We're at War, You Say?

The American Enterprise Online ^ | May 17, 2006 | Joseph Knippenberg

[neverdem]

We're at War, You Say? By Joseph Knippenberg This past Sunday, a long article about Iraq war veterans caught my eye. The conclusion was especially powerful, with one officer reporting the following reaction to dining at a restaurant with his family: He looked across the restaurant and saw everyone stuffing their faces with pasta and drinking wine. “And everyone’s kind of just sitting there doing it,” he said. Which is really sort of extraordinary, he said. The country is at war. People are fighting at this very moment. Don’t these people know what’s going on? Don’t they care? No, he decided. They have no appreciation for their easy, gluttonous lives and don't deserve the freedom, prosperity and contentment he was fighting to protect. He wanted to yell, “You don’t know what you have! You don’t appreciate it! You don’t care!” He is, I fear, onto something. We’re at war, our President keeps telling us, and yet our daily lives don’t seem all that different from what they were before September 2001 or March 2003. Oh, gas is more expensive. Air travel is a tad less convenient. And a few buildings are less readily accessible than they used to be. For a while there, the American flag was everywhere, but now it’s just flying where you expect to see it. (I have nothing at the moment to say about immigration demonstrations.) What, then, does being “at war” mean? It surely doesn’t mean having a larger military establishment. In 1952, at the peak of the Korean War, we had over 3.6 million men and women under arms, out of a population of a little over 150 million. In 1968, at the height of our involvement in Vietnam, the number hovered around 3.5 million, out of a population of around 200 million. At the end of 2005, the number was slightly less than 1.4 million—virtually unchanged from the idyllic post-Cold War era—out of a population of close to 300 million. Stated in another way, a rough back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that today we’re only one sixth as likely to encounter a serviceman or woman as we were in 1950. My own experience bears that out. Living in the South, reputedly the most “militaristic” region of the country, I know only two young people currently deployed in Iraq and just a handful more who are serving or have served in the military. That’s partly a product of the circles in which I typically move—middle- and upper-middle-class suburbanites are relatively underrepresented in the military by comparison with their rural and working-class brethren. But it’s even more a product of the fact that our leaders do not regard the challenges we face as calling for a major military mobilization. Fair enough. Robert Kaplan has certainly convinced me that not every projection of U.S. force and influence has to be massive and heavy-handed. And I’m open to the argument that our force levels in Afghanistan and Iraq are adequate, though I do wonder what might have happened if we’d been willing (and able?) to deploy more troops in the early months of the Iraq war. But my purpose here is not to debate force structure or military doctrine. Rather, it’s to consider the place of this war, and national defense in general, in the hearts and minds of the American people. Let me begin with a truism. In World War II, virtually all families were personally touched by the war. Almost everyone had a close relative who was in the service. Everyone made sacrifices and endured hardships to support the war effort. Much was demanded of, and much delivered by, a nation at war. What about now? We put magnetic yellow ribbons on the backs of our cars (some of us at least) and assemble packages full of goodies to send to troops we don’t know. We applaud soldiers in airport departure lounges and clap when the humvee rolls by in the Fourth of July parade. In these ways, we symbolically support our troops and express our solidarity with them. But it’s a sympathy and solidarity that, for the vast majority of us, operates at one remove. These are our countrymen and women, our neighbors perhaps, but seldom our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers. As a result, the war can feel just a little remote—not as remote as one fought by other countries, but still fought by other people. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not calling for a draft just so that everyone can share more vividly in a sense of national solidarity. But if the stakes are as high and the goal as important as we’ve been told, shouldn’t we be asked to make a few sacrifices? Shouldn’t we honor the sacrifices of our servicemen and women with something more than a few gestures? Shouldn’t our lives somehow be altered by our sharing in the effort our nation is putting forth? In the aftermath of September 11th, President Bush made a start, offering this in his 2002 State of the Union Address: For too long our culture has said, “If it feels good, do it.” Now America is embracing a new ethic and a new creed: “Let’s roll.” In the sacrifice of soldiers, the fierce brotherhood of firefighters, and the bravery and generosity of ordinary citizens, we have glimpsed what a new culture of responsibility could look like. We want to be a nation that serves goals larger than self. We’ve been offered a unique opportunity, and we must not let this moment pass. My call tonight is for every American to commit at least two years—4,000 hours over the rest of your lifetime—to the service of your neighbors and your nation. Many are already serving, and I thank you. If you aren’t sure how to help, I’ve got a good place to start. To sustain and extend the best that has emerged in America, I invite you to join the new USA Freedom Corps. The Freedom Corps will focus on three areas of need: responding in case of crisis at home; rebuilding our communities; and extending American compassion throughout the world. One purpose of the USA Freedom Corps will be homeland security. America needs retired doctors and nurses who can be mobilized in major emergencies; volunteers to help police and fire departments; transportation and utility workers well-trained in spotting danger. Our country also needs citizens working to rebuild our communities. We need mentors