A clue to this curiously low-key response may be found in the bustling shopping centres. Despite the mounting cost of the war in Iraq, the economic consequences have remained relatively contained. There have been no signs of a decline in consumer confidence and no uptick in inflation....We should also take into account the nature of the opposition to the war. When people acknowledge that they disapprove of the President's handling of the war, what does that mean? You might answer that way to say you're unhappy that we haven't yet won decisively. If you think Bush ought to be handling things better, moving us along toward victory along a clearer, more well-defined path, do you feel motivated to go out on the street and protest? What would you chant? I know you're in the middle of a difficult task, but would you please try to figure out a more effective way to complete it?
As of Friday military casualties had mounted to 2,313 killed and 17,000 wounded. This is enough to make many Americans question the conflict, but the toll still falls far short of the 58,000 Americans who died in Vietnam.
A poll for Newsweek magazine at the end of last week showed that just 29 per cent of Americans approve of the president's handling of the war, down from 69 per cent in the months after the conflict began in March 2003. Almost 60 per cent of Americans now feel less confident that the war will come to a successful conclusion, with fears mounting that the country will slide into civil war.
Don't assume that Americans are a bunch of dullards, complacently out shopping. Maybe we intelligently and perceptively understand the situation when we answer the polls like that and still stay away from the public protests.
पोस्ट्स
५२ टिप्पण्या:
Why are the war protests so tame?
Well, to start, there's no large baby-boom cohort subject to a military draft.
But I think your point is correct that dissatisfaction with Bush can come from the right of him as well as the left. The two reponses - which point in opposite directions, and have radically different politically implications - are confusingly merged in the overall figure.
It's very simple. No draft.
Vietnam protesters tended to think the whole enterprise made no sense. "It's 1-2-3, what are we fighting for?/Don't ask me, I don't give a damn." With Iraq, we don't have a mindset anything like that. I vividly remember a teach-in on the Vietnam War at the University of Michigan in 1969, held in a large concert hall, where one of the speakers said he didn't think it would be so bad if the country fell to the Communist and the huge crowd cheered.
Maybe the marginal value of our time has risen dramatically in the last several decades. Technological change surely has something to do with this, but so does the President's wise decision to hold the anniversary of the war on the opening weekend of the NCAA basketball tournament.
Yes, when they ask a poll question on whether people are satisfied with the way Bush is handling the war in Iraq, the answer has little to do with supporting the war or supporting the mission.
I am sure that FDR would have gotten poor marks all during world war II. Every success is met by a new criticism.
Also, many war critics have no alternative plan. They have no plan or strategy about how to handle the proliferation of WMD in the world. They are only critics with no alternative plan.
IN contrast, Bush does have a strategy for managing proliferation of WMD and he is implementing the strategy in Iraq - that is relying on democracy to control the use of WMD in the future under the idea that democracies would not use nukes or would not proliferate. DEMOCRACY IS THE GRAND STRATEGY!
If you want to criticise this strategy... fine. But, do us all a favor and come up with an alternative strategy if you think Bush is so much in error.
Rob, Im not so sure. Althouse specifically talked about polls for the war in her post. I was only elaborating on the subject and anticipating criticism of the elaboration.
The protests were small. What more is there to say about them. Better to elaborate about the finer points of these issues.
Having lived through the Vietnam and the draft, I have to say that I think that the two were intimately connected. I think that a lot of the protest was that we had a big chance at dying in a war that wasn't being well fought and made questionable sense.
Shocked by the Chinese invasion of Korea a little more than a decade before, esp. the Johnson Administration bent over backwards in Vietnam at not attacking North Vietnam's patrons, the USSR and PRC. The result was often giving the enemy safe havens that made no military sense.
The war was run out of the Pentagon, and, worse, the White House. Johnson personally specified bombing targets. And targets were taken with much American loss of lives, just to be given back, and maybe taken again, and again...
So, we were looking at being forced to fight and die half way around the world in a war being badly run by politicians for no real apparent reason. Tens of thousands were dying for what?
If there hadn't been a draft, then we would have just smoked pot, dropped acid, experimented in free love, and eventually grown out of all of it. But, of course, we couldn't. If you actually did drop out, you faced induction pretty quickly thereafter, followed most likely by a tour to SE Asia.
Nowadays, there are a lot of differences. Most notably, the youth of this country are not being dragged half way around the world to die in a senseless war. Regardless of the merits of the war, only volunteers are going. And that makes all the difference in the world.
Then, this war is not being fought nearly as stupidly as Vietnam was. Yes, the Administration made a lot of mistakes early on. But they have let the military fight the war as they saw fit, providing as much support as possible. But all you have to do is look at the casualty figures: 58,000 versus 2,300 so far, to see the difference.
