That Makes Two
By Mitch Berg
Now it’s two national polls that show support for the Iraq war not just increasing, but for the first time in a while showing that more Americans think our presence does good than harm.
My big notice of a sea change? Last week on the Chris Matthews exercise in self-adoration and puffery program, a panel of mainstream media types – including noted foreign policy expert hot, drop-dead cute redhead reporter babe Kelly O’Donnell – agreed with the premise that it’d be a huge mistake to cut and run (which made Matthews explode a pyre of preserved meat apoplectic).
I’ll be writing a lot more about this next week.
August 7th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Gosh! We’ve finally made progress after 4+ years and after sending, let’s see… 21,000 troops + an additional 20,000 support personal + 12,000 National Guard troops + 9000 extra Army troop sto support the surge – half of which are facing “accelerated deployment” – in other words – shorted on their time home with their families…
All at the low LOW price of 6 billion dollars or 24 brand new 35W bridges… (Pentagon figures of course so we all know they MUST be accurate…)
Hmmmm… so at 4 bridges per billion, that means the war so far has cost us 4 X 500… 2000 35W bridges. OF course since we’re putting the war on our Visa card, it doesn’t really matter…
I’m curious Mitch, would you support a 4 cent a gallon tax increase if it went to paying for the war?
August 7th, 2007 at 8:35 am
“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”
Unless, of course, our gas taxes aren’t high enough. Then, the deal’s off.
August 7th, 2007 at 8:54 am
Gosh! After 4+ years, we finally managed to push back the Japanese AND the Germans after sending, let’s see. . .
Sorry, I was channelling my 1940s era soul there.
August 7th, 2007 at 9:43 am
Doug, I wasn’t aware that the money for Iraq came out of the same pool as highway funds.
I thought highway funds were robbed by free needles to drug addicts, wacko “Human Rights” commissioners. Corporate welfare to the powerful Theater-Industrial complex. Free stuff to senior citizens. Agriculture subsidies. Government funded abortions. Various ethnic “studies” at gov’t funded universities. Not to mention $2B a year to Eygpt.
August 7th, 2007 at 9:50 am
It doesn’t matter. Even if Iraq is a success we spent too many bridges establishing self-determination for a bunch of brown people who AREN’T Americans.
Mike, ask not what you country can do for you…
August 7th, 2007 at 10:11 am
“Now it’s two national polls that show support for the Iraq war not just increasing,”
Once you reach a point so low, there is only one direction for the numbers to go. I wouldn’t get my hopes up.
I continue to support this President, through the surge, to defeat the islamic extremists. And I do so because I know he us committed to winning this war, not because a poll number may blip now and then.
Mitch, you damn the polls when they are low, be careful touting them when a little up tick occurs. Let’s support this war for the right reasons, not the Right reasons.
Flash
Centrisity.com
August 7th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Yos said,
“Gosh! After 4+ years, we finally managed to push back the Japanese AND the Germans after sending, let’s see. . .”
So what is your gas ration card designation Yosarian? A, B, C or T?
It must be pretty challenging to get around with no more that 4 gallons a week huh?
Isn’t it just swell how we’re all pulling together as a nation to make these really difficult sacrifices?
Just like WWII…
August 7th, 2007 at 11:08 am
Doug,
In two posts you have gone from complaining that the cost of the Iraq war is too high, to complaining that it is too low.
Please choose a complaint and stick with it.
August 7th, 2007 at 11:09 am
So, not only would we need rationing… we’d need it at the same levels as the 40s… and we should probably go on to price things at the level of the 40s (adjusted for inflation and so on).
If you want to sacrifice something, Doug… get on with it. (Perhaps you could sacrifice lame snark… as it is, you hog it.)
August 7th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Actually, Doug, harkening back to WWII (not to mention Vietnam) is one of the left’s big problems in this war.
Just as referring to, say, Desert Storm (and a different aspect of Vietnam) is one of the right’s big problems.
Both should think more about, say, the Bolo Insurrection, or El Salvador.
More on this next week, because
you don’t rateit’s a big subject.August 7th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Doug, have you forgotten 9/11?!
Romney has so nailed it.
/jc
August 7th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Mike said,
“In two posts you have gone from complaining that the cost of the Iraq war is too high, to complaining that it is too low.”
Don’t be silly. I’m doing no such thing. It’s a simple observation. The cost of the war is what it is and that stands at roughly $500 billion. Of course, when you factor in the interest and the costs to get us back to pre-deployment status, the costs is at roughly 1 trillion dollars.
