Full Version: The end of long term conflicts?
In a world of 24/7 news coverage is it possible to maintain public optimism in a sustained conflict? War in itself is a very unpredictable endeavor. Consider some wars in which the US has been involved. In the Civil War, the US lost 6000 lives in the battle of Antietam alone. Given the population growth in the US since then that is a staggering amount.
Here is a list of American Deaths in all wars.
Revolutionary War (1775-1783)---------4,435
War of 1812 (1812-1815)----------------2,260
Mexican War (1846-1848)--------------- 13,283
Civil War (1861-1865)--------------------623,026
Spanish-American War (1898)-----------2,446
World War I (1917-1918)-----------------116,708
World War II (1941-1945)----------------407,316
Korean War (1950-1953)-----------------36,914
Vietnam War (1964-1973)----------------58,169
Persian Gulf War (1991)-------------------269
War in Iraq (2003-Present)---------------1,850
With the advent of 24 cable news every casualty is headline news. For the sake of this discussion let’s try to leave the political aspects aside and concentrate on the resolve of the public.
Does society have the resolve to stand behind a long term (3-5 years) war in the present day
Given the mass loss of life that occurred during the Civil War could Lincoln have been reelected into today’s instant media?
Does the advancement of technology and instant communication mean the end of large scale, long-term conflicts?
note: first question edited at request of nemov.
Here is a list of American Deaths in all wars.
Revolutionary War (1775-1783)---------4,435
War of 1812 (1812-1815)----------------2,260
Mexican War (1846-1848)--------------- 13,283
Civil War (1861-1865)--------------------623,026
Spanish-American War (1898)-----------2,446
World War I (1917-1918)-----------------116,708
World War II (1941-1945)----------------407,316
Korean War (1950-1953)-----------------36,914
Vietnam War (1964-1973)----------------58,169
Persian Gulf War (1991)-------------------269
War in Iraq (2003-Present)---------------1,850
With the advent of 24 cable news every casualty is headline news. For the sake of this discussion let’s try to leave the political aspects aside and concentrate on the resolve of the public.
Does society have the resolve to stand behind a long term (3-5 years) war in the present day
Given the mass loss of life that occurred during the Civil War could Lincoln have been reelected into today’s instant media?
Does the advancement of technology and instant communication mean the end of large scale, long-term conflicts?
note: first question edited at request of nemov.
Is it possible to sustain a long term (3-5 years) war in the present day?
Most definitely. We are richer than ever, have complex credit options, and have the capacity to extend destruction for as long as it takes to "stay the course." People thought like this in the spring of 1914.
Given the mass loss of life that occurred during the Civil War could Lincoln have been reelected into today’s instant media?
Lincoln felt that he wouldn't get reelected in 1864. Developments on the battlefield in Virginia, the West, and Sherman's victories in the South turned the tide for him.
Does the advancement of technology and instant communication mean the end of large scale, long-term conflicts?
No, the advancement of pacifism in places like Europe and Japan have helped. We are quite capable of entering a new era of militarism. Fortunately right now most nations are not investing in the military at the same rate the United States is. Armies that are built often times get used.
Most definitely. We are richer than ever, have complex credit options, and have the capacity to extend destruction for as long as it takes to "stay the course." People thought like this in the spring of 1914.
Given the mass loss of life that occurred during the Civil War could Lincoln have been reelected into today’s instant media?
Lincoln felt that he wouldn't get reelected in 1864. Developments on the battlefield in Virginia, the West, and Sherman's victories in the South turned the tide for him.
Does the advancement of technology and instant communication mean the end of large scale, long-term conflicts?
No, the advancement of pacifism in places like Europe and Japan have helped. We are quite capable of entering a new era of militarism. Fortunately right now most nations are not investing in the military at the same rate the United States is. Armies that are built often times get used.
QUOTE(Eeyore @ Aug 18 2005, 05:56 PM)
Is it possible to sustain a long term (3-5 years) war in the present day?
Most definitely. We are richer than ever, have complex credit options, and have the capacity to extend destruction for as long as it takes to "stay the course." People thought like this in the spring of 1914.
Given the mass loss of life that occurred during the Civil War could Lincoln have been reelected into today’s instant media?
