Posted on 02/08/2006 10:49:05 AM PST by Tolik
Why did the successful war in Iraq to replace Saddam Hussein with a democracy lose the majority support of the American public? Despite steady U.S. military progress against jihadists, and the bold endorsement of peaceful self-rule by 11 million Iraqis, public approval was slowly eroded by an accumulation of hits...
...Perhaps most of all, public ambivalence about the Iraq war is due to generalized ignorance of military history. Without guidance from the past, too many people are shepherded through the experience of war by nothing deeper than the rollercoaster emotions whipped up by 24-hour news coverage of explosions and suicide bombings...
...there has been no Darwinian evolution of human nature in the very short span of civilization. The old threats of passion remain constant and predictable. Nor has the use of sophisticated technology and computers altered either the chemistry or hard-wiring of our brains. Rather than denying the human propensity for violence, it is far wiser to accept it and then defend the rules of civilization that alone can contain and ameliorate it.
Modern life in Western countries has also become so privileged and protected that it is hard to convince affluent suburbanites that shooting and bombing your way to power remains a norm in much of the world. Wealthy moderns too often imagine that issues of governance, religion, and tribal affiliation are solved through talk shows, lawsuits, or “60 Minutes” reports. Mostly, though, these conflicts abroad continue to be settled through violence.
...Our enemies — who cling to history far more tightly than most Americans — know this. And because ...warrior fanatics understand our recent past, and their own distant one, better than we do, they will continue to fight in places, and with methods, that challenge our often unhistorical sense of the civilized self.
(Excerpt) Read more at victorhanson.com ...
That or Japan would have been divided as Korea still is today.
Yes, you're right. My point was that a guy like this who suggests that our modern suburban affluence is one of the primary reasons why public support for the war is waning should identify himself as one of those modern, affluent suburbanites. I suspect he doesn't do this because he would also be forced to acknowledge that the same factors would also explain why the U.S. has been able to engage in silly (and usually futile) nation-building campaigns in recent decades -- because these same affluent suburbanites are more than willing to lend political support to military campaigns that don't require any military commitment on their part.
In fact, his biography offers some possible insight. Born in 1953 in California, educated at the University of California and Stanford, etc. Hmmm . . . I wonder how many draft deferments he got back in 1970-73 when it was his turn to help the U.S. "shoot and bomb our way to power."
True. See my previous post for a clarification on this.
And student deferments were given for a reason, namely the nation figured educated soldiers were better than uneducated soldiers. I was 4-F, but I darn sure would have finished college before enlisting in the Navy, which was my plan. Again, one's service is irrelevant to one's ANALYSIS.
I respect VDH's analysis far more than people like Wesley Clark or Hackworth, despite their service, for they have shown that despite serving, they were incapable of LEARNING.
Irrelevant.
This, being America, and being FreeRepublic, have every right to make whatever point you want. But you should also know that your point is tedious.
Enough about my "tedious" point. I'll simply say that Hanson could go a long away toward answering his own rhetorical question by asking a different one . . . Why did the successful war in Iraq to replace Saddam Hussein with a democracy ever have the majority support of the American public in the first place?
I am not real sure why Prof Hanson would want to consult with the completely ignorant upon a topic he is so much better informed. It might be best if the rabidly ignorant caucus of Knee Jerk Isolationist FReeper consulted the Prof instead. They might finally then actually learn just how utterly without even the slightest hint of intellectual merit their white trash, rabidly provincial, emotionally hysteric, politically bigoted world view is.
Counter Insurgency is a strange bastard style of war. It is not total war but it is also more then the Leftist" Police matter". The other thing most old Cast Iron Conservatives forget is the political aspect. Iraq was doable. We had the political consensus to do it. So since we needed a kill zone we could suck the terrorists into and we needed to get the American people to support the cost, there was no other choice BUT Iraq.
Want to really blow the Leftists minds? Tell them this. Even if Al Gore won in 2000 and 9-11 happened the USA would STILL be doing the same thing now in Iraq. Iraq was doable militarily and politically. There was no other place for the US to go. Iraq is basically the same deal as the invasions of Italy was in 1943
Here in a nutshell, is the MILTIARY reason for Iraq. The War on Terrorism is different sort of war. In the war on Terrorism, we have a hidden foe, spread out across a geographically diverse area, with covert sources of supply. Since we cannot go everywhere they hide out, in fact often cannot even locate them until the engage us, we need to draw them out of hiding into a kill zone. Iraq is that kill zone. That is the true brilliance of the Iraq strategy. We draw the terrorists out of their world wide hiding places onto a battlefield they have to fight on for political reasons (The "Holy" soil of the Arabian peninsula) where they have to pit their weakest ability (Conventional Military combat power) against our greatest strength (ability to call down unbelievable amounts of firepower) where they will primarily have to fight other forces (the Iraqi Security forces) in a battlefield that is hostile to guerrilla warfare. (Iraqi-mostly open terrain as opposed to guerrilla friendly areas like the mountains of Afghanistan or the jungles of SE Asia).
There are other reasons to do Iraq but that is the MILITARY reason we are in Iraq. We have taken, an maintain the initiative from the Terrorists. They are playing OUR game on ground of OUR choosing.
Problem is Counter Insurgency is SLOW and painful. Often a case of 3 steps forward, two steps back. I often worry that the American people have neither the maturity, nor the intellect" to understand. It's so much easier to spew made for TV slogans like "No Blood for Oil" or "We support the Troops, bring them home" then to actually THINK. Problem is these people have NO desire to co-exist with us. They see all this PC posturing by the Hysteric Left as a sign that we are weak. Since they want us dead, weakness encourages them. They think their "god" will bless them for killing Westerners.
