I Lost My Son to a War I Oppose. We Were Both Doing Our Duty.

[SWJED]

27 May Washington Post commentary - I Lost My Son to a War I Oppose. We Were Both Doing Our Duty. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/25/AR2007052502032.html) By Andrew J. Bacevich.

Parents who lose children, whether through accident or illness, inevitably wonder what they could have done to prevent their loss. When my son was killed in Iraq earlier this month at age 27, I found myself pondering my responsibility for his death.

Among the hundreds of messages that my wife and I have received, two bore directly on this question. Both held me personally culpable, insisting that my public opposition to the war had provided aid and comfort to the enemy. Each said that my son's death came as a direct result of my antiwar writings.

This may seem a vile accusation to lay against a grieving father. But in fact, it has become a staple of American political discourse, repeated endlessly by those keen to allow President Bush a free hand in waging his war. By encouraging "the terrorists," opponents of the Iraq conflict increase the risk to U.S. troops. Although the First Amendment protects antiwar critics from being tried for treason, it provides no protection for the hardly less serious charge of failing to support the troops -- today's civic equivalent of dereliction of duty...

[120mm]

At the risk of sounding harsh, domestic opposition to a war DOES assist the enemy. I don't think that should be the issue at hand, however. More appropriately, the issue should be, does assisting the enemy serve a "greater good" of stopping a war we shouldn't be fighting or cannot win at an acceptable price.

I respected Bacevich a lot more before he threw out the "People shouldn't have the right to oppose my opposition to the war" b.s. that one hears from the Dixie Chicks, Streisand, et al.. In the marketplace of ideas that is a reprehensible tactic that I despise.

[Steve Blair]

Agreed. People have just as much right to oppose his opposition as he does to take the position to begin with. Both forms of expression are protected. His is no better than theirs. This is one thing that many elements in this country (on both sides of the fence) have a great deal of difficulty coming to grips with.

[John T. Fishel]

Since I saw Colonel/Dr. Bacevich's piece early this morning I debated long and hard about whether to post a response. Any critical response is likely to cause hurt to someone who has lost so much. Nevertheless, he has stepped into the public debate and chosen to use his son's tragic death to support his argument and, therefore it is appropriate to respond.

First, it is unconscionable to accuse Colonel Bacevich of being responsible for his son's death. But it is also appropriate, as 120 points out, to note that opposition to the war does undercut the troops and their effort. Again, as 120 states, is there a greater good served by this opposition? In this case, I think not, at least, not in the terms that the debate has taken.

This is not the first US counterinsurgency that Colonel Bacevich has opposed. He was the lead author of the famous (infamous) Four Colonels Report on the US effort to support COIN in El Salvador. In that report, he was wrong both as a military observer and analyst. This was a case where we and our allies got it right yet Bacevich argued that we were doomed to lose. The central argument was that we had sent in our second team, something that turns out to have been totally inaccurate as veterans of the El Sal MILGP built a better track record of promotion and responsible position than any other similar group in the contemporary Army.

Since leaving the Army Dr. Bacevich has been a professor of International Relations at Boston University. There, he has written on the American Empire - a position that is both highly polemical and questionable in empirical terms. Some of that line of reasoning appears in his Washington Post commentary which comes out sounding very much like Marine Major General Smedley Butler in the 1930s. IMO Dr./COL Bacevich's argument has about the same level of validity. One need only ask how the major oil companies have profited by the war in Iraq.

In short, while I certainly sympathize with his loss, I am saddened to see the discussion take the form it has.

[Tom Odom]

In short, while I certainly sympathize with his loss, I am saddened to see the discussion take the form it has.

Agreed, John T. I posted earlier when I first heard of the loss, offering appropriate sympathies.

Best

Tom

[jcustis]

I'm curious, and I hope this doesnt spin this thread off track, but where is the empirical evidence that opposition to a war aids the enemy?

In our current fight, how does opposition factor into things? Is it possible for a jihadist to become emboldened because an article is posted in the New York Times?

[WVO]

To build on jcustis's question, is the main effect of opposition that it supports the enemy directly or that it erodes support at home?