When you factor in the human costs in lives lost, relationships that haven’t withstood the strain and the impending strain on the VA system for medical and psychiatric claims, the costs are immeasurable – but don’t let that get in the way of joining little clubs like Jason Lewis’s tax cut coalition.
I wonder where Americans support for the war would be if we were actually putting the costs in the budget and had to pay for it with tax’s?
Let’s go ahead and put the cost of war in the budget and find out ok?
August 7th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Doug, you mentioned the high cost of the war and the low level of (if at all existant) sacrifice.
What else could that mean but Too Expensive/Not Expensive Enough? You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth.
August 7th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Mitch:
Somehow I don’t think JFK thought we would ‘bear any burden’ to put in place an Iranian leaning theocracy in Iraq.
August 7th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
JFK probably never imagined an Iranian theocracy in Iran, or Jimmy Carter allowing it to happen.
August 7th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Paul:
You are right. He probably did not imagine the 69 Mets, Apple Computers, Ronald Reagan as President, or Angelina Jolie, but I am not sure what that has to do with the current conversation.
August 7th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
badda said,
“What else could that mean but Too Expensive/Not Expensive Enough?
Are you serious?
It’s too expensive but because it’s put on the nations credit card, you don’t see it, feel it or need to worry about it.
August 7th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
RickDFL,
maybe you’d like to list the many military and foreign policy successes of JFK?
August 7th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Terry:
3 years of peace without losing a war is a good start. Cuban Missile Crisis and the Nuclear Test ban Treaty spring to mind as major successes. Allliance for Progress was OK. Letting the CIA put the Baath party in charge of Iraq was probably not such a hot idea.
But Mitch is the one who invoked JFK not me.
August 7th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
You are right. He probably did not imagine the 69 Mets, Apple Computers, Ronald Reagan as President, or Angelina Jolie, but I am not sure what that has to do with the current conversation.
You’re catching on, bucko.
August 7th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
It’s too expensive but because it’s put on the nations credit card, you don’t see it, feel it or need to worry about it.
The nation has a credit card?
August 7th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Cuban Missile Crisis and the Nuclear Test ban Treaty spring to mind as major successes.
You’re not catching on, if you think the either of those were successes…unless you are counting them as successes for the USSR.
August 7th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
“or Jimmy Carter allowing it to happen.
Snark I hope?! Even Mitch isn’t THAT out of touch to buy into that canard. I mean, It would be insinuating that the all and powerful Reagan wasn’t able to figure out Carter’s secret plot or something. And to do that, you would have to give Jimmy IQ points while taking some away from Reagan. Do you really want to go there?
Flash
August 7th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Flash, WTF are you talking about?
August 7th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
RickDFL-
Kennedy caused the Cuban Missile Crisis with the Bay of Pigs fiasco. It made Castro see Russian ICBM’s as the only guarantee that another invasion would not be attempted.
Kennedy also began the escalation of the Vietnam War, and with the assistance of the CIA decided we couldn’t win it unless we supported a coup de tat against the South Vietnamese head of state.
Kennedy lost the PT109 when he allowed it to be rammed by a jap destroyer. The crew of the destroyer didn’t even know that they hit anything.
August 7th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Doug-
You presume that if the average American experienced more hardship as a result of the Iraq war, support would further erode. You may be correct, but our history has shown otherwise.
JFK was able to make his bold “pay any price” declaration because of what The Greatest Generation had shown was possible in the face of immeasurable hardship and sacrifice.
August 8th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
“The Greatest Generation had shown was possible in the face of immeasurable hardship and sacrifice.”
Of course they had the advantage of actually winning their war.
August 8th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Hindsight is 20-20, Rick. If you had been around in 1942, you would have been yapping about how the US has no chance, the war is lost, yadda yadda yadda…
If the US hadn’t come up with long-range air power (and the atomic bomb) first, swastikas and Japanese suns would still be flying all over the world.
August 8th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
“If the US hadn’t come up with long-range air power (and the atomic bomb) first, swastikas and Japanese suns would still be flying all over the world.”
Where do you people study history? The Germans surrendered before the atomic bomb could be used against them. The Japanese were also completely defeated prior to the dropping of the atomic bomb. U.S. subs had crippled their economy and the Army and Marines were preparing a massive invasion. It would have been more bloody, but Japan would have been defeated without the bomb.
Did long range bombing help in both cases? Sure but the U.S. could have won without long range air power against either the Germans or the Japanese. Could we not do what the Soviets did? Hell lots of scholars think that the Allies would have been better of diverting resources away from strategic bombing towards other military efforts. Can you name a single scholar who would say that the Allies would not have won without a robust strategic bombing campaign or the atomic bomb?