So we can covert to Islam, die or kill them. Iraq is about killing enough of them to make the rest realize we are serious. See in the Arab world the USA is considered a big wimp. We have run away so many times. Lebanon, the Kurds, the Iraqis in 1991, the Iranians, Somalia, Clinton all thru the 1990s etc etc etc. The Jihadists think we will run again. In fact they are counting on it. That way they can run around screaming "We beat the American just like the Russians, come join us in Jihad" and recruit the next round of "holy warriors". Iraq is also a show place where we show the Muslim world that there are a lines they cannot cross. On 9-11 they crossed that line and we can, and will, destroy them for it.
Read the whole article.
Its not about our being less priviledged and protected.
Its about the west and its myopic view of the realities of the world.
This guy really knows history, he's not knocking the Administration's successes - he's highlighting and lauding them.
I'll add another couple while I'm on the subject . . .
6a. "I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. [Al Gore] and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place." -- George W. Bush, October 3rd, 2000.
6b. "If we don't have a clear vision of the military, if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that." -- George W. Bush, October 3rd, 2000.
Maybe the public support for military campaign in Iraq declined because it started to look more like nation-building and less like national defense.
"I think, no matter what horrible catastrophes fall on mankind, there will always be at least one person that wants something another has, and will take it by force if necessary. As long as this happens, war will always be with us."
I still stand with the Holy Prophets who have testified that a day is coming when we will war no more.
Here are a couple links for your enjoyment. I personally think and believe this day is not too far off.
Victor is a master of lining up the past with the present, and seeing things in context, but we have even better sources in the form of the Holy Scriptures and the Prophets to teach us what the future holds and the fact of the matter is, the day is soon coming when we will in fact "war no more"
Jenny
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/isa/11
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/isa/11/9e
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/101/26b
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/isa/2/4#4
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/micah/4/2#2
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/12/4#4
A man who is only a scholar and student of history and warfare can't really understand, on a personal level, what its like to be a soldier in the field. He can try, and he certainly can come closer than the average non-military layman with no perspective of history and war.
But a soldier on the ground who konws only the face of battle can't really understand what a student of warfare and history can know - how warfare is the NORMAL state of human existance, that friendly fire casualties are nothing new and can never be completed eliminated, that no matter how well a campaign is planned, unforseen events can sway the eventual outcome. But then thats not the job of the grunt on the ground. His job is to follow commands and eliminate the enemy and that is a chore large enough for anyone without having to be burdened by analyses of hsitorical events and their relationship to his own situation.
The average American has a pathetic comprehension of what the world of international power really involves. Most of them can't even name the governor of the adjoining state or tell the difference between the Mayflower Compact and the War of the League of Augsburg. They only know they are comfortable, they expect to remain comfortable, and think their vision of the world today is what most people on earth experience.
I think this guy, whoever he is, makes much sense.
Exactly my point, he only highlights wars that validate his opinions which is why VDH never discusses past CI wars in his articles. He knows full well that the nation building and hearts and minds strategies don't produce the outcome he wants.
If you have even a single piece of evidence suggesting that this was part of the plan for Iraq, please cite it for me. Note that anything published after March of 2003 doesn't count, since this would basically be a "retroactive rationale" of sorts.
Want to really blow the Leftists minds? Tell them this. Even if Al Gore won in 2000 and 9-11 happened the USA would STILL be doing the same thing now in Iraq.
I agree with you 100% on this point. And I would even go further by making the case that the U.S. would still be doing the same thing now in Iraq if 9/11 had never taken place.
There was no other place for the US to go.
I have no idea what this means. Are you trying to tell me that the U.S. military is always looking for military targets, and we had to invade Iraq because it met some specific conditions in terms of political support, probability of success, etc.?
Since we cannot go everywhere they hide out, in fact often cannot even locate them until the engage us, we need to draw them out of hiding into a kill zone. Iraq is that kill zone. That is the true brilliance of the Iraq strategy. We draw the terrorists out of their world wide hiding places onto a battlefield they have to fight on for political reasons (The "Holy" soil of the Arabian peninsula) where they have to pit their weakest ability (Conventional Military combat power) against our greatest strength (ability to call down unbelievable amounts of firepower) where they will primarily have to fight other forces (the Iraqi Security forces) in a battlefield that is hostile to guerrilla warfare. (Iraqi-mostly open terrain as opposed to guerrilla friendly areas like the mountains of Afghanistan or the jungles of SE Asia).
This looks familiar. I think you and I have been through this before, and as I said above, you'd have to provide me clear evidence that this was ever part of "the Iraq strategy."
Problem is Counter Insurgency is SLOW and painful. Often a case of 3 steps forward, two steps back. I often worry that the American people have neither the maturity, nor the intellect" to understand.
I often wonder if the U.S. Defense Department has either the wisdom or the intellect to understand. Do you have any evidence (again -- from before March of 2003) that the term "counter-insurgency" was ever even discussed by the U.S. military in the context of the war preparations?
I see. Very well keep kidding yourself you have a clue. The rest of us know better.
If you've had that conversation before you should already know that when the question can't be answered the standard "emotional" personal attack will be issued by the head cheerleader.
Polar bears did not exist 40,000 years ago. That's Bear Evolution of course rather then Human Evolution.
It's much more simple than that. Support has declined because of the media's 3-year concentration on the death toll rather than on the fact that a viable nation is in fact actually being built.
I can't really follow your convoluted arguments. And if MNJohnnie didn't address your so-call specific points, it's probably because he can't either.
But in post #49, MNJohnnie sure has put the case for war in Iraq so succinctly and clearly -- much more clearly than I think I've ever seen it put -- that he just blew you right out of the water. Thanks for that nice explanation, MNJohnnie.
Lastly, Bush may not like nation building for nation building's sake, but nation building as part of winning the war on terror is not really nation building at all -- it's a sound military strategy.
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.