Lincoln felt that he wouldn't get reelected in 1864. Developments on the battlefield in Virginia, the West, and Sherman's victories in the South turned the tide for him.
Most definitely. We are richer than ever, have complex credit options, and have the capacity to extend destruction for as long as it takes to "stay the course." People thought like this in the spring of 1914.
Given the mass loss of life that occurred during the Civil War could Lincoln have been reelected into today’s instant media?
Lincoln felt that he wouldn't get reelected in 1864. Developments on the battlefield in Virginia, the West, and Sherman's victories in the South turned the tide for him.
Eeyore, I understand the historical context of what happened in the Civil War. I understand why Lincoln was reelected. However, if this was going on in the modern age of instant communication I do not think Lincoln would have been reelected. The first 3 years of the war were full of blunders by the Union and I do not think our society today would have the stomach for the bloodshed. It is one thing to “hear” about bloodshed, but to see it on TV day after day would be devastating.
I think I need to clarify my first question. I know it is economically possible to sustain a war for many years, but I mean would the public stand behind the war?
Does society have the resolve to stand behind a long term (3-5 years) war in the present day?
QUOTE(nemov @ Aug 18 2005, 04:28 PM)
Does society have the resolve to stand behind a long term (3-5 years) war in the present day?
Given the mass loss of life that occurred during the Civil War could Lincoln have been reelected into today’s instant media?
Does the advancement of technology and instant communication mean the end of large scale, long-term conflicts?
Given the mass loss of life that occurred during the Civil War could Lincoln have been reelected into today’s instant media?
Does the advancement of technology and instant communication mean the end of large scale, long-term conflicts?
1.) In our society of instant results I do not think it is possible. Pardon my analogy, but when the fitness craze hit America: people assumed they could do rigorous work for ten to fifteen minutes and then sit down and chow down on a hamburger, a large fry, and a liter of soda. It is impossible to do something and not have a commitment, the fact we must now accept is that this war is not a war that can be entered for ten minutes and then be abandoned in favor of a more chushy project.
2.) I do not think so, if Lincoln were a product of today's world he most certainly would be hounded endlessly for failing to prevent loss of life on both sides. The media works to sell a story, not always tell facts: using that principle it is feasible to say that Lincoln would be a one-term and fairly unpopular president.
3.) Not an end, just a very long conflict. For instance, I am tired of hearing about Iraqi car-bombings. They are there... fine. Do I need to hear about one every single bloody time one happens? No.
First of all, I looked here for a comparison of the various war casualty figures you quoted with those of other countries over roughly the same period.
While the figures do tally with the ones quoted here, the estimates do vary quite wildly, and the quoted figures in this thread almost invariably go with the highest estimate.
A similar comparions ot other countries' death tolls quickly reveals that America's only conflict that qualifies as especially bloody in international terms is the Civil War. This is understandable, since, aside from the Revolution itself, the Civil War is the only conflict America has engaged in that could be seen as a war of national survival, comparable to the multiple invasions and prolonged wars.
Indeed, in the "(Possibly) the Twenty (or so) Worst Things People Have Done to Each Other" table the only thing that happened that resulted in a majority of the deaths being in North America was the "Annihilation of the American Indians".
My point is that while America has certainly had a lot of war dead over the years since independence, her experience has been relatively happy compared to many other nations of note, in both proportional and absolute death tolls.
While it doesn't and shouldn't diminish the respect or gratitude for the fallen, America can also be grateful that her history has been such that there are not a great deal more fallen to be thankful and respectful of. (Compared to, say, Russia, whose casualties are at least an order of magnitude larger than the USA's over the same timeframe.)
Is it possible to sustain a long term (3-5 years) war in the present day?
Again, this is filtered through American experience. 3-5 years is quite a short war in international terms, not just historically (Europe's wars have had names like "The Hundred Years' War" and "The Thirty Years War"!), but also compared to ongoing or recent conflicts (in, say, Congo, Sudan, East Timor)
That said, I don't think any sophisticated modern democracy will easily be able to sustain a single conflict for more than, say, two terms of political office. It differs according to country, but this means something like 8-10 years as a maximum.