Are you saying that if the Germans had bombed New York or the Japanese had bombed Los Angeles, the U.S. would have surrendered? What kind of wimp are you?
Just as a side note – the U.S. did not “come up with long range air power”. The B-17 had similar range to the British Lancaster. The main long range fighter, the P-51 Mustang, was produced by putting a British engine in a U.S. airframe.
August 8th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Rick, how do you explain the fact that Walt Disney produced a a full-length feature movie in 1943 called “Victory Through Air Power” featuring Major Alexander de Seversky (a top aircraft and military expert and who wrote the book that the movie is based on) specifically to convince people that it was necessary to develop long-range air power?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_Through_Air_Power
August 8th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
“Victory Through Air Power” was a feature length marking piece made to sell the idea of increased Air presence. It was not a documentary film documenting a victory through air power.
August 8th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
“Victory Through Air Power” was a feature length marking piece made to sell the idea of increased Air presence.
Close. Specifically, it was to show the necessity of developing and deploying military aircraft that could fly 3000 miles and hit both Japan and Nazi Germany at their industrial base from strategic positions already held.
It was not a documentary film documenting a victory through air power.
Doug, where did I make any such claim?
August 8th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
The strategic bombing campaign of WWII was a response to the stalled trench warfare of WWI. So was the blitzkrieg and the wehrmacht’s emphasis on tank warfare.
Historical ‘what if’s’ rarely give definitive answers. Nevertheless it’s worth keeping in in mind that the US made strategic bombing a centerpiece of the European campaign and we won. Germany didn’t and lost. Russia didn’t and won, but at a cost of around 40 times as many dead and missing soldiers as the US.
It’s also questionable how well the soviets spring offensive in ’45 would have gone absent the US strategic bombing campaign.
August 8th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Paul said,
“If the US hadn’t come up with long-range air power (and the atomic bomb) first, swastikas and Japanese suns would still be flying all over the world.”
you’re claiming that without being the first to develop long-range air power (and the A-Bomb), the US would have lost the war.
Rick demonstrated that the war was effectively over BEFORE the bombs were dropped AND he demonstrated that it is entirely possible that the US would have prevailed without long range air power.
You countered with “how do you explain the fact that Walt Disney produced a a full-length feature movie in 1943 called “Victory Through Air Power””
Disney was a propaganda producer for the military and the US Government. You’re relying on a piece of propaganda – produced just after the US actually got involved in the war by the way, to reinforce you’re position that it was air power that won.
August 9th, 2007 at 3:43 am
Yes, Doug. Tell me this: if long-range air power was unnecessary, why make the piece?
August 9th, 2007 at 8:29 am
Let’s review Paul.
Paul: “the US won because of the A-bomb and because we were the first to utilize long range air power.”
Rick: “Wrong. The A-bomb was used when the war was essentially done, other countries utilized long range air power AND air support was only a part of a larger military strategy.”
Paul: “how do you explain the fact that Walt Disney, known propagandist and partner to the military-industrial complex, made a movie?”
Doug: “your assertion that we would be wearing lederhosen if not for Disney and de Seversky is absurd.”
Paul: “if long-range air power was unnecessary, why make the piece?”
Hey Paul? Who said it was unnecessary? Certainly not me. Certainly not Rick. and you accuse me of being disingenuous and dishonest.
Further Paul. Are you aware of the relationship between Disney and Lockheed? If you were, that might answer you question about why the piece was made.
August 9th, 2007 at 8:41 am
“Tell me this: if long-range air power was unnecessary, why make the piece?”
Because people would never spend money to convince the public to buy a product they do not need. Every scam artist in America would die to have you on their mailing list.
Just for the record, just because A is not necessary for B, does not mean A might not be very useful for B. Money is not necessary for happiness, but it is very useful.
August 9th, 2007 at 9:05 am
I was about to post on how comments here at SITD tend to spiral off in crazy directions. Then I realized Mitch started by citing Kelly O’Donnell as a military expert on Iraq and we ended with Terry citing a Disney promo film as a definitive source on the role of airpower in WWII. So really we are just back where we started.
You people really are the hippies of our time. If it feels good, believe it.
August 9th, 2007 at 11:02 am
RickDFl, that was paul, not me. Try to get your facts straight, m’kay?
August 9th, 2007 at 11:51 am
” . . .we ended with Terry citing a Disney promo film as a definitive source on the role of airpower in WWII.”
I did no such thing. learn to read, moron.
August 9th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Terry – My mistake. You made some good points.
August 9th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Rampant reading comprehension problems!
Nice mangling of my points, Doug. If you actually rewrote them correctly, you might have a point.
But you didn’t.