I think you are correct in that people do want to win, rather than to simply end, the Iraq war. Of course the media refuse to acknowledge this and paint us as mindless political morons (in addition to cooking morons, fashion morons--I don't read the NYT but I'm sure you all could go on). Whether they do this because they believe it or are merely trying to generate controversy to sell papers remains a puzzle to me.
And "I know you're in the middle of a difficult task, but would you please try to figure out a more effective way to complete it?" -- catchy!
"....Then, this war is not being fought nearly as stupidly as Vietnam was. Yes, the Administration made a lot of mistakes early on...."
That is the conventional wisdom at least. In fact we faced a formidable enemy in N. Vietnam supported by the USSR and China. The North Vietnamese fielded more than a million troops and modern jet aircraft. By 1973, the Vietnam war was won. the North signed a peace treaty. Then Democrats in Congress refused to support the new S. Vietnamese gov. The North invaded in 1975 and that was it.
Yes mistakes were made. But none of the mistakes in Vietnam or Iraq even come close to the massive blunders in World War II, such as the 1200 marines killed at Peleliu or the tactical failure to plan for the bocage in Normandy. Some argue that the policy of "unconditional" surrender led to 50,000 additional American deaths for nothing gained. After World War II we forgot that mistakes are made in war, despite victory.
"....And it's 5,6, 7 open up the pearly gates. Don't ask me why. Whoopee we're all gonna die".
Thanks Ann for starting that. It was a catchy song by Country Joe and the Fish!
Maybe it's what the protestors need ....a catchy song and add in plenty of braless girls.
Hey, there were thousands out marching this weekend in quite a few cities (they even had one in Flagstaff-- not covered on the news, but there was one). The numbers were impressive enough since they were nationwide.
Maybe they were termed, 'low key,' but what would you rather have them do? burn a few cars, throw a few rocks through store windows or make the cops pull out the pepper spray just to get 'noticed?' Protesters are better behaved now than they were during Vietnam but that doesn't make the protest any less important.
Because people are so self-absorbed these days----they've got a cell-phone in one hand, and a blackberry in the other.....maybe they'll "fit-in" a protest or two.
Vietnam War was life or death, back then. There were no tickers, no text messages. Nothing else to distract and dilute the passion.
Baby boomers are tired and can't summon that level of passion and urgency.....even if they disagree just as strongly.
Youth are just plain stupid. There's nobody under 40 in my Saul Bellow reading group. ---That one young gal who mistook the peace sign for a Mercedes symbol. Dumb dumb dumb....and with more and more technology, which isn't helping enlightenment, or intelligence......
A mixture of apathy, old-age, and stupidity has destroyed passionate protests of yesteryear.
Peace, Maxine
You hit on something I've noticed, Ann. The wording of that question allows for both war supporters and war opposers answers to be counted at the same time. It is a very dishonest question. Many polls these days are highly dishonest and use horribly skewed samples as well.
I would have failed design of experiments if I had submitted what passes for polls these days.
Maxine, careful shaking that cane, you're gonna bean somebody.
Eli: "Maybe they were termed, 'low key,' but what would you rather have them do? burn a few cars, throw a few rocks through store windows or make the cops pull out the pepper spray just to get 'noticed?'"
Vietnam protest tended to be very large and very passionate, not violent.
knoxgirl:
Great shot. One of the best I've seen.
knoxgirl: score!
I agree that the lack of a draft changes the scene dramatically. I was too young during the Vietnam war to join in protests, plus I lived for much of that time on a military base so guess how well that would have gone over anyway. But we were keenly aware of the draft looming over my brothers and their friends. The prospect of high school graduation wasn't something joyous; there was dread.
The other factor that makes sense to me is the lack of focus. I oppose this war. I've marched in opposition, but I skip many of the planned marches because they're catchall protests of twenty different issues, and that seems stupid to me. It's not like there's a "seamless garment" that encompasses the war, veganism, housing discrimination, Free Palenstine, Save the Lake, and on and on.
Maxine:
I have to disagree with you. Americans are less busy today but do have more options and gadgets on which to spend their precious time. So we think we are busier.
As a boomer, I agree with the comment that my generation acts as if we are so fantastic. I suspect we spoiled offspring of grateful WWII vets were coddled by those same parents who were just happy to be free and alive in a country with great opportunity.
I think there are a lot of people who are anti-war, but also anti-withdrawal. I did not want this war that was foisted upon us by spineless bureaucrats who couldn't execute a military strategy if their lives depended on it (which, alas, the do not) -- yes I'm talking to you, Donald -- but now that we're there, I have the feeling of breaking a crystal vase in the store. You break it, you buy it.