Certainly Bacevich is entitled to his opinion, any media outlet is entitled to publish it, and anyone is entitled to oppose it. Perhaps his best know published work ,"The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War," was pretty polarizing when it was published a couple of years ago, as mentioned in an above posting. It is among a body of newer writings expounding on the virtues of isolationism. It would be nice to redeploy behind our oceans and pull up the drawbridge, but that didn't work between the World Wars and is even less like to work in an ever more globalized international environment.

[SWJED]

To build on jcustis's question, is the main effect of opposition that it supports the enemy directly or that it erodes support at home?

Certainly Bacevich is entitled to his opinion, any media outlet is entitled to publish it, and anyone is entitled to oppose it. Perhaps his best know published work ,"The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War," was pretty polarizing when it was published a couple of years ago, as mentioned in an above posting. It is among a body of newer writings expounding on the virtues of isolationism. It would be nice to redeploy behind our oceans and pull up the drawbridge, but that didn't work between the World Wars and is even less like to work in an ever more globalized international environment.

Nice first post - to the point and quite true. Thanks.

Isolationism is not an option regardless of one's desires to "pull-back" and defend Fortress America. Unless we remain engaged - and not just military kinetic - we lose - plain and simple.

[John T. Fishel]

First, I know of no quantitative studies of the subject. There may be some that address the issue indirectly but I don't specifically know of any.

But empirical evidence does not need to be quantitative. There is plenty of evidence that the French lost Algeria when the French public lost faith in both Algerie Francaise and the French Army. There is also a lot of evidence that opposition to the Vietnam War aided the VC/NVA in their cause by influencing US policy and actual support to the RVN. The survey data do correlate with policy.

Finally, this issue is all part of the war for legitimacy which is fought in the country where the war takes place, the countries that support the "host government," and the "court of world opinion." (Sorry about the shorthand.:D)

[selil]

Agreed. People have just as much right to oppose his opposition as he does to take the position to begin with. Both forms of expression are protected. His is no better than theirs.


Actually I disagree with this position. It may seem minor.

"He" has the right to oppose the war.

"You" have the right to support the war.

If you oppose his opposition you add nothing to the debate and define your argument by his opposition. This fails to provide discourse and into the vacuum of errant ideas only fallacious logic will fall. The debate will quickly turn to an attack of the person rather than a discussion of the ideas.

[Jimbo]

Great post John T.

Selil, interesting thought, but I would contend that opposing Dr Bacevich's opposition was meant in terms of being "pro" Iraq War, not necessarily the doctor himself. I do find it interesting that his families story is special, and roughly another 3,398 and are not.

This begs a further question that was raised regarding supporting the enemy. While commentary and honest discourse do lend aid to the enemy in a very abstract and tangential manner. However, in the U.S. today, the discourse has dropped to an irrational level below polemical tracts and muckraking articles of our history. This does give "aid" to an enemy. Not direct aid, but definately indirect aid. Since most guerilla warfare theory defines insurgency/guerilla warfare as a protracted conflict utilizing guerilla tactics to defeat the political will of a militarily superior enemy, then I would argue that the fact that beyond normal discourse gets mass media exposure, the guerillas/insurgents are aided.

[Bill Moore]

Does opposing the war actually aid the enemy? Unfortunately it does aid the enemy for the following reasons.

1. The enemy cannot defeat us militarily, so he aims to defeat us by influencing the American homefront to pressure its politicians to pull the military out.

2. A vocal public dissent provides motivation for the enemy to stay in the fight. One of the key factors for maintaining an insurgency is maintaining the belief that victory is possible. It is difficult to convince the enemy to put his weapons down and join the political process while he still thinks he has a chance of winning.

The bottom line is a vocal opposition to the war tells the enemy his strategy is on track, yet as painful and confusing as it may be it is still isn't an act of treason.

We all swore or affirmed to protect our constitution, and in so doing the implied task is to protect the freedom of our citizens, to include the freedom to protest the conflict. I would rather live in a nation where the people have the moral courage to stand up to the government "if" they believe the government is wrong. Of course the sad and confusing truth is that now much of the protest isn't based on strong moral convictions, but rather crowd mentality that blindly follows the far left so called Hollywood elites, and a few idiotic professors in our academic communities. The last thing I want to see in the U.S. is a mindless mass movement like Hilter started with the Nazi Party, but if we ever have it one it will come from the political correct far left.