I wrote: “If the US hadn’t come up with long-range air power (and the atomic bomb) first, swastikas and Japanese suns would still be flying all over the world.”
You wrote: “the US won because of the A-bomb and because we were the first to utilize long range air power.”
And it was downhill from there.
It’s obvious you’ve never seen the film.
And Rick,
Because people would never spend money to convince the public to buy a product they do not need.
Which was my point, Rick. You made it sound like it was a cakewalk as soon as the US jumped into WWII. It wasn’t. They tried to fight it like a ground war with air support at first. Disney made the film to convince both the US Government and the public that strategic bombing (as Terry pointed out)–hitting both Nazi Germany and Japan at their industrial bases–would be necessary to win the war.
How was that strategic bombing carried out?
Long-range air power, from positions already held.
Review Terry’s points:
“Nevertheless it’s worth keeping in in mind that the US made strategic bombing a centerpiece of the European campaign and we won.
Germany didn’t and lost.
Russia didn’t and won, but at a cost of around 40 times as many dead and missing soldiers as the US.
It’s also questionable how well the soviets spring offensive in ‘45 would have gone absent the US strategic bombing campaign.”
Japan in 1945 was dug in for a long struggle and ready to fight. Proving this is the fact that Japanese soldiers were discovered hiding out for decades again and again after the conflict was over.
Every island and asian land that Japan held would have been a nasty, bloody struggle. That battle was shortened considerably by using the A-bomb. How did the A-bombs get to Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Long range air power, from positions already held.
And this, is the point the “Victory By Air Power” drives home: Long range air power, from positions already held.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Paul:
What is the difference between these
“If the US hadn’t come up with long-range air power (and the atomic bomb) first, swastikas and Japanese suns would still be flying all over the world.”
“the US won because of the A-bomb and because we were the first to utilize long range air power.”
As for the rest:
“They tried to fight it like a ground war with air support at first.”
Are you high? Stop just making up facts. Read a book about World War II. The British were the most heavily invested in heavy bombing at the start of the war, prioritized strategic bombing over ground support, and started bombing German cities shortly after the fall of France. The U.S. started major bombing of Germany months before any U.S. infantry saw combat against the Germans. The Combined Bomber Offensive by the U.S. and Britain started in 1942, prior to major U.S. ground combat operations in North Africa. The Soviets were pissed the Brits and the U.S. kept rely on bombing instead of a Second Front.
Terry is right. Long-range bombing was useful (how useful is still open to debate), but once again, ‘useful’ is not the same thing as ‘necessary’. Really until you can display some understanding of the difference there is no point to this discussion (aside from displaying the usual historical illiteracy of SITD posters).
August 9th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Sorry for the moron remark, RickDFL. I was tired and out of sorts.
August 9th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Terry:
Right proper of you. Thanks
August 9th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
The merit of the WW2 allied air campaign is an exceedingly complex subject with much room for legitimate disagreement.
The US and the Brits both had strategic bombing campaigns against the Axis using of course, different hardware under separate command structures. “Strategic bombing” encompasses two distinct strategies; bombing raids targeting specific industrial and military targets and the carpet bombing of cities intended to crush the morale of German civilians. In Europe The USAF and British bomber command followed both strategies, but the British were especially keen on thousand-plane raids over non-military and marginally targets.
In the Pacific it was an all-American show, of course, but the carpet bombing of Japanese cities did not begin until the capture of Iwo Jima in early ’45 put the Japanese mainland within reach of American B29’s.
I believe one thing is beyond dispute: American leaders in WW2 were well-used to destroying cities and killing tens of thousands of civilians literally overnight. They saw the A-Bomb as way to do this more effectively.
FYI, there has always been an interesting meathead-vs-Archie subtext to evaluating the morality of the carpet bombing of Japanese cities and the use of the A-bomb in WW2. The architect of the bombing campaign against Japan was General Curtis LeMay. He was later put in charge of the bombing campaign against North Vietnam and he was George Wallace’s running mate in 1968.
August 9th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Paul whined,
“I wrote: “If the US hadn’t come up with long-range air power (and the atomic bomb) first, swastikas and Japanese suns would still be flying all over the world.”
You wrote: “the US won because of the A-bomb and because we were the first to utilize long range air power.””
WTF?
If the US hadn’t come up with long-range air power (and the atomic bomb) first,
IOW, because we were the first to utilize long range air power
swastikas and Japanese suns would still be flying all over the world
IOW, the US won
August 9th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Terry:
“He was later put in charge of the bombing campaign against North Vietnam”
LeMay was Air Force Chief of Staff from 1961 to Feb. 1965. Operation Rolling Thunder, the first bombing campaign against the North did not start until March 65.