Full Version: Loss of support for Iraq war
A lot of people have made compairasons between Iraq and Vietnam, and on the whole I have to say I think the compaiason is not apt. Perhaps this is me the historian speaking, but there is very little basis to compare the two conflicts. While it is possible Iraq might TURN into a Vietnam, it is way too early to draw any conclusions.
However, according to the news today, perhaps the two conflicts do have one thing in common:CBC newsworld article
Highlights:
"Public perception that the United States was losing control of Iraq appeared to be on the rise Thursday as major contractors including Siemens and General Electric pulled out of the war-torn country or partially suspended rebuilding operations."
"An AP-Ipsos poll of 1,000 Amercians released Wednesday found that the number of people who think going to war in Iraq was right, at 48 per cent, was now roughly equal to the 49 per cent of those surveyed who think it was a mistake.
Support for the U.S.-led action stood at more than about 65 per cent in December.
According to the poll, the number of those who think the military action in Iraq has increased the long-term risk of terrorism in the United States have increased to 54 percent now, up from 40 percent in December."
The loss in Vietnam was caused by many things, a poor handling of the conflict and an underestimation of the will and capacity of the Vietnamese. But more important still was the loss of will on the US homefront.
Now, according to this poll, more Americans consider the war a mistake than consider it the proper course of action. A much larger majority believe that the war has made the world a less safe place.
Will this drop in popular support for the war force the hand of the US administration in how it handles Iraq?
Should it?
However, according to the news today, perhaps the two conflicts do have one thing in common:CBC newsworld article
Highlights:
"Public perception that the United States was losing control of Iraq appeared to be on the rise Thursday as major contractors including Siemens and General Electric pulled out of the war-torn country or partially suspended rebuilding operations."
"An AP-Ipsos poll of 1,000 Amercians released Wednesday found that the number of people who think going to war in Iraq was right, at 48 per cent, was now roughly equal to the 49 per cent of those surveyed who think it was a mistake.
Support for the U.S.-led action stood at more than about 65 per cent in December.
According to the poll, the number of those who think the military action in Iraq has increased the long-term risk of terrorism in the United States have increased to 54 percent now, up from 40 percent in December."
The loss in Vietnam was caused by many things, a poor handling of the conflict and an underestimation of the will and capacity of the Vietnamese. But more important still was the loss of will on the US homefront.
Now, according to this poll, more Americans consider the war a mistake than consider it the proper course of action. A much larger majority believe that the war has made the world a less safe place.
Will this drop in popular support for the war force the hand of the US administration in how it handles Iraq?
Should it?
QUOTE
Will this drop in popular support for the war force the hand of the US administration in how it handles Iraq?
Definitely NO!!! This past adminstration has a history of doing things their way,regardless of how other countries or American citizens feel.
QUOTE
Should it?
Definitely YES!!!! We should withdraw our troops slowly and exit the country.
I think the US is capable of doing itself in regardless of coalition support or lack there-of. The troops that are pulling out probably has more than anything a dis-heartening effect on the american populace and administration, because its going to mess with their timeframe.
From 'Why we Get it Wrong' by William S. Lind
http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=2361
( Before anyone jumps on me about a reference from Antiwar.com, William Lind is Director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free Congress Foundation and he is a former Congressional Aide and the author
of many books and articles on military strategy and war.)
This article links to another about Fourth Generation War, which our military folks here might find interesting.
Popular support (for war) or lack of means little to this admin. but looking good for an election does. Not as in 'reality', just what reality will look like to, how did they put it? ' to your average Joe'. They want an appearance of withdrawl and hand-over, though I'm not sure why, since the republican base or those who think it through would certainely accept a longer engagement for security not to see civil war. I guess they believe this is a big election issue and they want to convince 'the average Joe' it really is about Iraqi freedom.
Anyway this timeframe situation is going to be the Bush problem, and possibly true, in a view from middle america, since we tend to like things efficient and expedient without too much loss of life on 'our side'.
The escalation of deaths and extention of tours are not helping. Most would not blame the President if we pulled out too soon and Iraq errupted into civil war. Average Joe would just blame this on 'those people' for not taking advantage of the great gift of freedom which we bestowed upon them and they just didnt get it, soon enough of course. Saddam is gone and thats enough. The rest of us can see that Iraq in civil war or even at minimum an outbreak of fighting amongst themselves for power positions would be a complete failure of US policy.
From 'Why we Get it Wrong' by William S. Lind
QUOTE
For every other party, the distinguishing characteristic of the American intervention force is that it, and it alone, will go away. At some point, sooner or later, we will go home. Everyone else stays, because they live there.
This has many implications, none of them good from our perspective. Local allies know they will at some time face their local enemies without us there to support them. French collaborators with the Germans, and there were many, can tell us what happens then. Local enemies know they can outlast us. Neutrals make their calculations on the same basis; as my neighbor back in Cleveland said, one of Arabs' few military virtues is that they are always on the winning side.