to love children, especially children whose parents are in prison. And we need more talented teachers in troubled schools. USA Freedom Corps will expand and improve the good efforts of AmeriCorps and Senior Corps to recruit more than 200,000 new volunteers. And America needs citizens to extend the compassion of our country to every part of the world. So we will renew the promise of the Peace Corps, double its volunteers over the next five years and ask it to join a new effort to encourage development and education and opportunity in the Islamic world. This time of adversity offers a unique moment of opportunity—a moment we must seize to change our culture. Through the gathering momentum of millions of acts of service and decency and kindness, I know we can overcome evil with greater good. And we have a great opportunity during this time of war to lead the world toward the values that will bring lasting peace. The President and First Lady highlighted volunteerism and service in recent commencement addresses at Mississippi Gulf Coast Community College and Vanderbilt University. Last month, during National Volunteer Week, members of the Bush administration undertook an impressive array of activities to demonstrate further this commitment. A study released last December by the Bureau of Labor Statistics suggests that such efforts have been successful: over the year beginning in September 2004, almost 65.4 million Americans (six million more than before the President’s call) performed voluntary service at least once. Schools and religious organizations were the principal beneficiaries of these efforts. If I had to guess, I’d say the typical volunteer was a college-educated stay-at-home mom who worked in her children’s school, or an older American who worked in his or her church. I’m not complaining. The impulse behind President Bush’s call was to mobilize our civic spirit to make this a better country. By taking responsibility for and acting to ameliorate our national ills, we help our neighbors while also improving ourselves. Still, this probably isn’t what the soldier quoted above had in mind. I can read a book to my child’s class or teach Sunday school and still enjoy myself at the local bistro on Friday night. Even President Bush would have to admit that he was interested in promoting volunteerism long before September 11th, as was his father (remember the Thousand Points of Light?). In other words, this sort of sacrificial activity, good and praiseworthy as it is, has little or nothing to do with the war on terror. Well, then, what might he have had in mind? Short of a d---- (I daren’t even utter the word), there are two sorts of measures we could take to demonstrate the seriousness of our commitment to victory in the global war on terror. First, there’s reducing our “addiction,” as President Bush calls it, to imported oil. So long as we’re heavily dependent upon oil produced by our enemies or by those who finance our enemies, we’re not doing all we can to assure our national security. While I’m sure that some of our current and future needs can be met, under certain circumstances, by domestic sources, conservation is also part of the solution. Exhortation to conserve is surely a necessary step, but I expect that behavior will change more in response to prices than to Presidential addresses. Our political leaders should certainly resist the temptation to relieve price pressure by reducing gas taxes. But maybe—and here I commit conservative, or at least Republican, heresy—they should even consider raising those taxes. This brings me to my second suggestion. The global war on terror is expensive, with defense spending (not including intelligence costs) coming in at around $500 billion this year. Our annual budget deficits are running at roughly $400 billion, give or take. We consume a little less than 400 million gallons of gasoline a day. Do the math: a nominal additional gasoline tax—say, ten cents a gallon—would put a substantial dent in the budget deficit, cutting it by around 30%. This is more heresy, I know. You don’t win elections by proposing to raise taxes. You don’t reduce the size of government by adding new revenues. Or do you? People smarter than I am disagree about this. Economist William Niskanen argues that “the demand for federal spending by current voters declines with the amount of this spending that is financed by current taxes.” Blogger Jon Henke has his doubts: if it were true that higher taxes led to demand for smaller government, why don’t we see Europeans vociferously demanding less of what they have in spades? I’m not an economist, but I do know a thing or two about civic virtue. One of its aspects is taking responsibility. One aspect of taking responsibility is paying for the benefits you receive. It is highly irresponsible routinely to demand and consume government benefits for which we expect someone else to pay, whether it be the proverbial “rich” or our grandchildren and great-grandchildren. We have, of course, been doing this for years. I’m not proposing that we abandon our profligate ways all at once, but I am suggesting that we can begin to take modest steps toward paying for what we want. That’s the way of civic virtue and responsibility. That’s the kind of sacrifice that our men and women in uniform would presumably appreciate. Wouldn’t it be refreshing for a political leader to stand up and say, “We’re going to meet the challenge of our generation like responsible grown-ups. Some of you will serve in our armed forces, risking your all so that we can continue to enjoy the fruits of liberty. Others will contribute by helping our schools, churches, and communities to be the best they can be. While liberty may be a gift of God, we maintain it at great expense. Honoring God’s gift, honoring the men and women who risk everything to keep us free, and upholding our responsibility to and for our children, we will assume the financial burdens associated with this war.” If we can’t or don’t respond to this kind of appeal, we don’t deserve our liberty. Joseph Knippenberg is a professor of politics and associate provost for student achievement at Oglethorpe University in Atlanta. He is a weekly columnist for The American Enterprise Online and a contributing blogger at No Left Turns.