Given the mass loss of life that occurred during the Civil War could Lincoln have been reelected into today’s instant media?
No, probably not, for the reasons you've already outlined.
But then, Lincoln was gangly-looking and, for his time, not just handsomely tall but freakishly tall. Plus he had thinning hair and a beard. In today's television-driven politics, it's quite doubtful he'd ever have been elected in the first place.
Does the advancement of technology and instant communication mean the end of large scale, long-term conflicts?
Not automatically. Driven by hard experience in Vietnam, US forces have quite effectively been able to control the media in subsequent conflicts (through the practice of embedding journalists) so very little that might undermine their chosen methods of conflict becomes public. Scandals do break eventually, but not often until months or even years after the event.
I think the bigger factor undermining large-scale, long-term conflicts is public unwillingness to suffer the consequences.
The American public has never really had to face large numbers of domestic civilian casualties at home, and having seen what can happen elsewhere (probably most notably in WW2 Europe), sensibly doesn't want to have to face such things. (Who said Americans don't learn form history?
)
And they don't want to see their friends and relatives come home in body bags.
And - often underplayed - they don't want to pay for such a conflict, in direct & indrect taxation, but also in the type of national war-footing that pretty much necessitates government control over large sections of the economy.
And in case anyone thinks I've been talking about American publics specifically because I think European publics are very different - I don't think that. If anything, the direct experience of warfare over the centuries, and particularly two world wars sparking off in Europe, makes European publics rather less inclined to war-mongering than even the American public. I think the main - maybe even the only - difference, once engaged in war, is a slightly greater acceptance of deaths on "our side" than the American public is prepared to live with.
While the figures do tally with the ones quoted here, the estimates do vary quite wildly, and the quoted figures in this thread almost invariably go with the highest estimate.
A similar comparions ot other countries' death tolls quickly reveals that America's only conflict that qualifies as especially bloody in international terms is the Civil War. This is understandable, since, aside from the Revolution itself, the Civil War is the only conflict America has engaged in that could be seen as a war of national survival, comparable to the multiple invasions and prolonged wars.
Indeed, in the "(Possibly) the Twenty (or so) Worst Things People Have Done to Each Other" table the only thing that happened that resulted in a majority of the deaths being in North America was the "Annihilation of the American Indians".
My point is that while America has certainly had a lot of war dead over the years since independence, her experience has been relatively happy compared to many other nations of note, in both proportional and absolute death tolls.
While it doesn't and shouldn't diminish the respect or gratitude for the fallen, America can also be grateful that her history has been such that there are not a great deal more fallen to be thankful and respectful of. (Compared to, say, Russia, whose casualties are at least an order of magnitude larger than the USA's over the same timeframe.)
Is it possible to sustain a long term (3-5 years) war in the present day?
Again, this is filtered through American experience. 3-5 years is quite a short war in international terms, not just historically (Europe's wars have had names like "The Hundred Years' War" and "The Thirty Years War"!), but also compared to ongoing or recent conflicts (in, say, Congo, Sudan, East Timor)
That said, I don't think any sophisticated modern democracy will easily be able to sustain a single conflict for more than, say, two terms of political office. It differs according to country, but this means something like 8-10 years as a maximum.
Given the mass loss of life that occurred during the Civil War could Lincoln have been reelected into today’s instant media?
No, probably not, for the reasons you've already outlined.
But then, Lincoln was gangly-looking and, for his time, not just handsomely tall but freakishly tall. Plus he had thinning hair and a beard. In today's television-driven politics, it's quite doubtful he'd ever have been elected in the first place.
Does the advancement of technology and instant communication mean the end of large scale, long-term conflicts?
Not automatically. Driven by hard experience in Vietnam, US forces have quite effectively been able to control the media in subsequent conflicts (through the practice of embedding journalists) so very little that might undermine their chosen methods of conflict becomes public. Scandals do break eventually, but not often until months or even years after the event.
I think the bigger factor undermining large-scale, long-term conflicts is public unwillingness to suffer the consequences.
The American public has never really had to face large numbers of domestic civilian casualties at home, and having seen what can happen elsewhere (probably most notably in WW2 Europe), sensibly doesn't want to have to face such things. (Who said Americans don't learn form history?
