The 'Unpopular' War
By Darleen Posted in User Blogs — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
When I posted at my own weblog regarding the Republicans successfully calling the Democrat's bluff via Murtha, one of my commenters countered:
It still doesn't make the war any more popular.
That does beg the question, is any war popular?Certainly the Civil War wasn't, where Lincoln was being excoriated and reviled by Copperhead Democrats
Many northerners had tired of war. Democrats began denouncing Grant as a "butcher." "Patriotism is played out," declared one newspaper. "Each hour is but sinking us deeper into bankruptcy and desolation." Thus while Lee's armies teetered on the verge of destruction, the Confederate cause saw its last, bright hope flicker in the fall of 1864. Southerners considered their northern sympathizers to be "large and strong enough, if left to operate constitutionally, to paralyze the war and majority party."
Even WWII was not a "popular" war. Prior to Pearl Harbor FDR was met with strong, derisive opposition to such things as his "lend-lease" legislation. American hero Charles Lindbergh gave speeches across the country for the group America First conjuring up a conspiracy of the FDR administration, the British and the Jews trying to involve America in a war we had no business pursuing.
Have you ever heard an interventionist, or a British agent, or a member of the administration in Washington ask you to go back and study a record of what they have said since the war started? Are their self-styled defenders of democracy willing to put the issue of war to a vote of our people? Do you find these crusaders for foreign freedom of speech, or the removal of censorship here in our own country? [...]When this war started in Europe, it was clear that the American people were solidly opposed to entering it. [...] National polls showed that when England and France declared war on Germany, in 1939, less than 10 percent of our population favored a similar course for America. But there were various groups of people, here and abroad, whose interests and beliefs necessitated the involvement of the United States in the war. [...] The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration. [...] Behind these groups, but of lesser importance, are a number of capitalists, Anglophiles, and intellectuals who believe that the future of mankind depends upon the domination of the British empire. [...] I am speaking here only of war agitators, not of those sincere but misguided men and women who, confused by misinformation and frightened by propaganda, follow the lead of the war agitators.
As I have said, these war agitators comprise only a small minority of our people; but they control a tremendous influence. Against the determination of the American people to stay out of war, they have marshaled the power of their propaganda, their money, their patronage.
Amazing how the same sentiments are expressed today by the likes of Moveon.org, Michael Moore, and Mommy Sheehan -- the Iraq War being part of a "NeoCon-Zionist conspiracy for oil and world domination."
America First disbanded within days after Pearl Harbor. However, WWII was still not a "popular" war. The peak induction year of the draft during WWII was 1943 - 3,323,970. Certainly men and women enlisted voluntarily, just as they do today. But there was not a monolithic sentiment to immediately go and fight the war. Let me inject my own family anecdote: my father, too young to enlist directly at the beginning of WWII did participate in ROTC in high school and then fudged his age, enlisting at 17. As a paratrooper with the Army 11th Airborne, he spent two years with the occupation Army in Japan (without the a-bomb he would have been part of the invasion forces). On the other hand, one of his first cousins tried to avoid the draft. He took pliers and broke several of his teeth (yes, made me cringe too when my dad first told the story). The Army promptly had the rest of his teeth pulled, outfitted him with dentures and inducted him.
American culture during WWII was one of support of the troops and their mission. This didn't make it a "popular" war, just one that everyone knew had to be completed and won. Media at the time was not just dedicated to reporting the news but also figured it had a moral obligation not to undercut the American war effort. Zell Miller captured the essense of what reporting would have been if today's journalists covered the battle of Iwo Jima.
Pfc. Doe: "Well, I've been pinned down by enemy fire almost ever since I got here and have had a couple of buddies killed right beside me. I'm a Marine and I go where they send me. One thing's for sure, they are putting up a fight not to give up this island."
Cutie: "Our military analysts tell us that the Japanese are holed up in caves and miles of connecting tunnels they've built over the years. How will you ever get them out?"
Pfc. Doe: "With flame throwers, ma'am."
