Posted on 11/20/2002 5:37:03 AM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
If television were a state, it would be a red state. I watched Letterman three times last week, and he made a point each time of calling Sadaam Hussein "a stooge and a thug." On Sunday I watched the NFL on Fox (the one time I get to see the Redskins, so of course they get fustigated), and not only did the announcers thank our troops, but several of the commercials were reminders from the NFL to support our armed forces.
On Sunday 60 Minutes ran a story portraying the mission of Hans Blix, the head U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq, as doomed to failure. The following piece about Bob Woodward's new book Bush at War underscored the continuing threat from al-Qaida and the president's strong leadership since Sept. 11.
That covers every voting demographic: Letterman for the young and urbane, football for the middle aged and middle class, 60 Minutes for everyone between 40 and the next life.
But the reason a war with Iraq is so popular is not television but the confidence derived from our easy victory in Afghanistan. Television follows public opinion as much as it leads public opinion, and usually makes war less popular, not more so. What makes this case different is that Afghanistan lacked two conditions common to most wars since the advent of television: significant casualties and the broadcasting of battle footage.
Casualty rates are the best reason to oppose a conflict. During the Vietnam War, American body counts became a staple of the evening news, and when they went up, support for the war went down. More recently, our involvement in Somalia was terminated after the catastrophe portrayed in Black Hawk Down cost 19 American lives.
But the War in Afghanistan didn't cost an extraordinary number of American lives, especially considering the Soviet's legendary failure there in the 1980s and the overwhelming public approval for our involvement.
War footage can also undercut the popularity of a military conflict by bringing its awful grizzliness home to the American public. This was true of Vietnam, and Kosovo provided some disturbing images of urban warfare. The 1991 Gulf War was live on CNN 24 hours a day, though nothing ever seemed to die except buildings.
But the Afghanistan War was not footage-friendly, because the Taliban spent most of the time either running or hiding or both. The majority of the fighting was done by small units of special forces who hunted Taliban in the mountains and tried to blend in with the Northern Alliance. Even assuming that the cameramen could have done the difficult hiking, bringing them on missions might have undermined the element of surprise: "Let's see -- turban, beard, gun; turban, beard, gun; turban, beard, gun; Oakleys, camera, cell phone? What the?!"
Without heavy casualties or grizzly media footage, war can be alluring to the public. "We had no idea it was this easy," say the voters. "We could do this for another two years." "Good," replies the president, "because that's the plan."
What has been lost in the push for an Iraq War is that the Afghanistan War is not over yet. We sent troops to Afghanistan to scuttle the Taliban, kill bin Laden, and build the country into an economically viable democracy. The first goal was accomplished; the other two were not.
Killing bin Laden would be a nice symbolic victory for the United States and particularly for the president, but it is not essential; al-Qaida is a threat regardless of its leader. The more important concern is securing Afghanistan -- where American positions are still being attacked -- and building it into something more than a big, dirty sandbox.
Above all else, this will require money, which Bush is spending like a teenager with a credit card: The economy is weak, the Clinton surplus is faint memory, social security and health care require immediate attention, and the president wants to make his tax cut of abominations permanent and then spend at least $200 billion on a war in Iraq.
Something will have to give and it is going to be Afghanistan.
If that happens, if we leave an undeveloped country with a weak government to its own devices, there is no question that within 20 years we will be back there fighting another war. That is the story of Germany in the twentieth century: abandoned after World War I, it only waited 20 years before instigating World War II, after which Harry Truman had the wisdom to rebuild it, thus befriending Germany and averting World War III.
This is lost on the president, whose foreign policy reflects all the patience of an ADD nine-year-old in a video arcade with a go-cart and a bottle of NoDoze. For now, TV is letting him get away with it, but the economy will worsen before it gets better, and spending $200 billion that we do not have to start another war will not help. The president is about to make a large mistake; 2004 will be here soon, and we'll see what television thinks of him then.
But this one really burned me up.
This kid is complaining about television shows that:
Said positive things about the troops
Criticized Saddam Hussein
Said al-Quaida was a threat
This isn't pacifism. This isn't disagreement with government policy.
This is the kind of "hate America, hate the troops, glorify the enemy" think that characterized traitors like Hanoi Jane Fonda during the Vietnam War.
Disgusting.
The author of this column is essentially a teenager with a credit card himself, with all that implies for maturity and self-reliance.
Good point. File this under "it takes one to know one," I guess.
We need some good republican teenager to write a reply accusing the author of "ageism." ;-)
Adam Bloom.
Sounds like "Atom Bomb."
There is a Karl Adam Bloom listed in the Cornell directory (not sure if it's the same guy.)
But sign him up as K.A. Bloom and pronounce it, "Ka Bloom."
And BTW, on the subject of names, CU (as Cornell University is often abbreviated to) is pronounced 'thoo' in the Fijian language and means "to turn the buttocks towards one - an insulting attitude expressive of contempt."
How appropriate.
Hmmm. I didn't know that.
Funny how the Ithaca Journal isn't giving this the same level of coverage it gives the liberal speakers who come to Cornell. </sarcasm off>
Reasonable people can disagree about whether or not we should go to war with Iraq (a matter of political policy). However there is less room for such disagreement about the stoogedom and thughood of Saddam Hussein (a matter or observed fact) or the honoring of our troops (a matter of basic human respect). Treating the latter just like the former is idiocy (if the difference is not understood) of cynical mischief-making (if it is).
Wonder of wonders -- an entire paragraph of factually and logically justified comments.
Above all else, this will require money, which Bush is spending like a teenager with a credit card: The economy is weak, the Clinton surplus is faint memory, social security and health care require immediate attention, and the president wants to make his tax cut of abominations permanent and then spend at least $200 billion on a war in Iraq.
In the next paragraph, the momentary flare of intelligence fades to black. Making the marginal rate cut permanent, even if it did (contrary to all experience) reduce ultimate government revenue, will not have any effect during the time period in question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.