home
about
archives
|
THE WARS
10/09/2007
Having watched all fifteen hours of the Ken Burns documentary, "The War," I was impressed with the support the entire country gave to the war effort during the Second World War, even in the face of enormous American casualties. While there was a draft, there were also many enlistments, as many Americans didn't wait to be conscripted, but instead volunteered to fight for their country in the European and Japanese theaters. For their part, the American people who weren't in the military were also involved in the war effort, accepting rationing, working in factories, enduring blackouts, and waiting patiently at home for word from their "boys" who were fighting overseas.
How different the times were then, and how much greater the support for that war, than there is today for the Iraq War, some sixty years later. We almost seem like a different country. In reality, though, we are not.
Some war supporters have tried mightily to equate the cause today with the cause of sixty years ago, hoping for a repeat of the World War II popular support. Then we were fighting fascism, so today they label our enemies "Islamofascists." Then we were fighting to save Europe, so today they claim we are fighting to save "civilization." Then we entered the war because of an attack on our soil at Pearl Harbor, so today they say we entered the war against Iraq because of the attack on 9/11. In light of the similarities they labor to create, these war supporters are incredulous that so many today do not support President Bush's war and even actively oppose it. The verbal attacks by pro-war spokesmen against opponents of this war are endless and vicious, calling the protestors unpatriotic, defeatists, cowards, and traitors.
What today's war supporters don't want to acknowledge are the enormous differences between the circumstances surrounding that war and the circumstances surrounding this one. It is those differences in circumstance, as well different political realities, that account for the enormous support for WW II and the majority opposition to the Iraq War.
I will divide these differences between the Iraq War and World War II into six categories: the justification for war; the support for the commander in chief; the legacy of Vietnam; the sacrifice of the American people; the opinion of allies; and the actual conduct and progress of the war.
THE JUSTIFICATION FOR WAR
Prior to America's entrance into World War II, much of the country held isolationist sentiments. The devastation in Europe after World War I, the cost to America in lives and money for that war, the loans to Europe that were not being repaid, all led to a feeling in America that becoming involved in European affairs was not worth it. So, even though Hitler was occupying Poland, France, and many other European countries, and was invading the Soviet Union, and although America's leaders were aware they may have to join the fight not only in Europe but also in the far East, where the Japanese were building a bloody empire, most American citizens wanted nothing to do with war until the country was attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor.
Even though the country was isolationist, however, there were not large antiwar marches before Pearl Harbor, as there were before the Iraq War, largely because the Roosevelt administration was not preparing the citizens for war. However, once the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, the American people dropped their isolationist view and quickly lined up behind their commander in chief. The Congress voted nearly unanimously to declare war on Japan on December 8, 1941, and when the Germans and Italians declared war on America four days after Pearl Harbor, America responded by declaring war on both Germany and Italy on December 11, 1941.
In 1941 all Americans knew the threat from both Germany and Japan was real. It was Japanese planes that had bombed Pearl Harbor, and it was German troops that were marching across Europe, North Africa and Russia. Of this, there was no doubt.
In 2003, on the other hand, there was much controversy over whether there was a real threat from Iraq. The American people were still reeling from the attacks of 9/11 and hadn't even had much time to adjust to the war in Afghanistan. The initial justification for the move from a focus on Afghanistan to a focus on Iraq, made by the Bush administration, was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that it would use against the United States if it had a chance. (On the other hand, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld admitted that Iraq had better targets for bombing.) But Iraq, it turns out, did not have weapons of mass destruction, and there were some former weapons inspectors, and more than a few intelligence experts, who were fairly certain Iraq did NOT have weapons. The Bush administration, as we know, ignored them.
However, the mere possession of weapons of mass destruction by a country would never have been enough to convince Americans to go to war. We had, after all, been in a Cold War for 50 years against a superpower that had nuclear weapons, and had managed to avoid a hot war. Since Iraq had not attacked us, there had to be more of a case presented to the people to convince them to go to war, and this was provided by the Bush administration's careful rhetoric. While they never came out and said Iraq was responsible for the attacks of 9/11, the president and others in his administration always included 9/11 in speeches in support of going to war. By claiming everything had changed since 9/11, and reminding the citizens we had been unprepared for 9/11, they insisted we could no longer wait for evidence of a real threat to come "in the form of a mushroom cloud." They played on Americans' fears of another attack to muddy the waters of evidence and to conflate Saddam Hussein with Osama bin Laden, whom they had been unable to capture. As a result of their propaganda, by the start of the Iraq War a majority of Americans mistakenly believed Saddam Hussein had been personally responsible for the attacks of 9/11.