) And they don't want to see their friends and relatives come home in body bags.
And - often underplayed - they don't want to pay for such a conflict, in direct & indrect taxation, but also in the type of national war-footing that pretty much necessitates government control over large sections of the economy.
And in case anyone thinks I've been talking about American publics specifically because I think European publics are very different - I don't think that. If anything, the direct experience of warfare over the centuries, and particularly two world wars sparking off in Europe, makes European publics rather less inclined to war-mongering than even the American public. I think the main - maybe even the only - difference, once engaged in war, is a slightly greater acceptance of deaths on "our side" than the American public is prepared to live with.
Is it possible to sustain a long term (3-5 years) war in the present day?
While I think it’s possible to sustain a prolonged war I believe the answer to all of your questions hinge on the intent or nature of the war. If it’s for a just cause, the exposure from electronic and print media helps. If the intent is questionable then I think the over exposure works against the cause.
Given the mass loss of life that occurred during the Civil War could Lincoln have been reelected into today’s instant media?
I really don’t think this is a fair comparison, after all this was a civil war. Completely different than any conflict in our history.
However during the Civil War citizens were still informed of the mass loss of life. Since news print was the only real form of media it just wasn’t in their face at every turn, but it was in the forefront of everyone’s thoughts every day. If you’ve ever read diaries or journals of those who didn’t serve in the military you can see where almost every aspect of their daily lives was impacted by the war, especially in the South. Citizens lived the war, they didn’t need the media.
I believe Lincoln would still have won re-election. His first and foremost goal was to reunite the Union, a popular (at least in the North where there were more votes) and noble cause regardless of how the message was delivered.
Good point Julian (and a shame really). However, one of the reasons he’s tops of my Presidential list is the man truly was honest, even about himself.
"If I were two-faced, would I be wearing this one?" A very Honest Abe.
While I think it’s possible to sustain a prolonged war I believe the answer to all of your questions hinge on the intent or nature of the war. If it’s for a just cause, the exposure from electronic and print media helps. If the intent is questionable then I think the over exposure works against the cause.
Given the mass loss of life that occurred during the Civil War could Lincoln have been reelected into today’s instant media?
I really don’t think this is a fair comparison, after all this was a civil war. Completely different than any conflict in our history.
However during the Civil War citizens were still informed of the mass loss of life. Since news print was the only real form of media it just wasn’t in their face at every turn, but it was in the forefront of everyone’s thoughts every day. If you’ve ever read diaries or journals of those who didn’t serve in the military you can see where almost every aspect of their daily lives was impacted by the war, especially in the South. Citizens lived the war, they didn’t need the media.
I believe Lincoln would still have won re-election. His first and foremost goal was to reunite the Union, a popular (at least in the North where there were more votes) and noble cause regardless of how the message was delivered.
QUOTE(Julian)
But then, Lincoln was gangly-looking and, for his time, not just handsomely tall but freakishly tall. Plus he had thinning hair and a beard. In today's television-driven politics, it's quite doubtful he'd ever have been elected in the first place.
Good point Julian (and a shame really). However, one of the reasons he’s tops of my Presidential list is the man truly was honest, even about himself.
"If I were two-faced, would I be wearing this one?" A very Honest Abe.
Does the advancement of technology and instant communication mean the end of large scale, long-term conflicts?
I shall quote my hero on this one:
"Dulce bellum inexpertis" War is sweet to the naive.
Erasmus wrote one of his longest adage-essays on this adage. He later expanded his comments into an entire book, Querela Pacis, The Complaint of Peace. One of his key points was that most people who support war have no idea what it really means. Erasmus noted that almost everybody who has ever actually been in a war has difficulty describing just how horrific it is. Even many of the first-person accounts of war written through the ages struggle to communicate the horror of it all. Francis Ford Coppola captured one aspect of this beautifully in Apocalypse Now. The anti-hero, played by Marlon Brando, deliberately plays up the horror of war by decapitating people, hanging their bodies from trees, and other atrocities. He is a thoughtful man who has carried war to its logical extreme -- and has thus become a renegade. His last words are "the horror... the horror"
I'll toss a couple of other stories into this. A German soldier was driving a supply truck on the Eastern Front, maybe 50 miles from the front lines. He was part of a supply convoy, and as they bumped along the primitive road, he chatted with his partner. Suddenly he saw a Russian plane swooping low ahead, strafing the convoy. He heard a crash and looked at his partner, whose jaw was simply gone. He noted how the blood was gushing out from his lower head, and bubbles were emerging from the remains of his throat. But despite his best efforts, he could not communicate in words the horror of the experience.
