Replies

I think we've "run the war" just fine, allowing for human error which is always present. The difference between WWII and this one lies more in how the P.R. war is being run--in WWII, a Whoopi Goldberg would have not only lost her job for what she did, but she would have been unhireable almost anywhere, even bussing tables in a cheap diner. It's considered, if anything, almost chic to bash the war, the President, and the country.

These are very different citizens in these times. I don't think the population as a whole has the judgement to see whether or not it's a just war to begin with, and worse, I think the country's citizens have become so soft and so accustomed to "being taken care of" (not to mention, unable to endure even small inconveniences without severe whining) that they simply don't have what it takes to fight and win a war.

MIND YOU, I am not talking about the troops, but the citizens who must support them if we are to win. That is where the true failing is, in my estimation.

Because of the changes in perspective which emerged in the 60s it is doubtful that whatever sized war against what ever enemy will produce the sort of media support for the US and its armed forces that was seen in World war 2 or even Korea. The 'culture of critique' has become so ingrained in the psychology of university educated people that the people who become media types have a basically antagonist attitude toward any military operation that serves any sort of national interest as well as a deepseated contempt for the armed services in general.

Many liberals have become effectively radicalized by their educational experiences and they simply loath the United States and hate its institutions and feel a generalized hatred toward what can be called 'normal Americans'. Along with this is a visceral feeling that any conflict between an western nation (including Israel) and any turd world state is basically unjust an immoral.

During the Falkland's War I was amazed to see how the Laborite left melted down in a combination of rage, selfhatred, and pacifist hysteria. Aside from apartheid regime South Africa I would have thought that there was no government on earth more detested by the liberal left than those of Argentine junta and Pinochet's Chile. Yet when the vote to approve military action against Argentina finally came to the floor of Commons the Labor leader Michael Foot collapsed in incoherent rage and hysteria in opposing the measure. Subsequently after the war was ended and the Argentine junta fell and was replaced by another junta this time pledged to returning constitutional government (which they did) there was all sorts of ugly contemptuous commentary by the left media and 'intelligentsia' directed at the PM. the British armed forces and particularly at 'glorifying war' by having a victory parade in London and a request from the Queen for church's to have services of thanksgiving over the successful end to the conflict. This was really eyeopening to me. If the media and the left wouldn't rally around the concept of national unity in a war with a regime they loath then they never will in any conflict.

The same is true here as in the UK. Much of the media and the 'intelligentsia' and academia have been won over to cultural Marxism and they will never give unconditional support to their country even if we were invaded by space aliens. In a massive combat with a regime that embraces every value they hate such as the Third Reich today's radicalized liberals would not be able to give unconditional support to the US. Instead the press would in the name of 'fair and balanced coverage' dwell on every possible actual or potential shortfalling by US forces and give every benefit of the doubt to the enemy. If the enemy's PR operation were in the hands of someone as intelligent and nihilistically cynical as Goebbels US reporters would end up embedded with enemy forces and shown a carefully contrived propaganda image which would be played back as defeatist propaganda.

If anyone thinks the image of CNN broadcasting from an enemy position while those forces battle US forces just examine the coverage given the type of people we are fighting now. Could any group embrace more attitudes and prejudices repellent to American liberals as Jihadists Moslems. Fanatical, sadistic, misogynistic, homo-phobic, reactionary, and ignorant are all quite accurate descriptors of the terror bombers and Jihadists in Iraq or Afghanistan of at 9-11. Is this given voice in media coverage of the war. More in depth reporting has been and continues to be done over the supposed lapses at Abu-Ghrib Prison than about the aims, beliefs, and motivations of our enemy since 9-11. We already have a fifth column in our midst and from now on ever will. Whether it will be possible to ever conduct major military operations lasting beyond a few weeks without having to deal with strong doses of defeatism, deliberate demoralization and studied hatred for those who fight for us is doubtful and it bodes great evil now and in the future for this nation and its loyal citizens.