Although the Bush administration managed in the early stages to garner a near 70% approval for their war with Iraq, there always existed a minority of informed people (as much as 30%) who saw through the rhetoric, who were reading the foreign press, where the evidence presented by Bush was being refuted, and who rejected the idea that this was a necessary war. This 30% grew over the months and years, as casualties rose, and especially as the case for war fell apart. When Bush's two appointed inspectors returned with nearly identical reports, that indeed there were no weapons of mass destruction, some Democratic leaders and many ordinary citizens began to turn against the war.
World War II had a clear mission and rationale, and these did not change over time. A case did not have to be made to convince the American people to sign on. There were clear realities that convinced all Americans of the danger they faced. With respect to Iraq, on the other hand, the people had to be convinced by distortions of reality and manipulations of intelligence. When the original case involving weapons of mass destruction dissolved, and the Bush administration's rationale turned to "spreading democracy," the war's popularity understandably began to decline.
SUPPORT FOR THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF
A second factor that distinguishes the Iraq War from World War II is the level of support for the commander in chief. By the time America finally entered World War II, Franklin Roosevelt had already been president for eight years and had just begun an unprecedented third term. He had presided over a partial recovery from the Great Depression and was beloved by many, many Americans. When he told them they were going to war, they had complete trust in him. Having endured the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, aware of what was happening in Europe, and knowing their president had led them through difficult times before, they accepted his decision to go to war.
The situation couldn't be more different with George W. Bush as president. He had been handed the presidency by the Supreme Court after a bitter and divisive election in which his opponent won the popular vote, and many cases of electoral shenanigans had been alleged. The nation had been divided even before the 2000 election, partly because of the very partisan impeachment of President Clinton, and the contested 2000 election divided the country even more. Had it not been for the traumatized state of the nation after 9/11, Bush could never have gotten support for a war against Iraq, which many former members of his administration allege he wanted even prior to 9/11.
After 9/11, the nation put away its differences temporarily, rallied around the president, and supported his strike on Afghanistan, which was providing a base of operation for the terrorists who had planned and carried out the attacks. And at first, when Bush turned his war effort towards Iraq, the traumatized people were still with him, still wanting to give him the benefit of the doubt. While the Congress did not actually declare war on Iraq, they did vote to give Bush authorization to do what he believed he needed to do with respect to Iraq. However, a year later, as the war began to go badly, and as it became apparent that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that members of the administration, including the president and vice president, had misled the nation, many in Congress would regret their votes. And once some of the nation's leaders turned against the war, more of the citizens followed that lead, which is what began to happen prior to the 2004 election.
THE VIETNAM EFFECT
As President Bush took the nation to war with Iraq, many of the American people retained vivid memories of an earlier controversial war. As we know, the Iraq War is just one of many wars America has fought since the end of World War II. The Korean War came at the start of the decade after WW II, and was followed at the end of that decade by the beginning of the Vietnam War. There have been wars in Panama, Grenada, the former Yugoslavia, and previously in Iraq. But by far, the war that most influenced America's attitude to the current Iraq War was the War in Vietnam.
Lasting nearly fifteen years, and costing the lives of 58,000 American military personnel, the Vietnam War tore the country apart and ruined the popularity of at least one president. The bitterness over the justification for war, the conduct of the war, and the deceptions associated with the war, have lasted until today, influencing the attitudes of Americans towards the current war. Parallels have been drawn between the Vietnam and Iraq Wars by both supporters and opponents of the Iraq War. Some Americans, still angry about the "loss" in Vietnam that they blame on Vietnam War protestors, are all too willing to demonize opponents of the Iraq War. On the other hand, the lessons learned from Vietnam, including the misleading of the public by both Johnson and Nixon, made war protestors much more savvy about the machinations politicians have used in their drive to war, and caused the American public to turn against this war much more quickly than they did against the Vietnam War.
When the American people faced World War II, by contrast, they were not divided as the result of a previous controversial war, and so it was much easier for them to unite. World War I and its aftermath had made them isolationists, but they had won that war, and they did not harbor bitter feelings towards their fellow citizens because of it. Thus, Americans entered World War II without the baggage that Americans brought to the Iraq War from their experiences with Vietnam.
However, those who opposed the Iraq War did not do so only because they saw it as a repeat of Vietnam. The war in Iraq also divided the American public for specific reasons having to do with this decade, not that of Vietnam. Those who generally supported the president, believed the claims that Iraq had WMD, and internalized the administration's subtle inferences that Iraq and terrorism were one and the same, tended to support the war. Those who read the foreign press, listened to dissenting voices that said there were no weapons, and who were familiar with the Project for the New American Century and the decade long neoconservative case for war with Iraq, opposed the war. Nevertheless, the memory of the deceptions and failures of Vietnam colored attitudes towards this war.