Regardless of whether you support or protest the war, we have to deal with the reality of loyal dissent. Our strategy and actions in OIF can still influence the majority of the population to support the effort, but first we have to get our strategic communications game on track, stop politicizing the war, and stop blaming the press and protesters for our woes.

[120mm]

Actually I disagree with this position. It may seem minor.

"He" has the right to oppose the war.

"You" have the right to support the war.

If you oppose his opposition you add nothing to the debate and define your argument by his opposition. This fails to provide discourse and into the vacuum of errant ideas only fallacious logic will fall. The debate will quickly turn to an attack of the person rather than a discussion of the ideas.

That is too simplistic to include "my" viewpoint. I oppose the war. But I oppose losing the war, more than I oppose the war. I think that vocal opposition of the war is counterproductive in this case. Therefore I oppose Bacevich's point of view. Bacevich attacks my point of view as illegitimate.

Frankly, I think my argument is the better one, though it runs counter to what many believe.

[tequila]

Our strategy and actions in OIF can still influence the majority of the population to support the effort, but first we have to get our strategic communications game on track, stop politicizing the war, and stop blaming the press and protesters for our woes.

I think the worm has turned pretty decisively (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/us/24cnd-survey.html?hp=&pagewanted=print)on this. Historical evidence indicates (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20051101faessay84605-p20/john-mueller/the-iraq-syndrome.html) that generally it will not turn back.

Acknowledgement of this reality (http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/05/ap_senator_troopreduction_070527/)is a must. As GEN Barry McCaffrey said, "US domestic support for the war in Iraq has evaporated and will not return (http://www.iraqslogger.com/downloads/McCaffreyIraq.pdf)." We have, at most, perhaps 12-18 months before a significant American drawdown is forced on whatever American president is elected in 2008. Pretty much any realistic scenarios for American actions in Iraq have to take this into account.

[skiguy]

stop politicizing the war, and stop blaming the press and protesters for our woes.

The only ones politicizing this war, IMO, is the Left. They are still stuck on "the reasons for going" and, unfortunately, that is what has led the way and continues to lead the opposition.

There's dissent...and dissent is Patriotic blah blah blah, but then there's just plain wrong. I don't know how many political forums you guys read, but there's still discussion on a daily basis about Joe Wilson, Plame, WMD's, Saddam had no ties to AlQ, etc. Will they ever move on? (pun intended). There is virtually no discussion about victory, the only discussion is "get out of Iraq now" or "Bush lied"

I disagree that the press and protesters are blameless. Yes, they all have the freedom and liberty to protest or speak out. But they have to take responsibilty for the consequences of their actions. They are the reason public support has wained.

[tequila]

But they have to take responsibilty for the consequences of their actions. They are the reason public support has wained.

I find this very unpersuasive. A far more likely reason, I think, is the chart on page 39 (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/But they have to take responsibilty for the consequences of their actions. They are the reason public support has wained.)of this GAO report.

[marct]

Hi Skiguy,

The only ones politicizing this war, IMO, is the Left. They are still stuck on "the reasons for going" and, unfortunately, that is what has led the way and continues to lead the opposition.

I would have to disagree with that. The Iraq war was first politicized by the Administration, who are now in a reactive mode against the Left. To say that the Left are "politicizing" this war is just plain silly. What they are doing, however, is shifting the rhetorical basis of the discourse from what the Administration established at the start, and is now pretty much invalidated. The newer rhetoric is wrapped in a type of "moral rectitude" (and we all know where that comes from) that is designed to allow them to win votes.

I disagree that the press and protesters are blameless. Yes, they all have the freedom and liberty to protest or speak out. But they have to take responsibilty for the consequences of their actions. They are the reason public support has wained.

Don't you think that there are other reasons for why support has eroded? Just off the top of my head, I would say that one of the main reasons it has faltered is that the entire case for going to war in the first place has been disproven. When that is coupled with not having a UN mandate in the first place (i.e. no international legitimacy regardless of what anyone may think about the UN) and with all of the problems surrounding Phase IV, I would have to say that there are definite reasons for public support waining other than the "press and protesters".