An American soldier in Italy near the end of World War II provides another story. His platoon was moving up a hill to relieve another platoon that had been taking heavy near-continuous fire while holding the position for a week. They had fought off several direct assaults. The men coming down the path were so tired, they looked dead. What really struck him was that there were several bodies of American soldiers lying on the path that had not yet been collected. The soldiers coming down the path were so tired, so emotionally dead, that they stepped right onto the faces of the dead men. They just didn't care.
The value of modern media is that it brings this experience directly into the living rooms of the citizens who send the soldiers off to war. War is sweet to the naive, but seeing the reality of war puts a quick end to naivete. And an informed citizenry is crucial to the success of democracy. Modern media, like international trade, is one of the great pacifying forces of our times. Let us all give praise and thanks for it.
I shall quote my hero on this one:
"Dulce bellum inexpertis" War is sweet to the naive.
Erasmus wrote one of his longest adage-essays on this adage. He later expanded his comments into an entire book, Querela Pacis, The Complaint of Peace. One of his key points was that most people who support war have no idea what it really means. Erasmus noted that almost everybody who has ever actually been in a war has difficulty describing just how horrific it is. Even many of the first-person accounts of war written through the ages struggle to communicate the horror of it all. Francis Ford Coppola captured one aspect of this beautifully in Apocalypse Now. The anti-hero, played by Marlon Brando, deliberately plays up the horror of war by decapitating people, hanging their bodies from trees, and other atrocities. He is a thoughtful man who has carried war to its logical extreme -- and has thus become a renegade. His last words are "the horror... the horror"
I'll toss a couple of other stories into this. A German soldier was driving a supply truck on the Eastern Front, maybe 50 miles from the front lines. He was part of a supply convoy, and as they bumped along the primitive road, he chatted with his partner. Suddenly he saw a Russian plane swooping low ahead, strafing the convoy. He heard a crash and looked at his partner, whose jaw was simply gone. He noted how the blood was gushing out from his lower head, and bubbles were emerging from the remains of his throat. But despite his best efforts, he could not communicate in words the horror of the experience.
An American soldier in Italy near the end of World War II provides another story. His platoon was moving up a hill to relieve another platoon that had been taking heavy near-continuous fire while holding the position for a week. They had fought off several direct assaults. The men coming down the path were so tired, they looked dead. What really struck him was that there were several bodies of American soldiers lying on the path that had not yet been collected. The soldiers coming down the path were so tired, so emotionally dead, that they stepped right onto the faces of the dead men. They just didn't care.
The value of modern media is that it brings this experience directly into the living rooms of the citizens who send the soldiers off to war. War is sweet to the naive, but seeing the reality of war puts a quick end to naivete. And an informed citizenry is crucial to the success of democracy. Modern media, like international trade, is one of the great pacifying forces of our times. Let us all give praise and thanks for it.
QUOTE(Erasmussimo @ Aug 19 2005, 01:02 PM)
Does the advancement of technology and instant communication mean the end of large scale, long-term conflicts?
I shall quote my hero on this one:
"Dulce bellum inexpertis" War is sweet to the naive.
snip
Interesting perspective....
I would add.... "being anti-war, even when threatened or attacked, is even more naive".
Does society have the resolve to stand behind a long term (3-5 years) war in the present day
Who's society? If you're talking about the USA, perhaps not. If you're talking about most of Europe, absolutely not. We've been at war for only a few years against terrorists and their supporters and already support is slipping away. We've suffered fewer casualties than a bad weekend in WWII but the cost is already seen as too high. If you're talking about "Islamist society", I think they have the resolve to keep fighting their Jihad as long as it takes due to the totalitarian nature of those societies. They have a fundamentally different outlook. They're not interested in short-term pleasure and are even willing to die for their beliefs. We haven't faced such an opponent since the later days of WWII in the Pacific when the Japanese killed themselves rather than surrender and atomic weapons were required to bring them to their knees. We might still be fighting them in Japan if those bombs hadn't been dropped. Our lack of resolve is our biggest obstacle in our current fight against the Jihadists.