THE SACRIFICES OF CITIZENS
Another huge difference between World War II and the Iraq War is in the amount of citizen participation in the war effort. During World War II, only young men were drafted to fill the ranks of the fighting forces, but President Roosevelt asked all Americans to make sacrifices. On April 28, 1942, just four months after Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt addressed the American people with these words:
"Not all of us can have the privilege of fighting our enemies in distant parts of the world.
Not all of us can have the privilege of working in a munitions factory or a shipyard, or on the farms or in oil fields or mines, producing the weapons or the raw materials that are needed by our armed forces.
But there is one front and one battle where everyone in the United States - every man, woman, and child - is in action, and will be privileged to remain in action throughout this war. That front is right here at home, in our daily lives, in our daily tasks. Here at home everyone will have the privilege of making whatever self-denial is necessary, not only to supply our fighting men, but to keep the economic structure of our country fortified and secure during the war and after the war….
This will require, of course, the abandonment not only of luxuries but of many other creature comforts….
All of us are used to spending money for things that we want, things, however, which are not absolutely essential. We will all have to forgo that kind of spending. Because we must put every dime and every dollar we can possibly spare out of our earnings into war bonds and stamps. Because the demands of the war effort require the rationing of goods of which there is not enough to go around. Because the stopping of purchases of nonessentials will release thousands of workers who are needed in the war effort….
The price for civilization must be paid in hard work and sorrow and blood. The price is not too high. If you doubt it, ask those millions who live today under the tyranny of Hitlerism….
Our soldiers and sailors are members of well-disciplined units. But they're still and forever individuals, free individuals. They are farmers and workers, businessmen, professional men, artists, clerks. They are the United States of America.
That is why they fight.
We too are the United States of America. That is why we must work and sacrifice. It is for them. It is for us. It is for victory."
In this speech FDR outlined a seven point program of economic policy which would require sacrifice from every American. In it he asked the American people to agree to heavier taxes to keep "personal and corporate profits at a low reasonable rate," fixed ceilings on prices and rents, stabilized wages and farm prices, the increased buying of war bonds, and the rationing of scarce goods. In other words, he asked for their full participation and willing sacrifice in the war effort. He asked for investments of their money and their time and they willingly gave it. Their sacrifice would mean they were invested in the war effort, and united them in their personal support for the war.
How different was the request of George W. Bush after 9/11 and before and during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Not only did he not ask for a draft to provide a sufficient force for the wars, he did not ask Americans to sacrifice. He asked them to be vigilant, but to go about their daily business, and most of all to go shopping. And he lowered their taxes, again and again. When a nation sends only a small number of its citizens to a war, and does not ask the remainder to sacrifice in any way for the war effort, it shouldn't be surprising that they feel disconnected from and non-supportive of that war.
AMERICA'S ALLIES
Finally, the American people entered World War II knowing that their allies were in desperate need of their help. France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Britain, and others, were already under assault or occupation by the Germans and so enthusiastically welcomed the entrance of the Americans. When George W. Bush decided to invade Iraq, however, most of Europe did not approve. And even when the leaders of some countries, like Spain and Britain, were willing to join the fight, their populations were not. In fact, European countries, including Britain and Spain, were the sites of massive antiwar protests before the start of the Iraq War. This reality impacted many Americans who wondered what they knew that we didn't.
While some Americans criticized countries, especially France, whose leaders opposed the war, other Americans believed the European countries had access to information that was held back from the Americans and believed Europe, which had much more experience in Middle East affairs, knew some things about Iraq that Americans should pay attention to. In fact, the European press regularly published essays and stories that criticized the reasoning behind the decision to go to war and warned America that things could go very badly in Iraq, a land that had been the graveyard for many empires.
PROGRESS OF WAR
It is thought that populations will turn against wars when the casualty rate goes up dramatically. That seemed to be true in the Vietnam War, in which 58,000 died, but not so much in WW II, even though the United States lost 407,000 military personnel in that war. While close to 4000 have died in the Iraq War, making the Iraq War much less costly in terms of lives lost than other wars, nevertheless there is strong and growing antiwar sentiment against the Iraq War.
We have already examined some of the reasons: the controversy over the legitimacy of the war, the claims by some that the Bush administration misled the nation into war, lack of investment and sacrifice by the American people, and memories of Vietnam.
Another reason, however, has to do with the progress and the conduct of the war. We know that opposition to the Iraq War is growing, yet not all who have turned against the war have done so because they suddenly realized the president was dishonest, or the reasons given for going to war were false. Some opponents still think it was a good idea to depose Saddam and to this day believe in the original justification for war. However they believe the president has completely bungled the war and made such a mess of things that it can't be made right. With the numbers of jihadists growing, and a mismanaged occupation continuing to anger Iraqis, they believe it is time to leave and cut our losses.
