17 Jul U.S. Resolve in WW II — and in Iraq
Over at Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall nicely debunks the tired right-wing talking point on Iraq that if there had been opinion polling during WW II, we would have seen support for the war drop every time the U.S. military suffered a setback. As it turns out, such opinion polling did exist — and nothing could be further from the truth:
A larger version of the chart can be found here.
Most revealing, I think, is the close connection between the percentage of people who approved of the way FDR was handling his job and the percentage of people who said they had a clear idea what the war was about. As WW II demonstrates, the American people are willing to make enormous sacrifices for a cause they understand and believe is winnable; what they are not willing to do — something that still hasn’t dawned on the Bush administration — is waste precious lives and resources to wage a war that no one knows how to win, not least because winning itself remains completely undefined.
(As an historical aside, note the understandable home-team bias in the polling: before U.S. troops landed in North Africa as part of Operation Torch, only 33% of Americans believed that the Allies would win the war; after they landed — on November 8, 1942 — that number shot up to more than 80%!)
There are certain unique qualifiers that place further distance between WWII and the venture in Iraq:
1. In WWII, a universal military draft existed that swept up a significant portion of young US males, above and beyond the genuine enthusiasm for enlisting. The dangers were shared across the socio-economic spectrum of the nation’s citizens.
2. In WWII, the United States rationed almost all consumer and industrial commodities as well as collected, in variously-styled “drives” those items that were generated in the expenditure of consumer and industrial commodities as well as materials deemed surplus to true needs.
3. In WWII, the United States imposed economic thresholds for various social and industrial activities, particularly travel. Sales of war bonds and other economic savings incentives were employed and participation was garnerer as an exercise in personal and societal patriotism.
4. In WWII, there was a true and legitimate sense of fear from the realization that three governments possessed military capabilities for introducing death and destruction upon the United States as both a political entity as well as a social institution. Therefore, there was incredible national impetus to forge ahead, no matter how grievous setbacks might be.
5. In WWII the political leadership, with heavy emphasis upon the concept of leadership, of the nation was both communicative and demonstrative with the citizens in moving forward from the disaster that was Pearl Harbor and the loss of the Philippine Islands and the concurrent British losses of Hong Kong and Singapore as well as their military setbacks in Europe.
6. In WWII, victory was a clearly defined and understandable event. Hostile governments and their leaders were to be crushed, the nations humbled, and new political and economic courses were charted for those nations to return them to peaceful participation in the world’s events.
7. Where Iraq is concerned:
a. Where is the massive, all-encompassing involvement of young American manhood? Would the United States have a war underway in Iraq if the youth of America were getting shot at and killed in such massive numbers? Such mass involvement would serve as a great equalizer amongst our teeming and cowardly “right-wing” citizens who are perfectly willing to send someone else’s son or daughter to Iraq in pursuit of their political goals.
b. Where is rationing of anything?
c. Where are the immediate economic consequences for the citizens of the United States in relation to the incredible amount of money being spend daily in Iraq? The consequences are going to come home to roost at some later time in coping with a national debt of profound proportions.
d. Does the public interest in Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan, and global warming demonstrate the fear of Al Quaeda as voiced by Michael Chertoff in describing his gut feeling? Does our national media portray any sense of impending danger to our way of life, our values, or our remaining freedoms that have not been made subject to national security?
e. Is there true political and military leadership, with extreme emphasis being placed upon the concept of leadership, being demonstrated by the current administration or in Congress? Is there frequent and even honest communication with the American public? Do the political entities of the United States have the trust and confidence of the citizens to “do the right thing”?
f. What constitues victory in Iraq? How many American citizens know when and how “victory” will be achieved in Iraq?
8. The “right-wing” political faction of the United States is, I believe, a frighteningly small quantity of people who would bring pride to Joseph Goebbels for their abilitie to exploit all manner of emotions throughout a broad spectrum of the American population, excluding myself and many others I know. I consider this minor quantity of folks to be egomanical, arrogant, and stark-raving mad. Unfortunately for our nation, this realization has been too long in coming and the damage done may take many generations to repair.
I thought a draft was a bad thing? Today’s soldiers and marines are VOLUNTEERS. A draft, as historically used, would disproportionately affect middle-class and lower middle-class men. Today’s military is of a higher socio-economic and education level than the general public and are not majority inner-city (they weren’t in Vietnman either) poor or minorities, etc. Do the rotations need to be fixed? yes.
The better model for this conflict is not WW2, but the “small wars” talked about by Max Boot (cue evil neocon music here — even though he’s not a neocon) in Savage Wars of Peace. The Phillipines of 1900 (not the tactics, but the general idea of the conflict) is a better model than WW2. Bush should let the Marines do what they do best — fight and win small wars and counter-insurgency.
I would also question the prior post’s idea that 3 gov’t could rain death and destruction — or even the fear of it. By 1943 that idea was pretty much dead. Even then it applied only mostly to the Japanese right after Pearl Harbor and the Aleutians adventure.
FDR caught a lot of flak to be sure and I agree with your general premise that publicity in WW2 would’ve caused us to lose our nerve. The biased Chicken Little media of today though is causing our Senate to lose its nerve. Bush/Rumsfeld did a disservice seeing and selling this as a short war — these engagements are years long (look at Haiti, Nicaragua, Phillipines, etc.). That, howver does not justify the tuck our tail and get out school of thought though. Wars can and do change course in the middle. Bush was trying, inadvertently, to lose the war. Now the surge will turn out, I believe, to correct it somewhat. I know harry Reid says it’s a failure, but I prefer to be at least halfway done with something before considering the negative.
Nice Goebbels card. Get a grip man! This place is no way close to any sort of totalitarian state. The fact that you can virulently and irrationally rage aginat the Bush “machine” without fear of your life (rational fear I mean) gives the lie to that nonsense. In a place you’d lile — raging against the machine would get ne killed no doubt. Leftists are so into free speech.