I am deeply ambivalent. At some point I will be unable to tell the parent of the last person killed that it was worth it -- I don't know if I'm there yet.
Of course all of us all dullards, unless we happen to answer questions from a pollster in such a way that news organizations can spin them into reasoning they approve.
Ann asked: If you think Bush ought to be handling things better, moving us along toward victory along a clearer, more well-defined path, do you feel motivated to go out on the street and protest? What would you chant?
What do we want? COMPETENCE.
When do we want it? NOW.
How do we get it? FIRE RUMSFELD.
The antique media has genetrated a mindset in an alternate universe that doesn't exist. Most people aren't anti-war, they just don't have a confort zone that things in Iraq are going well, and who would with the constant barrage of lies. Exhibit -- there are several polls that show support for military action against Iran.
The real problem is the antique media is feeding the terrorists, if they can just hang on, convince a few more nuts to blow up, they can win -- at least the media war.
The real problem is the media ...
Two other factors should be considered:
1. The irony of repressing the civil rights movement at home while 'fighting for freedom' in Southeast Asia.
2. The anti-establishment/pro-counter culture sentiment in young people. Most of the male protesters had long hair and the women wanted more choices than housewife, teacher, secretary, or nurse.
The anti-war demonstration gave a focus for many cultural and political dissatisfactions.
Yeah, bill, the Iraqi insurgents are really fighting a media war. The new pro-war meme is that the press is losing the war in Iraq. How low can the rhetoric go?
"Who here will argue that, pound for pound, the youth of today are smarter or better educated or more soulful than the 60s generation? "
I will. Did you read this comment Ann posted?
""It's 1-2-3, what are we fighting for?/Don't ask me, I don't give a damn." With Iraq, we don't have a mindset anything like that. I vividly remember a teach-in on the Vietnam War at the University of Michigan in 1969, held in a large concert hall, where one of the speakers said he didn't think it would be so bad if the country fell to the Communist and the huge crowd cheered."
"Teach-in" indeed. A bag of rocks is smarter than people like this, and the crappy music didn't help. Still, those who participated in this nonsense were a tiny, if noisy, fraction of the population. Perhaps the sanctimony covered their unease that better people than them were risking life and limb to defend the privileges they enjoyed. Nothing has changed. Especially on campus.
North Vietnamese General Giap was right: The battle in the media was what defeated America in Vietnam. The terrorists at Al Qaeda are apt pupils of Giap. And just as in Vietnam, the American media's sympathies lie with those who oppose the American president. They feel the same way about Bush 43 as they felt about Nixon.
But while the MSM focus relentless on the number of American soldiers killed in Iraq, it is clarifying to note that the number of total military casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan COMBINED are STILL less than the number of civilian casualties we suffered in one day on September 11th.
The protesters? They're just a bunch of jobless schmucks who need to get a life.
I'm reading an interesting book that came out in 1987. It's called: "The Closing Of The American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy And Impoverished The Souls Of Today's Students"----By Allan Bloom
He was a well-known philosopher and somewhat Conservative. Its all about "enlightenment". Kids in the 60s, for all their flaws, were enlightened. Even if you were anti-establishment 60s counter-culture and did drugs, you still were educated in a way that today's diploma mills aren't doing.
Peace, Maxine
...it is clarifying to note that the number of total military casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan COMBINED are STILL less than the number of civilian casualties we suffered in one day on September 11th.
This comment begs the question: at what point do American casualties become too onerous a burden? When they're equal to the death toll from Sept 11? Double? Ten times?
I won't ask about civilian Iraqi casualties.
"when you slam 60s music, you go too far"
Sorry. I was slamming protest stuff in general, though the only CSN(Y) song I like is Woodstock, oddly enough. The 60's also produced instrumental surf music, the highest art form ever attained by mankind.
Ann Althouse said, "Vietnam protesters tended to think the whole enterprise made no sense."
That was their stated reason. That wasn't necessarily the true primary reason. Just like the present.
Are today's kids dumber? Perhaps you are looking in the wrong places. Most observers claim the military has gotten smarter.
On the other hand, in an article about Yale admitting a spokesman for the Taliban, John Fund writes "They (students) have been taught to have extreme anger over trivial things, while letting large, evil things sit right down next to them in the lunch hall."
http://www.penraker.com/archives/003673.html
I think that the commenters who mentioned the Vietnam-Draft point are obviously correct, but for me, it's more reductive than this.