Cutie (incredulously): "Flame throwers? You'll burn them alive?"
Pfc. Doe: "Yes ma'am, we'll fry their asses. Excuse me, I shouldn't have said that on TV."
Cutie (audible gasp): "How horrible!"
Pfc. Doe (obviously wanting to move on): "We're at war ma'am."
(A Marine sergeant watching nearby yells, "Ask her what does she want us to do -- sing to them, 'Come out, come out, wherever you are. Pretty please.' "
The biggest celebrities of the WWII era did what they could to support the war effort, from enlisting (ie Jimmy Stewart, Clark Gable) to traveling across the country raising funds through war bonds (ie Carol Lombard - Clark Gable's wife, who died on one of her flights). Did this mean the war was popular, or rather, that the survival of American culture and ideals was worth supporting? Few people gloried in the war. People of the era, be it the Civil War, WWI, WWII, just accepted that crap happens and sometimes it is up to you to step into the room and clean it up. Certainly the soldiers in it have their dark days
Anapolis, MD February 1st, 1865
Dear Mother
I seize this opportunity of dropping you a few lines by the way to let you know how I am and how I am getting along. I am not in good health at this time principally cold though I have been shaking with the ague some. I hope though this will reach you in good health. I left Nashville, Tenn on last Thursday morning the 26th of Jan at 6 o'clock a.m. after laying one night in the Zolicoffer Barracks. We got to Louisville that evening. I had my pocket book stole that day in the cars with fifteen dollars and sixty cents in it. I had several searched but it was no use so I gave it up. I am satisfied one of the fellows of the 140th Indiana got it. [...]I wrote at least 25 or 30 letters from Nashville Tenn and was there nearly 6 weeks and not a word from any of you. I want you all to try and do a little better. It is said that the President of the United States passed through this place today for City Point on some business connected with peace. I hope it may be true or at least that peace may be made shortly. I mostly write this letter to let you know where I am and as soon as I get where I can write at leisure I will give you and uncle Sam a history of my career and my observations of the army that I think will be interesting to some of you for I have seen some queer times and made some observations that would look improbable to most of you thou I intended to keep a journal but found I could not do it. The term and substance is this - a soldiers life is worse than a dogs life - few honest men in it - none among officers and especially doctors. I think above all things a doctor ought to be the best friend to a soldier and they are the most miserable quacks and scoundrels that lives. The morals of this people after this war will be mourned by the wise and good of this nation. I have no chance to write to do any good. I hold the paper in my hand as best I can. You had better direct your letter to Co. D, 26th Ky 2nd division 23rd Army Corps Washington City. I must stop. Will write in a few days again. Your son. J.K Ellis
James Kenton Ellis is my 2x great-grandfather. Another relative of mine (great uncle), Ray Aseltine, enlisted at age 16 for WWI and was a Marine in France serving with Pershing. He survived, barely, being a German POW (which no one knew, as he had been declared MIA) and wrote of the horrors he endured. I wish I had his letter with me, but as I recall the ending paragraph, written from his stateside hospital bed, he did not regret going to war. For all the horrors he had seen and experienced, he felt proud to have answered his country's call to duty.
No soldier, no citizen glories in war. War is not "popular" anymore than a radical mastectomy is "popular". Read any of the number of milblogs, the men and women who are in Iraq at this moment or have served over there. It is not sweetness and light, it is not warmongers and mercenaries, it is not popular. It is about people who see the mission as something that needs to be done.
We don't just mouth a few words on appropriate occassions ... I pledge allegience ... and that's that. Our relationship with our country and its values is an ongoing work. The failure of many of a marriage begins at the wedding even if only one of the partners believes they can now relax and not work on the relationship. The failure of a sense of duty to one's country begins with a citizen who believes being born in the country is enough. If one marriage partner is hypercritical of the other, consistently and publically belittling the other, letting small and generally inconsequential flaws overshadow the good; we don't hesistate in our judgment that the belittler is the destroyer of the relationship. We don't accept his/her excuses that they really love the object of their derision and they are only trying to help. So if someone acts in the same manner in regards to America, what can we say about that person?