Given the mass loss of life that occurred during the Civil War could Lincoln have been reelected into today’s instant media?
I'm not a believer in picking and choosing in history. All history has to be viewed in the context of the times. Instant messaging was not available nor was modern medicine which could have prevented most of the wartime deaths.
Does the advancement of technology and instant communication mean the end of large scale, long-term conflicts?
If anything, technology has helped the Jihadists spread their hatred and coordinate their attacks. Technology, used for these purposes, will prolong, not shorten this war because it enables them to hide in the shadows in contrast to more "traditional" battles fought by armies facing each other on the battlefield. Technology is a force multiplier for these people.
I suspect this battle will run longer than the Vietnam war. Why? Because the sentiment that Tony Blair identified in a recent statement is sadly very widespread among the nations that currently enjoy relative freedom and prosperity.
"September 11 for me was a wake-up call. A lot of people woke up for a short time, rolled over and went back to sleep again ... We need to confront these people at every single level, not just their methods, their ideas."
1. A big factor in the willingness of American citizens to "stand behind" an extended war is whether the war is justified in the first place. Take a look at the list of wars the original poster provided. One which stands out like a sore thumb is the Spanish-American War. I believe that many historians would agree that this war was not entirely justified. It cannot be denied that it was, to a great extent, stirred up by the yellow journalism of William Randolph Hearst. The biggest excuse for American entry into the struggle between Cuba and Spain was the explosion of the Maine, and that was almost certainly not the result of sabotage by Spain.
Link
(Bold added for emphasis.)
Is it too cynical of me to suggest that the attacks of September 11, 2001, served as a similar source of jingoism? I'm not suggesting that the attacks were anything but deliberate, horrible acts of violence; but what does that have to do with the invasion of Iraq?
Americans would be more than willing to "stand behind" a very long war if it had the obvious justification of a World War Two. The plain fact is that many Americans think that the current war in Iraq is not justified at all.
2. I get the sense that this question is trying to suggest that, if it weren't for that darn liberal media, all true-blue Americans would be 100% behind the current war. The analogy is simply a false one. The American Civil War cannot be compared to anything else in American history, in any meaningful way.
3. I suspect that American conflicts which resemble traditional wars (i.e. one nation's government against another nation's government) tend to be shorter because of modern technology. In effect, all modern American battles are blitzkriegs, because of the immense might of the high-tech American military. The problem is that, ever since the end of the Second World War, there have been more and more non-traditional wars, particularly the Cold War. The War on Terrorism is like the Cold War, I think, because it will go on for decades, at least. There can be no end to terrorism associated with fanatical Islam until there is profound change from within the Islamic world.
Link
QUOTE
On February 15, 1898, the American battleship USS Maine in Havana harbor suffered an explosion and quickly sank with a loss of 266 men. Evidence as to the cause of the explosion was inconclusive and contradictory, but the American press, led by the two New York papers, proclaimed that this was certainly a despicable act of sabotage by the Spaniards. The press aroused the public to demand war, with the slogan "Remember the Maine! To hell with Spain!". This patriotic belligerent feeling is known as jingoism.
With the benefit of modern forensic science, the explosion is now widely believed to have been an accident caused by the spontaneous combustion of gunpowder magazines situated too close to heat sources. Modern analytical tools, especially computer simulations, have all but confirmed this. Few still think a mine could have been the cause. While some people still think that the cause could have been some other form of sabotage, they point the finger at Cuban revolutionaries who hoped to draw the U.S. into the war or U.S. operatives on orders to trigger an inevitable war to oust Spain from the Caribbean. Almost all agree, the Spaniards would have no interest in provoking a war.
With the benefit of modern forensic science, the explosion is now widely believed to have been an accident caused by the spontaneous combustion of gunpowder magazines situated too close to heat sources. Modern analytical tools, especially computer simulations, have all but confirmed this. Few still think a mine could have been the cause. While some people still think that the cause could have been some other form of sabotage, they point the finger at Cuban revolutionaries who hoped to draw the U.S. into the war or U.S. operatives on orders to trigger an inevitable war to oust Spain from the Caribbean. Almost all agree, the Spaniards would have no interest in provoking a war.