All our technology, all our training, all our superiority in techniques (like being able to hit what we shoot at) put together are less powerful than the fact that time is against us. More, we tend to accelerate the time disadvantage. American election cycles play a role here; clearly, that is what lies behind the June 30 deadline for handing Iraq over to some kind of Iraqi government. So does a central feature of American culture, the desire for quick results and "closure." Whether we are talking about wars or diets, Americans want action now and results fast. In places like Fallujah, that leads us to prefer assaults to talks. Our opponents, in contrast, have all the time in the world – and in the next world for that matter.
This has many implications, none of them good from our perspective. Local allies know they will at some time face their local enemies without us there to support them. French collaborators with the Germans, and there were many, can tell us what happens then. Local enemies know they can outlast us. Neutrals make their calculations on the same basis; as my neighbor back in Cleveland said, one of Arabs' few military virtues is that they are always on the winning side.
All our technology, all our training, all our superiority in techniques (like being able to hit what we shoot at) put together are less powerful than the fact that time is against us. More, we tend to accelerate the time disadvantage. American election cycles play a role here; clearly, that is what lies behind the June 30 deadline for handing Iraq over to some kind of Iraqi government. So does a central feature of American culture, the desire for quick results and "closure." Whether we are talking about wars or diets, Americans want action now and results fast. In places like Fallujah, that leads us to prefer assaults to talks. Our opponents, in contrast, have all the time in the world – and in the next world for that matter.
http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=2361
( Before anyone jumps on me about a reference from Antiwar.com, William Lind is Director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free Congress Foundation and he is a former Congressional Aide and the author
of many books and articles on military strategy and war.)
This article links to another about Fourth Generation War, which our military folks here might find interesting.
Popular support (for war) or lack of means little to this admin. but looking good for an election does. Not as in 'reality', just what reality will look like to, how did they put it? ' to your average Joe'. They want an appearance of withdrawl and hand-over, though I'm not sure why, since the republican base or those who think it through would certainely accept a longer engagement for security not to see civil war. I guess they believe this is a big election issue and they want to convince 'the average Joe' it really is about Iraqi freedom.
Anyway this timeframe situation is going to be the Bush problem, and possibly true, in a view from middle america, since we tend to like things efficient and expedient without too much loss of life on 'our side'.
The escalation of deaths and extention of tours are not helping. Most would not blame the President if we pulled out too soon and Iraq errupted into civil war. Average Joe would just blame this on 'those people' for not taking advantage of the great gift of freedom which we bestowed upon them and they just didnt get it, soon enough of course. Saddam is gone and thats enough. The rest of us can see that Iraq in civil war or even at minimum an outbreak of fighting amongst themselves for power positions would be a complete failure of US policy.
Unrest...instability...quagmire...BAH! 
It's all a bunch of media whining. You have 2 cities that are occupied by Sadr, which will be taken care of one way or the other and you have Fallujah which, the way it's all going there, will see a new offensive by the US troops there in a matter of days and then you have the small isolated incidents in Baghdad and other cities, which are minor and then the occasional upset like what happened in Basra the other day. It's stuff like the incident in Basra that get the quagmire screamers going.
The reason popular support for the war is down is because the media is playing the bad stuff. Very VERY rarely do you hear any good stuff. There is a lot of good stuff going on in Iraq that isn't reported.
It's all a bunch of media whining. You have 2 cities that are occupied by Sadr, which will be taken care of one way or the other and you have Fallujah which, the way it's all going there, will see a new offensive by the US troops there in a matter of days and then you have the small isolated incidents in Baghdad and other cities, which are minor and then the occasional upset like what happened in Basra the other day. It's stuff like the incident in Basra that get the quagmire screamers going.
The reason popular support for the war is down is because the media is playing the bad stuff. Very VERY rarely do you hear any good stuff. There is a lot of good stuff going on in Iraq that isn't reported.
Well- GA- that is because the bad news is so much worse than the good news is good- soldiers are dying nearly daily- we are spending billions on another country when our own is in crisis- there is no good side to that, I don't care if this city or that is subdued by our military might- it is not worth the loss of a single one of my family members.
I am hoping the title of this thread "loss of support for Iraq war" is the US coming to it's collective senses and realize we need to hold this entire administration far more accountable for it's actions.
I am hoping it forces the administration to change it's outlook on Iraq- and even more important- I hope we have a "regime change" by november
Of course it should change thier behavior- but GW is playing for his particular (corporate) office- so I don't think it will.
I am hoping the title of this thread "loss of support for Iraq war" is the US coming to it's collective senses and realize we need to hold this entire administration far more accountable for it's actions.