My own position is very close to 120's - I didn't really think here was much of a case for it in the first place and, after the fiasco in the UN (i.e. not waiting for a final resolution), I was pretty jaundiced about it. However that doesn't matter now and hasn't for a number of years. You are quite correct that the Left is rehashing history and doesn't really consider future effects given current conditions. A rapid pull out or timetable will just encourage a loss so we have to deal with what is now.

Marc

[Steve Blair]

I'm also very close to 120mm's position, because I see too many possible repeats of history coming...not on the ground but in the halls of Congress and offices of policy makers. They spend so much time looking backward (selectively, of course) and so little time actually understanding what they see that they're rocketing toward a replay of 1972-1975 in Vietnam. But what disturbs me even more is that many of them don't seem to care. So many are so busy jockeying for some sort of political position or gain that they appear mentally incapable of thinking more than six months ahead (or the next election or polling cycle).

The claim that protesting occupies a higher moral ground than support (or disagreeing with protesters) is absurd, of course. Both sides have equal standing and worth within our system. I do fear, though, that there is little value in the positions of some of the protesters and supporters, since they have long ago wandered into personal attack land and contribute little of value to any meaningful discussion of policy or strategy.

[John T. Fishel]

Hi Marc--

and everybody else. Clausewitz got it right on the one thing he was totally consistent about in all 8 books: "War is and extension of politics/policy (POLITIKA - German) by other means." This war, like all wars, is political.

Marc, I must disagree that the rationale for the war was discredited. There were some 20+ reasons given in the congressional resolution, only one of which was discredited and it was one that Democrats from Bill Clinton to John Edwards as well as all Republicans and nearly every intel service believed to be correct. Where the media and others bear significant responsibility for the loss of public support is in their continued repetition of partisan mantras that fly in the face of facts. In their worst form, they come out as "Bush lied." But deemphasizing the fact that WMD was the common belief is almost as bad.

This is not to say that the Administration does not bear the brunt of the blame for the loss of public support. It does. But it is hardly alone.

Cheers

JohnT (I guess this is my new moniker:D)

[Bill Moore]

Just as a question, not a serious proposition, I wonder what the reaction of the American people would be if the President came out in the next couple of days, and told America that we cannot stablize Iraq, so we will begin a rapid phased withdrawal of our troops within the next few weeks?

Of course no ones knows what would really happen in Iraq if we did this, I still think the Al Qaeda would be destroyed by the Iraqis, once they loose their reason for being there, which is primarily to fight us. None the less the talking heads would rapidly start shaping U.S. opinion, and explain how Saudi and Iran may wage a proxy war, which could cause the price of oil to sky rocket if Iraq's southern oil fields are threatened, and the Kurds and Turkey wouldn't have the U.S. in the middle to mitigate their disputes, not to mention the perception that U.S. lost and the power that will give our foes worldwide. Once people seriously start talking about the consequences of simply quitting I think the rhetoric will change, and it will become more sober.

[jcustis]

But empirical evidence does not need to be quantitative. There is plenty of evidence that the French lost Algeria when the French public lost faith in both Algerie Francaise and the French Army. There is also a lot of evidence that opposition to the Vietnam War aided the VC/NVA in their cause by influencing US policy and actual support to the RVN. The survey data do correlate with policy.

Finally, this issue is all part of the war for legitimacy which is fought in the country where the war takes place, the countries that support the "host government," and the "court of world opinion." (Sorry about the shorthand.)

To frame my question a bit differently, is opposition to a war necessarily bad? Furthermore, can opposition and dissent be in fact patriotic? There's a book out there about the liberal left reclaiming the patriotic high ground, and I believe that there are folks who have responsible and mature viewpoints about our global power and its repercussions.

And I do firmly believe that the road to war matters even more as we move along the timeline, because the venture of war will always take a toll in "precious treasure". We need to focus on moving to an endstate, for sure, but it doesn't mean we stop dissecting how we took that path in the first place.