In World War II, by contrast, the American people saw progress fairly quickly. By June, 1942, just six months after declaring war on Japan, the navy achieved a major victory in the Battle of Midway. While there were more years of fighting ahead, the Americans were on their way to stopping the advance of the Japanese. Meanwhile, in North Africa the allies were moving against the Axis powers, and eventually moving up into Italy. In June of 1944, two and a half years after the Americans entered the war, the allies landed in Normandy on what became known as D-Day, and moved steadily inland against the German army. Less than a year later, in May, 1945, the Germans surrendered, and the Japanese followed, three months after that. In less than four years, the Americans had mobilized for war, moved vast numbers of men across oceans, suffered hundreds of thousands of losses, and along with their allies won the most deadly war in the history of the world.
Iraq couldn't be more different. There has been almost no progress in Iraq, even though some are saying the recent "surge" has made a small difference. But from the very day the Americans entered Baghdad, the war has gone badly. From the looting to the aborted attack on Fallujah, from the disbanding of the army to the growing insurgency, it has been one mess after another. And each day, men who do not belong to any official army, who wear no uniform, and who owe allegiance to no great leader, kill Americans with primitive weapons that the army calls "improvised explosive devices."
The American people also do not see what this war will accomplish. While a few neoconservatives, safely ensconced in Washington think tanks, may have some grand vision for the Middle East, of which the Iraq War is simply phase one, and while the president says "we have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here," the American people only see the war making things worse by creating more terrorists, more enemies of America, and more nations who are losing respect for our principles as well as our power. So Americans may see low casualties, when compared with the casualties of WW II, but the casualties they suffer are, in their minds, the result of a badly managed war, and they want it to end.
SUMMARY
In the final analysis, World War II was a war for the survival of Europe and America, declared by Congress at the request of a trusted American commander in chief, a war that united our allies and moved steadily towards victory, and a war that was won in less than four years of American participation.
The Iraq War, on the other hand, is not a war for survival, was never declared by Congress but was authorized indirectly at the request of a commander in chief whom fully two thirds of the American people no longer trust. Additionally, it is a war that divides us from our allies, has moved increasingly towards a deeper and deeper quagmire, and shows no sign of ending anytime soon.
These are a few of the reasons why World War II was supported so unanimously by the American people, and why the Iraq War is not. No matter how much the supporters of this war want to frame it as a war for civilization, as the war against Germany and Japan surely was, this war is different. It has not made things better and has probably made things worse in terms of the safety of Americans and others around the globe.
The Ken Burns documentary reminded us of all that is admirable in the American people. It showed their courage and their willingness to sacrifice for a cause they believed in, a cause that was necessary and just. The American people of the World War II era were great patriots, and if we were to transplant them to this century, they would still be patriots. However, their patriotism, like the patriotism of today's citizens, would not lead them to be fools.
The Americans of the World War II generation were isolationists when the war in Europe began, but they were able to change when they felt it was necessary. Likewise, they might have supported George W. Bush at first, but they would have absorbed the new information refuting his case for war and exposing his mismanagement of it. It may have taken them a while to figure out how their commander in chief failed them, but ultimately they would have caught on, and I firmly believe a great many of them would join the citizens of today in demanding an end to the occupation of Iraq.
The men and women of the greatest generation weren't really any greater than the men and women of this generation or any American generation. This generation would have risen to the occasion had they been faced with a Hitler who had taken over most of Europe and a Japanese empire that threatened the entire Far East. (No matter how much the Bush administration and its supporters want to portray Saddam as a reincarnation of Hitler, it simply isn't true. Saddam was horrible to his own people, but unlike Hitler he wasn't much of a threat to his neighbors or to the United States, especially after years of sanctions and weapons inspections. The two men are simply not equivalent.)
I'm convinced the American people don't really change that much over generations. They fight wars that are necessary, and oppose wars that are not. They can be fooled for a while, but as Abe Lincoln said, not all of them, and not all of the time. They eventually come to their senses, even if it takes them a while, and that is what is happening today as they change their attitude to this war.
World War II was supposed to be the "war to end all wars." Obviously it wasn't. If we have learned anything from WW II and from Ken Burns brilliant telling of its story, I hope it is that there is no war that will end all wars. Some wars, like World War II, may be necessary, but no matter how necessary they are, they all lead to new sets of problems, which ultimately lead to new wars.
The only way to keep from fighting unnecessary wars is for the people to stand up against the leaders who dress those wars up in the glory of past wars.
If we are ever to end war, we must see it for what it is, in all of its horror and ugliness, and work with as much fervor and dedication as we worked to win World War II to find other solutions to our problems.
All content © 2005 outragedcitizen.com
|
