The Only Story They Have

The Only Story They Have is Fear Itself - Yesterday, Fraters Libertas beat me to working over a particularly craven Strib editorial. The editorial focused on the non-specific fears of a bunch of vaguely uneasy Minnesotans, and concluded that oofda, are we afraid.

The Fraters' conclusion was great:

I remember the night of 9/11 trying to fall asleep and instead of the usual steady drone of commercial airliners, hearing the sound of F-16's flying combat air patrols over Minneapolis. Now THAT is fear. The heart palpating, forehead sweating, rats gnawing at your intestines kind of fear that burrows into your soul and shakes you to the core.

Today I still worry but I no longer fear.

Great stuff.

But the Strib's still at it. Today, the Strib is trying to cobble together a broad anti-war consensus from among the 20% who actually oppose it.

One of Vietnam's great lessons was the importance of coherent public support, not only for the war itself but for the reasons behind it. Once the domino-theory rationale began to break down, so did support for continued bloodshed -- especially as the fighting, over time, produced no clear result.

They got it half right.

We found that without a clear goal and means of waging it, it was impossible to win a war. Fighting a war without aiming to win is not only pointless, it's suicidal. Men don't risk their lives for "Fortress DMZ", for pacification, for "Search and Destroy". They'll risk their lives when "The only way home is Berlin/Hanoi/Baghdad".

That is the key lesson we - especially our government's military and civilian leadership - learned from Vietnam.

Public approval is no less important now, especially if Iraq is to be part of a broader, longer project aimed at keeping terrorism from our shores. On these matters, the public holds contradictory views that the Bush administration, now flush with victory, should heed.

Americans overwhelmingly consider the war a success. The latest New York Times poll found 79 percent approval for the president's handling of Iraq. Within that number, however, lies a good deal of ambivalence and skepticism.

"A Good Deal...?"

I'd like to see them substantiate that.

What was the reason for the war again? Was it to find exotic weapons? To liberate the Iraqi people? To avenge the terrorist attacks of 2001?

Depose a tyrant?

Why is "All of the above" not an option?

And what comes next? Most Americans now expect military intervention in Korea, Syria or Iran -- actions they say they'd oppose.

Where are "most Americans" getting their information?

Despite success in Iraq and enthusiasm for President Bush, most say they're against his policy of preemptive attacks against nations considered possible threats.

"Hi, Mr. John Q. Public? This is Traceee from Polls R Us. We're taking a poll. We'd like to ask you a question; Which do you prefer: One, Peace, or two, launching immense shock and awe attacks on foreign government that disagree with our government. No, there is no "Three".

I'd love to see how the pollsters phrase that question.

This next bit is either an editorial error or a sly bit of disinformation:

Moreover, they feel strongly, just as they did before the war, that any future interventions should be done as part of an international coalition. Two-thirds say that the United Nations should take the lead in rebuilding Iraq.

Catch that? 2/3 of the people want the UN involved in reconstruction in Iraq - so that means they want the UN, as ineffective and worthless as they are, involved in any future actions against terrorists?

Actually, ambivalence is an authentic human emotion not well measured by public opinion polling. These various layers of nuance will likely spill out at thousands of family gatherings this holiday weekend, just as they did last week in New York Times interviews with scores of Americans. Those conversations revealed both elation and anxiety over Iraq -- often within the same person.

These conversations were then edited by humans with their own views on the war and the Administration.

"We have definitely sent a John Wayne message to the world," said a California man. "We're the good guys. We're the big guns in town. We'll tell you how it is going to be. But do we have the ability to build relationships? We're great with bullets and bombs, but this is the new war, and we haven't figured out how to fight it."

You know the rule on the internet, that says whenever Hitler is evoked in a discussion, the discussion is effectively over (in terms of rational discourse)?

I say we expand the rule to include invocations of "John Wayne" by liberals, Europeans, or the media.

And I'd say we figured out how to fight the war pretty well, so far.

Writing in the New Yorker, Hendrik Hertzberg offered much-needed clarity. It's best to see Iraq not as a war, he wrote, but as one battle (like Midway or the Bulge) within a larger enterprise, the aim of which is "not to overthrow the Iraqi regime [but] to minimize the chances for another Sept. 11. The success of what might more properly be called the Battle of Iraq must ultimately be measured by whether it brings us closer to that larger aim or leaves us farther away from it."

My vote says "Closer", so far. But nobody asked me.

Posted by Mitch at April 18, 2003 07:34 AM