COIN & The Media (catch all)

[John T. Fishel]

on Ameirican willingness to bear the burden of war has been done by Peter Feaver of Duke. Although it was written pre-9/11 the Iraq war data seems to bear him out. Sorry, don't have the cite but you should be able to find it pretty easily.

Cheers

JohnT

[politicsbyothermeans]

I wonder what's worse... an honest national dialogue concerning our strategic aims, to include counterinsurgency, or the national apathy we are currently experiencing.

Oh wait, nevermind.

[Ken White]

non-interference and allowing people to get on with their job only intruding if they see what looks like a potential screwup or something they don't like.

The public reaction to these wars is not one bit different than it was to Korea or Viet Nam -- 1/3 supports (President's Party), 1/3 objects (opposition party) and 1/3 swings back and forth depending on how well or bad the war is going.

Right now we're in a State of flux because for only the second time in our history, we've got a political party transition during a war. The Korean transition was different because there was only one theater and the transition President had campaigned specifically on ending that war. Today, the transition President has said he will end (sort of, not well defined) operations in one theater and ramp up operations (sort of, not well defined) in the other...

It's going to be interesting to watch the Republicans and their supporters transition to anti-war types. I figure that will take about 18 months to two years. I'm also curious to see how the old 'anti-war' crowd that was adapts to the new regime.

So Joe Six Pack is waiting to see what happens. It's not apathy.

[jmm99]

from Ken
Right now we're in a State of flux because for only the second time in our history, we've got a political party transition during a war. The Korean transition was different because there was only one theater and the transition President had campaigned specifically on ending that war.

I can see why you'd want to forget Vietnam. Same deal as Korea - Nixon's secret plan to end the war, etc.

Yes, it will be interesting to see if our crystal balls are accurate as to your first two sentences.

from Ken
It's going to be interesting to watch the Republicans and their supporters transition to anti-war types. I figure that will take about 18 months to two years. I'm also curious to see how the old 'anti-war' crowd that was adapts to the new regime.

and, as to the last sentence, I have been watching that - some (majority ?) of the left anti-war crowd are now becoming a bit hawkish; some are feeling betrayed - and their sense of betrayal will grow.

The old 'anti-war' crowd on the farther right (good daily press links), as they have from the time of Bosnia, will continue to deliver their message, which also often appears in the American Conservative.

Here is a sample article on dove to hawk conversion.

[Ken White]

I can see why you'd want to forget Vietnam. Same deal as Korea - Nixon's secret plan to end the war, etc.

Viet Nam the war was effectively decided and over when Johnson announced he would not run for reelection.

Therefor, the election changed no attitudes and thus, in the sense of the political parties attitude toward our wars, Viet Nam was an aberration, By the time of the 1968 election the Democratic Party and its supporters were as opposed -- or perhaps more -- to the war as the Republican side had been.

The major difference between Viet Nam and all our other wars with respect to the 1/3 rule was the worldwide late 60s 'counterculture revolt' of the Baby Boomers which totally skewed the norm. Their mostly anti-military (anti-draft, actually) 'protests' were far different from previous or later protests about various wars. They were admittedly manipulated by North Viet Nam and US leftists. They also got undue media attention so they impacted the norms of war support or opposition.

They wanted to "change the system." They did, they became the system -- and they have almost totally screwed it up (check your daily news for details...). Maybe totally. The only thing they learned was 'don't knock the troops;' so in this war, we get "I support the troops but not the War" from a bunch of flakes that would go berserk if their son or daughter decided to be one one of those troops.

Thank you for allowing my earlier suppressed and possibly over lengthy rant to emerge.

[jmm99]

Some mild comments - since I pretty much agree with your rant - so, take these in the spirit of "refinements". All quotes are from you.

Viet Nam the war was effectively decided and over when Johnson announced he would not run for reelection.

Decided, yes (Johnson blinked hard); but, unfortunately, not over (you know the KIA and WIA totals better than I - and the 1968-1972 iterations of the war did much of the damage that plagued the military thereafter).