[Jimbo]

Once again, I am with John T fishel (or is it John T.). He brings up the exact reasons that there are issues., and the media has plenty of blame on it.


I remember sitting in the Kuwiaiti desert for 6 months in 1998, and listending to a bunch of speeches on AFN by a different President say the same things. I also heard the same lines out people who have ran for President in the recent past. I also seem to recal that almost every 18 months were sending the heavy DRB over to Kuwait as a show of force for some shannigans that Saddam was pulling.

The media's culpability lies in that they as an organization have taken to using the lowest common denominator partisan laangauge to make a story. And when they do this, some people come out ahead, and it isn't anybody sitting in this country. Last weekend the Washington Post ran a story on the funding bill, and US doemstic politics. Buried in the story was a line from Zwahiri talking about how they were all going to be able to pressure President Bush to leave Iraq. No I am not a political stategist or party chair, but I think if my oarty's rhetoric was getting a thumbs up from Al Qaeda's number 2 guy, then there is a problem. The problem isn't the democrats, the problem is how the media covers them and their stances on this issue. What is televised are arguements, not debates. the arguments are heavy emotion and very light on facts. The media appears to be doing a good job of presenting these emotions as facts. This totally kills any strategic level IO we are trying to do, and hurts us at the lower levels as well. That is my $.02

[zenpundit]

Historically, the great majority of our nation's wars from the Revolutionary War forward were marked by vigorous and shrill dissent. WWII is the great exception but one that colors the public mind, particularly when it is mentally bookended with the Vietnam War protests led by the New Left radicals ( a tiny but influential minority that were taken out of the political driver's seat by Nixon's ending of the draft. Most Boomer protestors were really anti-draft, not anti-war).

I think we can divide anti-war opinion into three groups:

a) Ideological and religious pacifists

b) Ideological leftists and academics who accept to some degree the New Left critique of America as a perpetually unjust, racist, imperialist society.

c) People who think the war was ill-conceived from the start or are unhappy with the way the war has been prosecuted ( too harsh, too soft, incompetent etc.) ranging from disappointed hawks to angry doves who are not anti-war or anti-American per se.

In my view the first and third groups may make a fair claim to the mantle of "dissenting patriot"; right or wrong on the merits of their arguments, they have the nation's best interests at heart.

The second group however, cannot make such a claim. A fundamental opposition to the United States and the values of the American creed and a celebration of alien values that lead this group to consistently sympathize with whomever the enemy of the moment might be is intrinsically incompatible with patriotism.

Serially supporting the Soviets, Castro, Hanoi, Pol Pot, the Sandinistas, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, Islamist terrorists, Saddam (a second time), Hugo Chavez and Iraqi insurgents can only be explained by a deep loathing of America and a desire to see it irrevocably changed into something else. There is no shortage of people like this and they tend to be well-educated, comfortably sheltered, upper middle class and influential in small ways.

But their anti-war views have little to do with patriotism.

[jcustis]

Jimbo, those are good points, but I'm curious. Is it purely the media's fault, or the fault of the consumer (Joe and Mary six-pack)?

Media works in a supply and demand cycle, right? Is it the responsibility of the media to find the debate amidst the arguments?

[120mm]

Bravo, Zenpundit. That was extremely well-said. And hits right to the crux of the issue. Unfortunately, the first and third groups tend to get painted into the corner of the second group, just by proximity.

[John T. Fishel]

Jimbo, thanks, and call me what you want... John, JohnT, etc. No, it's not all the media's fault, jc. But, as I said in the original post, they do bear a part of the blame. Mostly, it is due to incompetence rather than anything else, I think. Consider the diminished quality of journalistic writing and research over the last 30 years. (If one goes back far enough, however, the writing gets even more partisan than it is today:eek:)

Zenpundit, you are dead on. I would just add that dissent and self criticism is a hallmark of the Western way of war - and one of its greatest strengths - as Victor Davis Hanson points out in his numerous books (see Carnage and Culture for example). This still doesn't change the fact that the enemy draws comfort from that dissent and seeks to use it to his advantage a la Zawahiri. Again, the issue is whether a greater good is served. But the answer is not to suppress the dissent but rather to, as John S. Mill would have us do, counter the arguments with fact and logic. That, I submit, is much of what takes place in this forum