Posted:  May 17, 2006

---

This information was found online at:

[freema]

"Hey, the news is we have the military might to fight them in our place of choosing (Iraq and Afgahnistan - for now), in our time of choosing - and all without a any citizen being inconvienced one iota. To me that's kind of a big finger to the rag heads."

On one hand, I can see your point. But on the other hand, it looks like a big finger to our troops. A "please notify us by memo when you've finished."

You know, thinking of how many will ask little school kids how their day went, how's it going, how are your grades...a large portion of this country isn't doing the same for our troops, many who are straight out of school. That's not very well thought out, but I hope you get the jist. Not something I want to argue, just trying to expand a bit on your point.

[norton]

"I don't have the answer, but the divided country we have now is not good."

I'd guess that this or any administration made up largely of 50-ish and older pols would have a real terror of having THIS divided country return to the divisions acted out in the 60's and 70's.

I expect they took a lesson (right or wrong) from LBJ's downfall & the Nixon years that followed.

[Allegra]

The other is when I go to the grocery, or a school function and the world is 'normal'. It is a very difficult thing, almost schizophrenic.

I know what you mean. It always takes me a few days when I get out of the Middle East to adjust. It's sort of surreal to me when I first get home.

And you're right....DON'T talk about that war! It's like you're crashing someone's fun-fest if you dare mention it. It'w weird, but at home, I've come to feel a little like I'm on the outside looking in (and it was never that way before) and here, I feel like I'm where I belong.

And we do actually forget about the war here, too, believe it or not. Not for long periods of time (there are so many nice little reminders...LOL), but we can get engrossed in things and forget where we are for a bit.

[zarf]

Bush failure has been his insistence on "normalcy".

[Rome2000]

Two weeks after the United States declared war on Germany in 1917, the town of Lewistown, Montana, held a patriotic parade. Less than a year later, a mob of 500 Lewistown residents burned German textbooks in Main Street while singing The Star Spangled Banner. In Lewistown's nationalistic fervor, a man was accused of being pro-German because he didn't buy Liberty Bonds; he was subsequently found guilty of sedition. Montana's former congressman Tom Stout was quoted in the town's newspaper, The Democrat-News, "With our sacred honor and our liberties at stake, there can be but two classes of American citizens, patriots and traitors!"