By the time of the 1968 election the Democratic Party and its supporters were as opposed -- or perhaps more -- to the war as the Republican side had been.

More complex than that. I had feet in both parties at that time; but discussion of the complexities would not be useful to this thread. After the election, most Republicans and some Democrats lined up with Vietnamization; while most Democrats and some Republicans opted for something akin to Get Out Now - so, the rather clearly defined lines in the 1972 election.

The major difference between Viet Nam and all our other wars ... Baby Boomers .. anti-draft, actually... They wanted to "change the system." They did, they became the system ... so in this war, we get "I support the troops but not the War" from a bunch of flakes that would go berserk if their son or daughter decided to be one of those troops.

Good rant - get it out of your system.

There's a Bill Corson story, perhaps apocryphal, where he spoke before a large college audience. He asked all the guys to hold up their draft cards. The audience thought - "Oh goody, we'll have a draft card burning." Not quite, Corson said something along these lines: "Now, most all of your cards have 2-S (student deferment) on them. What I want you all to do is contact your local draft boards and have them changed to 1-A. Then, I want you all to request immediate induction. If you then feel as strongly against this war as all your speakers here have said, you should then refuse induction. You then will be prosecuted and probably serve time in prison. If you really believe what you say, that is how you will do your part to end this war." He got no takers and some booing.

[Ken White]

Your refinements are noted but they change nothing of consequence to what I said originally -- purposely omitting Viet Nam to avoid just such a diversion -- so what are we doing? Angels? Pin?

You are BTW incorrect on the 1968-72 iterations caused later problems. That course had been set in 1965. Thank LBJ and RSM plus terribly flawed personnel policies. The 69-72 stuff was simply the sprouting of the 65-68 seeds. The 1975-85 Army was involved with removing the deadwood left.

Unlike you, I had no feet in either party in 1968 -- or ever; both are totally venal, corrupt and more concerned with self than the nation so I support neither -- but this isn't a political blog so the jury will ignore that statement. I may have missed something here in the States in 1968, I was occupied elsewhere. I was here in 1967 and again in 1969. Our recollections apparently differ and that could be due to that lapse of presence on my part or to residing in different parts of the nation. Regardless, there is no reason for our views to be reconciled, we can differ because the difference is irrelevant to the point -- opponents from both parties...

Perhaps we can now return to Tristan's thread which was:

...The basic theme is whether counterinsurgency is even possible given:

a) media-driven society
b) counterinsurgencies take a long time
c) counterinsurgencies are very messy

Nagl says yes. ..

I think the more important question is should we engage in counterinsurgency operations given Tristan's parameters and I would answer no, we should not.

However, to the question asked, I agree with Nagl, yes, it is possible.

[TristanAbbey]

on Ameirican willingness to bear the burden of war has been done by Peter Feaver of Duke. Although it was written pre-9/11 the Iraq war data seems to bear him out. Sorry, don't have the cite but you should be able to find it pretty easily.

Cheers

JohnT

Remember reading about Feaver in the context of the Bush administration's focus on the word "victory" to describe the Iraq strategy. Wikipedia says he worked for both Clinton and Bush admins, but I'm not sure if that's as rare as it appears.

[Ken White]

well documented, what difference does it make who a researcher 'worked for?'

That's like saying a news report on Fox or MSNBC is invalid based on one's ideological viewpoint. I've never understood that logic.

[TristanAbbey]

In fact, I think his research is probably spot on. If anything, bringing up his bipartisanship is a point in his favor and shows he's interested in applying his academic research to the real world -- and in this case, in support of the war effort.

[Ken White]

You did make the observation that he may have worked for two administrations (and that is quite common as you alluded) and there are those who do discount reports of all types based on sourcing. My comment was triggered by your noting his perhaps sponsors for no apparent reason and that triggered my non-directional comment that I did not understand those who didn't look at the material rather than the sourcing.

I still don't

[TristanAbbey]

Very rarely will my comments have an ulterior motive. Sometimes things I find interesting and worth mentioning will be common knowledge to others...