Cheers

JohnT

[goesh]

It's 4 years and holding with troops still on the ground, a government in place, some economic growth and infrastructure development, the Iraqi military is slowly developing and the police are engaging . Actions speak louder than words and in that respect, so maybe the words of Bacevich, Cindy Sheehan and the Dixie Chicks have much strenghtened the resolve of the jihadists. No doubt the strategists and financiers are encouraged by the anti-war forces. The jihadists were already convinced that we are weak, corrupt and Godless and if anything, I suspect a true jihadist would regard Bacevich as weak and afraid more than anything. He has chosen to aire his son's death and politicize it and to me, he is feeling alot of guilt but is not dealing with it.

[Jugurtha]

Again, the issue is whether a greater good is served. But the answer is not to suppress the dissent but rather to, as John S. Mill would have us do, counter the arguments with fact and logic. That, I submit, is much of what takes place in this forum

Cheers

JohnT

What takes place in this forum is radically different from Joe D. Citizen regurgitating the latest quip that he heard from the latest pundit (of either side of the aisle) which happens on a far more regular basis than rational discussion/argument.

As has been seen, once the "public" has accepted an idea wholesale (Bush lied, etc.), there's not really much you can do to change it, regardless of historical fact such as the entire intel community, White House, Congress, et al believed that Iraq needed to be invaded. If everybody was having rational discussions there wouldn't be any problem. ;)

[Tom Odom]

such as the entire intel community, White House, Congress, et al believed that Iraq needed to be invaded.

Sorry mate,

That fact as stated above is more opinion. The intel community was hardly in consensus; even Tenet's waste of trees says that. I agree that much of what has been released from either view point has been slaved to an agenda. But in terms of fact, the justification for the invasion and the use of intelligence to support the justification has been shifted and respun repeatedly.

This I will state as my opinion. John Q. Public is not as stupid as some (and that includes pundits) might assume; the loss of credibility with John Q is a self-inflicted wound. Yes the media plays a role, perhaps helping point the gun. Spin masters pulled the trigger. Once that credibility is lost it is lost. GEN McCaffrey essentially said that on his last situation report.

Best

Tom

[Jugurtha]

Sorry mate,

That fact as stated above is more opinion. The intel community was hardly in consensus; even Tenet's waste of trees says that. I agree that much of what has been released from either view point has been slaved to an agenda. But in terms of fact, the justification for the invasion and the use of intelligence to support the justification has been shifted and respun repeatedly.

This I will state as my opinion. John Q. Public is not as stupid as some (and that includes pundits) might assume; the loss of credibility with John Q is a self-inflicted wound. Yes the media plays a role, perhaps helping point the gun. Spin masters pulled the trigger. Once that credibility is lost it is lost. GEN McCaffrey essentially said that on his last situation report.

Best

Tom

Thanks for the clarification on the intel issue, I was using my rather bad memory from before we invaded Iraq.

I also don't believe that John Q. Public is stupid (I hope not, as I am John Q. Public!), but easily swayed maybe? I don't want to fall into the trap that democracies are mobs and victims of emotion and all that, but after conversations I've had with people rational discussion is not the term I'd use to describe it. I've come to the conclusion that people, in general, aren't interested in coming to a joint conclusion during an argument, but forcing their idea on you and refusing to grant anything you say. This, to me, is more hurtful than anti-war protests.

[skiguy]

I've come to the conclusion that people, in general, aren't interested in coming to a joint conclusion during an argument, but forcing their idea on you and refusing to grant anything you say.

But what if the idea or opinion is correct? I'm not purposely going off topic, I'm just going to use this as an an example to make my point:
How's the economy doing?

Now if you ask that to your average, blue collar, Joe Q public guy, who get's his "news" from Katie Couric and the local newspaper only (because he doesn't have the time or interest), most will say it sucks. All the while his 401k is skyrocketing, he's paying less taxes, and he's been steadily working full time and, in many cases, OT for the past 6 years.
I'm sorry, perhaps I was incorrect placing all the blame on the media in my previous comment, but they are still guilty for a LOT of the problems when it comes to public support. In the case of economics, the Bush administration did come out and counter the misinformation...many times. But guess what happened? The media ignored or buried it.