Darkest Before Dawn takes to task Montana's 1918 sedition law that shut down freedom of speech. The sedition law carried fines of up to $20,000 and imprisonment for as much as twenty years. It became a model for the federal sedition act passed in 1918. Clemens Work explores the assault on civil rights during times of war when dissent is perceived as unpatriotic. The themes of this cautionary tale clearly resonate in the events of the early twenty-first century......


Tuesday, May 2, 2006
Montanans arrested for sedition during WWI - stories and pix
The Montana Historical Society's Sedition Project collects the stories of Montanans who were jailed for saying the wrong thing during WWI.

Travis sez, "Montana and other states in the West passed laws against sedition during World War I -- laws that were later the template for a federal Sedition Act. Now, Montana's governor Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat who I've really come around on, is commuting the sentences of the 78 people convicted under the law. The pardons result from some wonderful historical research done by a journalism professor at the University of Montana. I was particularly moved by looking at the photographs of the convicted and reading what they were convicted for saying.

On April 19, 1918, Johnson said in Missoula that the United States Liberty Bonds were no good. That government would not back them up. That the man that bought them would never get his money back. That he would lose it. That the U.S. government was no good. Sentence: 2-5 years

In March 1918, a third-degree committee in Forsyth grilled Starr about Liberty Bonds and forced him to kiss the flag. "What is this thing anyway?" he asked. "Nothing but a piece of cotton with a little paint on it, and some other marks in the corner there. I will not kiss that thing. It might be covered with microbes." Sentence: 10-20 years

[Liberty Valance]

>>>"Americans also have a very short memory sad to say, and out of sight, out of mind."<<<<

Indeed
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1635407/posts

[Rome2000]

We used to know how to win wars.

The Sedition Act of 1918

During World War I, there were two acts passed by Congress that gave the government increasing power, as well as the repression of American citizens. The Espionage Act and the Sedition Act during the First World War, were passed from fear of radicals and left-wing organizations.

At this time, many were in fear that Communism would take over the United States, as it did when it triumphed over the political power in Russia. These two acts were put into place to help support the draft law, and were blatantly unconstitutional. Both acts, drafted during the infamous Red Scare, was used by Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer, and his assistant J. Edgar Hoover to launch campaigns against the so-called radicals. Over 1500 people were arrested for the suspicion of sympathies toward communist or socialist parties. Most of these people were eventually released, however two hundred forty five were deported to Russia.

After the United States became involved in World War I, President Woodrow Wilson called out to the young men of the country to enlist in the army to fight in the war. He needed roughly five hundred thousand men, however only a few thousand answered his call. This was the first that the United States had to draft soldiers into service due to the lack of volunteers.

Any criticism towards the draft law seemed to persuade men from enlisting, thus interfering with the number of necessary enlistees. To ensure that the United States would have enough soldiers to fight, Congress passed the Espionage Act in 1917. Congress later added on the Sedition Act in 1918 which enabled the government to basically have unlimited censorship.

The Espionage Act, was specifically created to stop the interference with the recruitment of troops, or the releasing of information having to do with the national defense. People found guilty of violating this law were fined $10,000 and sentenced to twenty years of imprisonment. People were also punished for refusing to perform military duty. Many anti-war protestors were arrested and harsh sentences were handed down to movement leaders. Among them was Rose Pastor Stokes, who was sentenced to ten years in prison for writing a letter to the Kansas City Star, stating that "no government which is for the profiteers can also be for the people, and I am for the people while the government is for the profiteers." (Elkins, 2)

The Sedition Act of 1918 made it a federal crime to criticize the government or Constitution. Any spoken or published form of writing, expressing negative opinions about the war effort, or even opinions against the draft would lead to the imprisonment of the author. Even expressing one's own opinions through a letter to a friend or family member was not legal. Kate Richards O'Hare, AKA "Red Kate" was given a five year sentencing for making an anti-war speech in North Dakota. (Alonso, 22) Eugene V. Debs, candidate for the socialist party, ran for President several times, winning as much as one million votes. He too was against the war, and criticized the draft law. After making a speech, targeting young men, to rethink their decision in enlisting in the draft, he was fined and punished to imprisonment for ten years.