It's precisely because there WAS such a thing as Vietnam, with its attendant protests, and counter-culture that almost went hand-in-hand with it, that we don't have the same intensity in the protest movement.
The visions of Jane Fonda cohorting with North Vietnamese on tanks...
The horrible imagery of returning vets being spat on by these anti-Vietnam protesters...
The whole ridiculous self-obsession and hypocrisy of those particular years...
All of these images are seared into the American mind.
I recently saw a TVLAND commercial circa 1981, about a collectible 1980 Lake Placid Gold Medal Hockey Team win against the Soviets.
You know what the advertisers put into the mouth of the spokesperson?
"My child came to me and said, dad, America is back! We can be proud to be Americans again."
It's precisely because of the 1980s, when Americans learnt that it was okay to be proud to be Americans again, that there can never be the same type of protest movement like there was for Vietnam.
Hating the War in Iraq is one thing.
But no one can get away with hating American military personnel anymore.
Cheers,
Victoria
The wording of that question allows for both war supporters and war opposers answers to be counted at the same time. It is a very dishonest question. Many polls these days are highly dishonest and use horribly skewed samples
Yup. Polling is out of control in the media, and polls are the favorite tool of the propagandist.
As for me, I wasn't at any "peace" protests because I don't believe the people attending them are on the side of peace-promoting policies, I support the liberation of Iraq, and I think Saddam's regime was pure evil and we were out of better options of what to do about it. And I have to agree with Chritsopher Hitchens' article today, which scolds certain actors in the international community on how they should have reacted to Bush's pre-war speeches if they gave a damn about dealing with evil in this world.
http://www.slate.com/id/2138332/nav/tap1/
Hitch's comment about the nature of many protests might provide some insight into why many don't take part in them as well: "Platforms set up in major cities so that crowds could be harangued by hardened supporters of Milosevic and Saddam, some of them paid out of the oil-for-food bordello."
Jim C: "That was their stated reason. That wasn't necessarily the true primary reason. Just like the present."
There were also plenty of people who were calling for a revolution, openly. And a lot others thought everything about society was changing rapidly and were very excited about being part of this. The second group was basically right.
- ain't much I can add to this - you draw a thoughtful, insightful following -
AJ; It's "And five, six, seven
Open up the pearly gates
Well there ain't no time to wonder why
Whoopee! we're all gonna die".
Probably the last pop song written were almost everyone, anti or pro, could sing it.
Madison Man -
The point is that our military casualties are extremely low compared to any other major war our country has ever fought. Compare them with the number we lost in one day at Normandy Beach or Shiloh.
inma30 -
I'm glad the truth made you laugh. Most people who believe the MSM are the fount of all truth are grim and humorless. Laugh a little more often and who knows, you might even become a political conservative. We're happier people than liberals. Have a nice day. :-)
Compare them with the number we lost in one day at Normandy Beach
Normandy was a successful Allied military endeavor, run by competents.
One wonders where we'd be had a Rumsfeld-type thinker been in charge way back when.
vw: mitkdz: Any german parent.
Vietnam was undergoing a natural change from colonial to independent rule in the 1950s when we showed up on the scene. The U.S. war in Vietnam lacked a clear beginning, lacked an obvious reason why were were still there at all by the late 1960s other than inertia. Plus, there were ten times as many Americans dying every month during Vietnam.
The situation in Iraq is 100% caused by the U.S. invasion. Even if people think the war was a mistake, or even if they think its the result of deliberate misrepresentations of fact by the Bush Administration, they still recognize that the problems in Iraq were created by us, so we owe some duty to take those problems into account when we decide on our exit strategy. I think a lot of people who think the war was a horrible mistake, myself included, are conflicted over what is the most responsible action to take now. With lack of clear vision, comes lack of passionate protests.
Editor and Publisher: More Americans than nearly ever before now say the war in Iraq is a "mistake" for the United States, according to a new Gallup poll. That figure now stands at 55%, up 4% point since late January. Only once before was the figure higher, at 59%, and that was during the period of overall pessimism right after Hurricane Katrina hit.
Ann: When people acknowledge that they disapprove of the President's handling of the war
People are not saying only that they disapprove of how the war is being handled, they say that the war was a mistake itself.
If they are being quieter than you feel they should be, it is due a) to the lack of a draft, and b) fear of being socially castigated as nuts as prominent Democrats are.
Perhaps you could lead a few protests, or make clear in your blog that as either Howard Zinn or Thomas Jefferson said, "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."
monkeyboy wrote: "The situation in Iraq 100% caused by us? Well, yeah, like the birth of the KKK was 100% caused by Union ocupation."
