The Andrew Bacevich collection

[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

[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)

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

[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.

[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.