The Supreme Court had many tries in developing a test to determine if a suspect violated any laws. First there was the bad tendency test. Under this test, the court had to decide if a statement was "considered a bad tendency" and whether it "conflicted with the United States Constitution". (Alonso, 29) Another test was introduced by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes during the Schenck case. In his test he argued that "the question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the...evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree." (Alonso, 55) This test was used in other court cases, and showed to be the best test of the time.

»»It was not until the year 1921 when both the Espionage Act and the Sedition Acts were repealed. Within those years, the government acted to prevent the interference of the war effort and had the responsibility in making sure the country would be protected. However, people's rights were infringed on and people were unable to express their opinions freely, as mandated in the first Amendment of the Constitution.

(Freedom of Expression, 1) ««Title Page ««Home »»Sedition Act of 1918 »»Japanese Internment During World War II »»USA PATRIOT ACT »»Project Description »»Annotated Bibliography (Kaminski, 1)

[the invisib1e hand]

"A man's life on earth consists of warfare." -- Job, paraphrase.

[George W. Bush]

That's your right, but a long, detailed analysis of the races was posted here the other day that proved otherwise. About the only prominent RINO in danger is Shays.

A deeply flawed analysis that was debunked. And the results from early primaries only buttress my assertion that that article was dead wrong.

Show me any evidence from elections that even remotely supports your assertion.

If the House holds and nationalizes the election on this issue, we'll gain seat in the House and Senate. It is the Dims' worst nightmare.

[dakine]

"Then I thought, hell that is great, isn't that what we were fighting for, so Americans could do their things, live normal lives. Everyone doesn't have to be totally immersed in the war effort to still be participating. I do very little today yet feel I am a very patriotic American"

Perfect...

From what I have read/heard about home life in WWII this rings so true...

And that is the way it should be...Folks in the Armed Forces know why they are in, seeing normalcy at home is the reason...

[Darkwolf377]

A deeply flawed analysis that was debunked.

Where?

And the results from early primaries only buttress my assertion that that article was dead wrong.

Really? Republican turnout was high in Ohio, where a scandal should have supressed it; as high as in 2004 in California, where a scandal should have suppressed it; as Michael Barone pointed out, both cases should have shown depressed republican turnout and increased democrat turnout. Didn't happen.

Show me any evidence from elections that even remotely supports your assertion.

Above.

If the House holds and nationalizes the election on this issue, we'll gain seat in the House and Senate. It is the Dims' worst nightmare.

Uh huh.

[neverdem]

I'm curious....are there any people here who remember life in the U.S. during the Vietnam war?

Yeah, me. The left is just as clueless and/or seditious.

Was there a sense of war in the U.S. then?

There was a sense we were in an unjust war, according to the left. Meanwhile, we had treaty obligations to SEATO.

Were things very different from how they are now?

The left is just as clueless and/or seditious.

[RightWhale]

are there any people here who remember life in the U.S. during the Vietnam war? Was there a sense of war in the U.S. then?

Yes. There was a sense of war because there was a draft. Those who got drafted went to Vietnam. LBJ said we could have both guns and butter. The war could have been decisively won in three weeks, but it just went on and on and on TV every day--five dead, 50 dead, day after day for years.

[freema]

Thank you for posting this-something about the way you put it helps put things in better perspective for me.

[freema]

Ping to you Coop. Here is another GREAT idea!

[Dr. Frank fan]

If someone can explain how making more people miserable while doing NOTHING to comfort those in most, true pain during war helps anyone, anywhere, I'm willing to listen.

Well, you answered your own question. The people who say this think it will make the population weary of the whole thing, thus clamor for troop withdrawal, and that will be that. (Of course Iraq will descend into all out civil war and failed-state status, but at least the war will be "over"! ;-)

The people this "helps" are isolationists who don't want our troops to be anywhere for ideological reasons, and leftists whose obsession for 3 years has been to gain political advantage from the Iraq occupation.

