimony engendered.
We all make mistakes in life (some far more serious than others). But some people can’t accept responsibility for their actions; when one finds that, best thing is to walk away – that person will never do anything but repeat the same patterns over and over again.
I agree with that. Maya Angelou said people will show you,who they are. Believe them the first time.
Or as my DSS lawyer friend said, “you can raise adults.”
What I meant was that often the person demanding the psych eval of the former spouse had far greater issues.
Can’t
From CNN:
“A member of the Saudi royal family told CNN on Monday that he didn’t think his country would participate in military operations but would be pleased to see ISIS vanquished in response to its heinous violence.”
I’m sure they WOULD be pleased, especially if it doesn’t cost the Saudis anything in cash or blood.
*sigh*
The Saud family used Wahabbism to cement control of the portion of Arabia that they currently rule, and continued to ride the Wahabbist Tiger to promote their own interests. It’s this same militant and virulent branch of Islam that now threatens the entire region. Until the Saud family retracts their support and actively begins to oppose Wahabbist ideals, nothing will change for the better. They are the lynchpin in this whole mess.
And they are likely to go down with it, one day.
Well, we’re doing ourselves no favors by saying ISIS and the rest of their cohorts aren’t “Islamic”. I don’t know how the Saudis will ever have the courage to fight back against it if we won’t even point out the obvious. I really don’t get why people are falling all over themselves to avoid calling a spade a spade.
They behead people for the “crime” of being homosexual. They cut people’s hands off for theft. They stone people to death for adultery. They mutilate women’s genitals. Drawing a cartoon of their god is punishable by death. Women are second class citizens, at best.
Islam as it currently exists is not compatible with Western civilization. Never has been. Never will be.
It’s a religion very much like our own. The issue is not the religion, it is the people who use the religion as cover for their corporal actions.
We will only make headway when we drive a wedge of distinction between the religion and the culture. We should not give up on the first in our efforts to tamp down the second.
“We” didn’t say that ISIS isn’t Islamic. Only one person has done that, and his name is Barack Obama. Everyone else pretty much agrees that ISIS is Islamic.
“Islam as it currently exists”? You mean, as it exists on CNN headline news. The “incompatibility” of Islam with Western civilization would come as a surprise to most Muslims living in the United States, or for that matter to the quarter-billion Muslims living in Indonesia.
Also, of course, when you say “never has been,” what we think of as “Western culture” stems in large part from the legacy of Moorish Spain towards the end of the first millennium AD. Then, it was “Christian Europe” that was intellectually backwards and violent, while it was the Muslims on the Iberian Peninsula who were the ones practicing tolerance and whose cultural and intellectual legacy formed so much of the basis for what we like to call “Western Civilization”–a concept which you’ll recall Gandhi thought sounded like “a good idea.”
There is no avoiding the fact that if Islam is to live peacefully in the world, it needs a substantial reformation.
I find it odd that you feel comfortable reassuring Islam that nothing at all about it is in need of reform (or even reconsideration).
I didn’t expect the Spanish Inquisition!
Our chief weapon is surprise…surprise and fear…fear and surprise…. Our two weapons are fear and surprise…and ruthless efficiency…. Our *three* weapons are fear, and surprise, and ruthless efficiency…and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope…. Our *four*…no… *Amongst* our weapons…. Amongst our weaponry…are such elements as fear, surprise
There are fairly extreme “Christian” sects whose beliefs most Christians eschew.
And yet, they aren’t beheading nonbelievers anywhere, that I’m aware of.
All we need now to come full circle is for Bush to send Kerry to the U.N. with “credible” evidence that ISIS has WMD’s that they are preparing to use against us.
You can’t fix religious fanatics. You can’t suppress their fanaticism by killing some of them.
Let them kill each other. Stop all trade with them. Ignore them until some faction within their country bands together and asks us for help.
Oops… replace Bush with Obama above. A Freudian slip that sadly reflects how little difference there is between the two.
Obama isn’t even going to the UN to get a resolution. He’s just gonna go drop some bombs.