(Bold added for emphasis.)
Is it too cynical of me to suggest that the attacks of September 11, 2001, served as a similar source of jingoism? I'm not suggesting that the attacks were anything but deliberate, horrible acts of violence; but what does that have to do with the invasion of Iraq?
Americans would be more than willing to "stand behind" a very long war if it had the obvious justification of a World War Two. The plain fact is that many Americans think that the current war in Iraq is not justified at all.
2. I get the sense that this question is trying to suggest that, if it weren't for that darn liberal media, all true-blue Americans would be 100% behind the current war. The analogy is simply a false one. The American Civil War cannot be compared to anything else in American history, in any meaningful way.
3. I suspect that American conflicts which resemble traditional wars (i.e. one nation's government against another nation's government) tend to be shorter because of modern technology. In effect, all modern American battles are blitzkriegs, because of the immense might of the high-tech American military. The problem is that, ever since the end of the Second World War, there have been more and more non-traditional wars, particularly the Cold War. The War on Terrorism is like the Cold War, I think, because it will go on for decades, at least. There can be no end to terrorism associated with fanatical Islam until there is profound change from within the Islamic world.
Does society have the resolve to stand behind a long term (3-5 years) war in the present day
If you're referring to the America and the WoT/Iraq, the answer is a solid yes. The cynical reasoning behind this line of thought is the President is the Commander in Chief, and as long as he can get Congress' approve he can maintain the conflict as long as he's in power. Popular opinion need not factor in. And seeing as the current president is effectively untouchable as he has congressional approval and is not standing for re-election, he has free reign. The only way for society to change this situation is to dispose of the current president, which obviously is not possible.
Ahh, the joys of the Republican form of government.
And seeing as both parties ran pro-war candidates, it appears that society does have the resolve to perpetuate the conflict. Or at least the desire.
Given the mass loss of life that occurred during the Civil War could Lincoln have been reelected into today’s instant media?
Media was pretty fast back then, they had the telegraph. News was normally only a few days behind actual events.
Does the advancement of technology and instant communication mean the end of large scale, long-term conflicts?
Quite the opposite. Look at Africa, due to cheap and plentiful automatic weapons a small fringe group with little popular support can drag a war on for years. Where 60 years ago weapons were limited in firepower, today a dozen kids with AKs can put a whole town to "the sword" very quickly. And the internet allows people to communicate anonymous, if a few precautions are taken. Which means insurgents in Iraq can solicit radicals in Britain to join the struggle. Where once radicals were isolated by their beliefs, today you type a few words into google and you can find a whole community of people who think like you do.
If you're referring to the America and the WoT/Iraq, the answer is a solid yes. The cynical reasoning behind this line of thought is the President is the Commander in Chief, and as long as he can get Congress' approve he can maintain the conflict as long as he's in power. Popular opinion need not factor in. And seeing as the current president is effectively untouchable as he has congressional approval and is not standing for re-election, he has free reign. The only way for society to change this situation is to dispose of the current president, which obviously is not possible.
Ahh, the joys of the Republican form of government.
And seeing as both parties ran pro-war candidates, it appears that society does have the resolve to perpetuate the conflict. Or at least the desire.
Given the mass loss of life that occurred during the Civil War could Lincoln have been reelected into today’s instant media?
Media was pretty fast back then, they had the telegraph. News was normally only a few days behind actual events.
Does the advancement of technology and instant communication mean the end of large scale, long-term conflicts?
Quite the opposite. Look at Africa, due to cheap and plentiful automatic weapons a small fringe group with little popular support can drag a war on for years. Where 60 years ago weapons were limited in firepower, today a dozen kids with AKs can put a whole town to "the sword" very quickly. And the internet allows people to communicate anonymous, if a few precautions are taken. Which means insurgents in Iraq can solicit radicals in Britain to join the struggle. Where once radicals were isolated by their beliefs, today you type a few words into google and you can find a whole community of people who think like you do.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.