It doesn't help the troops (good point about nothing being "spread around"), and it doesn't help us succeed in Iraq. But that's not what these people are interested in anyway.

[freema]

Please, feel free to reference how much Jack/John Murtha has done for our military over the last thirty years in office. Please, at every opportunity!

[Dr. Frank fan]

Should it have been to the country, "We're coming to get you, now those of you not involved, go shopping and carry on" or "We're at War and everyone will be asked to do something." ??

But what exactly would you ask "everyone" to do? Something meaningful that actually helps wage war? (If so, what?) Or something symbolic so that this "feels more like World War 2"? (If so, why would you want it to feel more like World War 2?)

[smoothsailing]

Now that's a good one!

I can almost see and hear Charlie Daniels laughing and singing that just to make the leftist weenies cry. :D

[norton]

not too impressed with the original article but the exchanges have been interesting:

My vote for most "on" goes to #62 & 68.
First runners up, #82 & 85.
Correction to #47; those 'minor interests' were all reported in negatives (Tet was a win reported as a loss), unless they were not (no one marginally understood the Pentagon Papers but their being broadcast was reported as a heroic blow against the empire).
To #84, I've printed the words and admit I'd never heard them before, thanks.
To #85 & 96; try Gardens of Stone for another take on the home front in war time.

To the general thread:
It's a truism that we always want to fight the last war while adapting via on-job-training.

WW1 taught us that it's dumb to send horse cavalry into a post Gatling Gun war. It's aftermath taught us that simply signing a treaty and imposing sanctions isn't good enough.

WW2 taught us nothing if not that you really, really, had to have an evil enemy.
That even truly evil enemies are only recognized (or made) via a committed news media. And, that grand alliances are (a) necessary, and (b) temporary.

Korea (odd, this might be the first mention of Korea in this discussion) taught us that 'conventional' wars had gone away and that a grand alliance meant getting UN permission (albeit by stealth).

Vietnam was first undertaken in an effort to avert another Korean type war and it was eventually turned to "prove" that we sucked at unconventional warfare. Few even commented on the fact that Saigon did NOT fall to "agrarian reformer's", it fell to NVA tanks. It also proved that even truly evil enemies can be turned into innocent victims by a committed news media. And, of course, that a grand alliance can boil down to tons and tons of PX goodies being flown back to the PI or ROK.)

Then we got a whole bunch of near nonsensical attempts at restoring the faith;
sometimes comical (Grenada),
sometimes tragic (carter's hostage rescue),
often just silly &/or clearly bogus (the 'aspirin factory' & 'missiles up a camel's ###')
As oft as not there were no attempts when action should have been demanded (USS Cole, the first WTC).

GW1 was kind of anticlimax. A huge buildup, tons of allies, great leadership from both GB1 and Stormin' Norman, news coverage galore; and great maneuvering, some lessons learned, and an enemy left intact based on headlong retreat & fear of involving a civilian population.
A return to conventional war without the little boost of 'total victory' as a goal and with total disregard for Sherman's lessons quoted elsewhere in this thread.

GW2 seems to be a tentative adjustment from GW1. Less is more. SOF in lieu of heavy armor. No real clue as to what victory might look like but determined to leave something else in its wake...
A more determined subset (with Afghanistan) in a justified war nobody quite knows how to model. The bad guys look a lot like palestinians who read Giap's notes. The good guys are at least less troublesome than the french after WW2 but their rules just don't quite compute over here. The term "allies" can be parsed more loosely than Clinton's "is" was and "enemies" are not only hard to define (except for france) but, once again, some of them live among us.

The only thing I can predict from all that is that the next one will be different and someone will have to do the whole thing over again, I only pray that it will be someone more like GWB and a lot less like LBJ, BJC, or the old crumpled up peanut guy.

(sorry if I ranted - I'd still be typing if the cat hadn't just clawed his way onto my lap)