I am hoping it forces the administration to change it's outlook on Iraq- and even more important- I hope we have a "regime change" by november
Of course it should change thier behavior- but GW is playing for his particular (corporate) office- so I don't think it will.
QUOTE
There is a lot of good stuff going on in Iraq that isn't reported.
Care to elaborate? At least provide one little link. The last I have seen General Electric, Siemens, Halliburton and Beschtel had suspended reconstruction efforts and have limited travel to mission critical tasks.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/22/internat...d02502fec5bf6ba
QUOTE
Unrest...instability...quagmire...BAH!
It's all a bunch of media whining.
It's all a bunch of media whining.
You are one heck of an armchair general, yet little to back up your assertions in recent posts except for a few lines on how we should/shall slaughter them all and prevail. Not quite 'in-depth' to convince us, who are actually debating the facts now is it? Just a pontification? Or please site sources, like the rest of us are obliged to.
QUOTE(GoAmerica @ Apr 23 2004, 04:35 AM)
It's all a bunch of media whining. You have 2 cities that are occupied by Sadr, which will be taken care of one way or the other and you have Fallujah which, the way it's all going there, will see a new offensive by the US troops there in a matter of days and then you have the small isolated incidents in Baghdad and other cities, which are minor and then the occasional upset like what happened in Basra the other day. It's stuff like the incident in Basra that get the quagmire screamers going.
The reason popular support for the war is down is because the media is playing the bad stuff. Very VERY rarely do you hear any good stuff. There is a lot of good stuff going on in Iraq that isn't reported.
The reason popular support for the war is down is because the media is playing the bad stuff. Very VERY rarely do you hear any good stuff. There is a lot of good stuff going on in Iraq that isn't reported.
I am sorry, but responding to a serious issue with "Its all just the liberal media" is not constructive, nor realistic.
Firstly: I get so tired of the standard right excuse of blaming the 'liberal' media. What liberal media exactly? Fox News? NewsMax? CNN? Even the not obviously right wing media sources were just as happy to criticise Clinton before as they are Bush now. I know it is easy to dismiss media criticism of an administration by simply pretending they are all part and parcel of some great left wing conspiracy, but its simply not the case. Even if we WERE to assume 9incorrectly) that the standard media outlets are somehow incapable of being unbiased, there are multiple right-wing oriented news channels on the air at the moment.
Secondly: the fact that the public is turning against the war might (shock! horror! surprise!) actually have some legitimate justification. By dismissing that justification arbitrarily you weaken your own position enormously. The fact that the major contractors in Iraq are either pulling out or have halted their reconstruction efforts is not a lie spread by the left, nor is the fact that more Americans are now against the war then for the war.
I have heard from friends of mine in the UK contingent in Iraq, and they say quite the opposite from you, that in fact there are a lot of negative incidents, attempted ambushes, snipings and so on that go UNreported, the media only cares if someone is seriously hurt. If a roadside bomb does not kill anyone, or a sniper misses his target, then the media does not care. Things in many ways are actually WORSE then the media reports.
Even worse, small scare attacks which do not involve coalition troops are also not reported. Attacks which kill or injure small numbers of Iraqi police or collaborators don't make the news.
The media reportes things that are big news, they always have and they always will. When they are tearing into Clinton, the right loves them. When they are tearing into Bush or his poorly thought out policies, then "Oh, its just a conspiracy from the left wing media".
Will this drop in popular support for the war force the hand of the US administration in how it handles Iraq?
Should it?
I don't see how it could be handled any differently at this point. More troops? Less? I think things are set and they're stuck regardless of popular opinion.
It will be interesting to see what happens with the Turkey/Kurd boarder there. Things are starting to heat up slowly...if Turkey invades, what will we do? They are our NATO ally.
Should it?
I don't see how it could be handled any differently at this point. More troops? Less? I think things are set and they're stuck regardless of popular opinion.
It will be interesting to see what happens with the Turkey/Kurd boarder there. Things are starting to heat up slowly...if Turkey invades, what will we do? They are our NATO ally.
QUOTE
am sorry, but responding to a serious issue with "Its all just the liberal media" is not constructive, nor realistic.
Just to clarify, I don't think this is a bash on the 'liberal' media, but just a description of media tendencies in general. Bad news is almost always viewed as more newsworthy than good news, unless the good news is truly exemplary.
QUOTE
It will be interesting to see what happens with the Turkey/Kurd boarder there. Things are starting to heat up slowly...if Turkey invades, what will we do? They are our NATO ally.
Let's hope they're smart enough not to put us in that position. I believe we've already informed them that such an incursion would not be welcome, and would be met with military force. I doubt this diplomatic stance has changed, although I'm sure we don't want to have to follow up on it. Given this stance, I don't see where Turkey stands to gain by initiating any action. Rather, I think we will try to alleviate their concerns through our input into how Iraq will be set up and governed.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.