People are not cast in concrete. We all grow and change. We achieve and we fall. Yesterday's hero can be today's fool. Hopefully we take lessons, from our own experience and from the experiences of others.
John Murtha was startled that on the heels of his speech where he called for an immediate withdrawl of our forces in Iraq that Republicans put forth a bill that was the essense of his speech in clear, unequivocal prose. We can honor Murtha's past service even while we can point to the fool he became by giving a speech that ignored the experiences of WWII and Vietnam. When Murtha said the war was "unwinnable" and the only solution was "political" he forgot the lessons of Chamberlain. When he called for the immediate severing of American support of Iraq, he forgot the lessons of Saigon 1975.
I'll agree that the Iraq war is not "popular." But popular is not a synonym for justified. I do find the war just.
As always, we have a choice. We can finish the war by winning it, or we can finish our part by surrendering.
Funny thing. I saw the new Harry Potter movie earlier today and one line comes back to me.
You can choose the right way or the easy way.
No one, least of all President Bush, said the war was going to be "easy." I just wish we'd leave the word "popular" out of the whole affair.
But when I think of the 19th century, I can't think of a single war that was all that popular, with the exception of the Spanish-American War of course. The Revolutionary War was opposed by a large segment still loyal to England. The War of 1812 certainly wasn't very popular, especially with areas such as New England. Toward the end, of course it did become more popular. The Mexican War (Mr. Polk's War) had a lot of critics and was definitely more popular in the South than in the North.
The Civil War is a classic example providing us something which we can relate to today. I totally agree with this diary, by the way. And I might add that the Civil War has all kinds of examples which show us how loss of will on the home front can destroy a war effort. Certainly, the South is a prime example of this. In my opinion, the South lost the war on the home front long before it lost it on the battlefield. I realize some people are trying to be courteous to Murtha and recognize his military background, etc. I, however, am disgusted by his comments. Demoralizing people on the home front, as he is doing, only gives our enemies something to shout about. The terrorists love this kind of crap. How hard is this to understand? Giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming that part of what he says is true, it is still insane to tell it to the whole world.
As a supporter of the Iraq War, I nevertheless have to acknowledge that many Americans are opposed or neutral about the entire endeavor. I think opponents fall into two categories: 1. those who far left appeasers and think the US as colonianist, imperialists, don't care if Sadaam was left in power. 2. those who legitimately just didn't think it was our fight to get into. This group is not necesarily anti-US intervention, just anti this particular intervention.
The first group is beyond hope, but the second, I believe, must be taken into account. Since we are in for the long hall in Iraq, I think the way to get more unity on the war effort is:
- get the US troops out of the search and destroy business--we would only go along as instructors, coordinators and advisers. While I am no expert, this would probably allow for a modest reduction in US forces in Iraq. And should reduce US casualties.
- Emphased the use of US air bases in Iraq, air force, helicopter gunships, tanks, etc. The Iraqis do the ground fighting, we back them up with air and tank support.
While I understnd that this sounds like the old Vietnam startegy, it may work better in Iraq. There is no jungle cover so the air force, etc should be more effective in this environment. There is too much of the USA doing the fighting and the Iraqis go along for the ride and mop up afterward. We need to reverse that formula, not only because that is the way it should be, but also to maintain long-term public support for the war. Needless to say, I am opposed to Sen. McCain's proposal to increase troops in theatre.
I'd suggest this conflict was a "popular" war. There was significant public opinion calling for war after the Maine (for whatever reason) blew up and "yellow journalism" stoked the fires shamelessly. The conflict was also fairly brief, with many of the casualties stemming from disease and tainted rations. We tested out a glamorous new Navy and tried out imperialism for the first time with far-flung new possessions fairly easily seized. Much of the war was also romanticized, such as Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders and the Philippines.
No soldier, no citizen glories in war.
This hasn't always been the case, and surely this was one in which they did.