Originally Posted by
Dayuhan
"Substantial" doesn't mean a majority, it just means enough to have substance. Substance can come from numbers, but it can also come from commitment or position. As many leaders have discovered to their chagrin, violent dissent from a quite small percentage of the populace can be very substantial indeed. In this case the dissent wasn't violent, but it was vocal, visible, and had a base among those familiar with foreign policy.
In the early days of opposition to the Vietnam war, the opposition came from a minority. It was still substantial, not least because it had traction: it rapidly gained adherents and came to represent a majority. Much the same could be said of the early opposition to the Iraq war.
In this case the substance came as much from who as from how many. For example, Colin Powell was initially not at all enamored of the idea of war in Iraq, though he eventually submitted to the will of the administration. When the Secretary of State opposes something, that has substance, and is thus substantial. There was also, as I said, substantial debate among the foreign policy elite (look back at old issues of Foreign Affairs, and you'll see it). Again, this doesn't mean that a majority opposed the war, just that there was an opposition of some substance.
If I'd referred to "overwhelming opposition" or "majority opposition" that would indeed be contradictory.
Mountains of molehills, once more...
Bookmarks