The MSM hardly ever reports on how many schools are being built by our Soldiers and the locals in Iraq or Afghanistan, but I can almost guarantee it will be on the front page or be the lead story when one gets blown up. I don't see how anyone can blame the administration for that.

[Tom Odom]

Thanks for the clarification on the intel issue, I was using my rather bad memory from before we invaded Iraq.

I also don't believe that John Q. Public is stupid (I hope not, as I am John Q. Public!), but easily swayed maybe? I don't want to fall into the trap that democracies are mobs and victims of emotion and all that, but after conversations I've had with people rational discussion is not the term I'd use to describe it. I've come to the conclusion that people, in general, aren't interested in coming to a joint conclusion during an argument, but forcing their idea on you and refusing to grant anything you say. This, to me, is more hurtful than anti-war protests.

That is all too true on the issues avoidance and it has become the style of US debate (or non-debate). It is easy to start the name calling etc and then you don't have to think. John Q will go along with that mode for so long and then start looking for new faces and voices.

Best

Tom

[Jugurtha]

But what if the idea or opinion is correct? I'm not purposely going off topic, I'm just going to use this as an an example to make my point:
How's the economy doing?


In a rational discussion/argument between two people that are cooperating with each other (trying to come to the "right" answer) then they will end up at the correct opinion/idea, regardless of whose it is or if it directly opposed one's original viewpoint. My point is that most discussions/arguments are not of this nature. There is a lot more give and take in the discussions/arguments as stated above that doesn't happen today. Watch any "Crossfire" type show and you'll see what I mean. These are debates that are trying to achieve nothing but entertainment. This closed and non-cooperative argument/discussion is more hurtful to our efforts than anti-war protests.

[Jugurtha]

John Q will go along with that mode for so long and then start looking for new faces and voices.


I sincerely hope so. I know I'm tired of it.

[Tacitus]

Greetings Gentlemen,

I’ve been lurking for a while, this is a great website. This thread has driven me to register and post. Zenpundit, thank you for intelligently clarifying ahead of me that there are very different people opposing this Iraq War for widely different reasons.

I believe there are very few actual ideological or religious pacifists in this country. I’ll enlarge this group a bit to include those who believe this Iraq war does not meet the conditions set forth in Just War Doctrine. Without going into detail, let’s just say that in my own conscience, I do not believe it has ever met that threshold, and I have had doubts from the beginning.

I believe there are more cultural marxists modeled on the Frankfurt School than true pacifists, but this is still a pretty small number, say less than 5% of the population, at least where I am down South.

Supporters of the Administration and the Iraq war often seem to want to label anyone who opposes the war, such as myself, unpatriotic, and accuse them of being in this group. Declining public support is an important development in this war. Regaining support will be difficult, if not impossible. I don’t think questioning my patriotism or my motives are a particularly useful tactic in leading me to change my mind on this war.

I note that this tactic of the Administration has boomeranged on its own supporters with the Immigration Bill. I oppose that Bill, and have been labeled a bigot, a know-nothing, and a racist who doesn’t want to do what’s right for America by the public rhetoric of this Administration. Not true, but I’ve grown accustomed to having my character questioned already through opposing this war, so what else is new?

Most opponents of this war think this whole effort was ill-conceived from the beginning (building a democratic Iraq, at peace with its neighbors, an ally in the global war on terror and a friend of Israel, which will lead other states in the area to follow the example) and/or it has been so mismanaged that they have lost confidence in the ability of the military or Administration to bring it to an end in something that would look like a success worth the price that has already been paid.

Fellas, I’m just an old-school Conservative with Libertarian leanings. I think there is a growing number of people like me who are looking for some kind of change in how to deal with a stateless terrorist group. I was watching an old Western movie the other night called “The Wild Bunch”, with William Holden. At one point, he says “Men, we’ve gotta learn to start thinking beyond our guns.” We’re not gonna shoot our way to victory in Iraq, either.