I stand by my statement. I'm not saying things were good in Iraq before the U.S. invasion. They weren't. But the country was not on the verge of civil war. Civilians were not being killed by the thousands every month by foreign terrorists and U.S. troops in suicide bombs, sectarian violence and attempts to quell an uncontrollable insurgency. The reason that Iraq would descend into a complete bloodbath if we pulled out has everything to do with the fact that we used military force to overthrow Saddam Hussein's government. If we had not invaded, this mess would not exist. The fact that we did invade means that the American people have a duty to stay until we make things right. People understand that and that's why it difficult to responsibly support pulling out of Iraq even though people would not have supported the invasion if they were asked to today.
The rise of the KKK in the U.S. South is very different. The U.S. government's decision to put down a revolution and to end slavery in the 1860s is nothing like the U.S. governments decision to invade another sovereign country with growing tension between the West and Islamic fundamentalism in the backdrop. The KKK was a homegrown reaction to racial animosity and change. The insurgency in Iraq represents the convergence of Islamic terrorists from around to world to do battle against the U.S. because it invaded a Muslim country under false pretenses.
Normandy was a success (as I think Iraq will be), but success has forgiven quite a number of failures.
Yes. Imagine if the Allies had gone it with a bare minimal number of troops, rather than extras to replace those lost to errors.
I submit that Iraq already is a failure. None of super-ultra-rosy pre-war predictions that the Administration touted -- from being welcomed as liberators to costing less than $100 billion to being paid for by Iraqi oil -- came even remotely close to fruition. Iraq could become a success -- but that would require an acknowledgement by people at the Pentagon, from Rumsfeld on down, that their plans and execution for the war were woefully, if not criminally, inadequate. I don't see that happening anytime soon, and I don't see the President pushing for it.
seven machos, did you miss the 'if not' in my post? Would you agree that the preparations were woefully inadequate? Are there laws against gross incompetence at the Pentagon? Should there be?
Althousefan said: "If I could magically turn you into an Iraqi, and plop you down there at any point, would you prefer that I plopped you down before or after the fall of Saddam?"
I don't know if I personally know enough about life in Iraq before and after the U.S. invaded to give a very thoughtful answer to your question. I do not dispute that Saddam Hussein committed egregious crimes against his own people and I certainly would not have wanted to live in Iraq in the 1980-1990s. But would I rather live there now? If you make me an Iraqi Kurd, I'd probably rather live in Iraqi Kurdistan now than ten years ago. Otherwise, I don't think Iraq seems any better a place to live now, and in a lot of ways, its a much less happy and more dangerous place to live.
I personally think the war was a mistake because we did not have enough of a national interest at stake to justify such a commitment. But that's not really the point of this post or my comment. The point is that the anti-war movement in the U.S. is conflicted because at this point, "ending the war" is not as simple as bringing the troops home. So, if the anti-war movement seems tame, I'm arguing that the reason is not support for the war, but rather lack of a clear understanding of what a responsible "peaceful" solution is.
"on the verge of civil war"
What exactly do you mean by that? I hear that phrase bandied about constantly and it's definition is most important. The reason that Iraq has not entered a true civil war is that the people don't support it. Just like in Lebanon years ago, their equivalent of mafia-type gangs are fighting now; the great majority of people are not that extreme or violent and want a decent consensual government. Yes, it was our mistake and Iraqi pols' mistake to allow people like Muqty to rise to power, not the mistaken desire of the people, and now we are correcting that.
From what I've read, our newer strategy now in fighting this guerilla war is proving effective. Our casualties are the lowest in three years, so we don't see cars exploding every night on the news but now have to listen to "verge" of civil war doommongering. Even before now,this war had the lowest casualties of any war fought anywhere.
So, calm down and support the majority of Iraqis who want to stick it out. They won't get another chance in their lifetimes.
"I doubt that would turn me into a political conservative, however. Too pessimistic a worldview for me."
Have you been to Kos?
I mean, it's not very "optimistic"...
seven machos, are you actually under the impression that Iraqis did not have "cars and phones" under Saddam? They weren't living in huts. They had cars, phones, computers, DVD players, electricity. Iraq, even under a dictator, was a modern country. It's not like we swooped in like Prometheus, bearing fire.
Should there be laws against "gross incompetence at the Pentagon"? No, madisonman, I don't believe there should be. If there were such laws, who would enforce them? Who would prosecute?
Well, given that it's the military, how about a Court Martial for dereliction of duty?
Even your solution of more troops would bring problems of their own. You would instead be complaining about the large footprint, force protection issues and the violations of the rule of thirds.
And you know these future actions of mine how, precisely?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा