Americans’ tolerance for the pain of war has certainly changed in 38 years. Bloomberg ran the numbers:
- In April 1968, three years into the Vietnam War, Gallup polls showed that 48 percent of Americans thought going into Vietnam was an error. That was at a time when the United States had lost 28,500 service members and the public was worried about the draft and the multiplying anti-war protests.
- Now, three years into the Iraq war, polling shows 57 percent of Americans think going into Iraq was a mistake. Yet, Bloomberg notes, “about 2,400 American soldiers have died, the U.S. military consists entirely of volunteers and public dissent is sporadic.”
The variables affecting the polls then and now, scholars note, include the Cold War, cable news, the Internet and President Bush’s role in starting this war. It’s also notable that by September 1968, nine months into the Viet Cong’s bloody Tet Offensive, disapproval of the Vietnam War was comparable to disapproval today of the Iraq war.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
35 Comments
The United States in part went into Vietnam because of an agreement that was sign after WWII. If someone can not see a difference between that and how we ended up invading Iraq. They lack a moral core!
Tolerance or just a shorter attention span and patience.
Plus constant bad news from Iraq by the media doesn’t help. I know there is good news in Iraq, but it is not widely publizied. Doesn’t get anybody attention, so it can’t make money.
Well, Nam was a good object lesson for America. I’d be astonished if we let the powers that be get us that far into a similar situation again before crying foul!
Actually, there is a lot of good news out of Iraq, it just never gets published. My nephew, who is headed back for his 3rd tour, has told me about the infrastructure rebuild, the vast improvements in living conditions, etc. Unfortunately, all that gets overshadowed by the negative. It is frustrating for the troops who are doing the work.
If there was some semblance of security, perhaps the news media could report on these improvements.
I think these are the 3 biggest reasons that support for Iraq has slid out from under the effort:
1) The war was begun immorally. It’s immoral because the president and his administration said and say that war was a final option when in fact it was among the first, if not the very first. This lie is in addition to many others told by the president in the runup to Iraq, Abu Ghraib, and secret rendition prisons in E. Europe. The war in Iraq is immoral because it was begun on a lie and is being fought outside American ideals.
2) Iraq’s an immoral war being fought poorly. I believe that an equivalent statement is that the war is becoming very unpopular very quickly because President Bush has through ineptness ceded the moral high ground to the “enemy.” The president’s ineptness is also evident in assertion that the precise location of WMD were known in Iraq, his failure to grow a meaningful coalition, his using too few troops to control Iraq, and the CPA’s disbanding of the Iraqi army in the early days (etc.). In addition, Americans know that the president is unable or unwilling to change courses, even when the necessity of changing course becomes obvious to everyone else.
3) Vietnam; that’s a war with an arc similar to Iraq and one in which men and women of only early middle age today fought. In other words, memories and experiences of Vietnam are very much alive today, and directly influence American support for Iraq. The president’s inability to learn or change means that the lessons of Vietnam are lost on him but readily available to everyone else. Iraq is losing popularity quickly because of Vietnam.
Iraq is unpopular because it was begun on a lie, it’s being fought by Americans – only – who are being led by an inept president, and all of this takes place in the fresh context of Vietnam.
Is it just me or is the focus “shifting” on Iran’s quest for nukes instead of on the Iraqi war?Anybody else remember the movie “Wag the Dog”? hmmm…
It’s because all the 24 hour news stations were in the tank for Nixon back then….oh wait
Joe:”Tolerance or just a shorter attention span and patience.
“Plus constant bad news from Iraq by the media doesn’t help. I know there is good news in Iraq, but it is not widely publizied. Doesn’t get anybody attention, so it can’t make money.”
I heard a story on NPR that local Iraq officials try to conceal good news such as the construction of new buildings due to their fears that such news will be targeted for a bombing.
The situation in Iraq is completely out of control and always has been. Biden is right. The country should be divided into three parts with a loose Federal government that divides up the oil wealth.
A link to Trudy’s objections to this common sense solution:
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/editorial/14539163.htm
Trudy Rubin:”If the Bush administration wants to calm Iraq down, it should contemplate promoting a regional conference. But it should stay in the background as Iraqis argue over a federal system. Help them, yes. Facilitate, yes. But nothing could be worse for the United States than to be viewed in the region as the imperial agent that dismembered Iraq.”
What other view could the U.S. ever expect, Trudy? You need to lay off that stuff you’re smoking.
It is time to accept reality. If the politicians in Iraq aren’t reflecting the will of the people there, how are we “facilitating” anything by letting our soldiers get killed in the Iraqi’s civil war? The withdrawal of our troops will get Iraqi politicians invested in a solution to their problems. Our continued presence does just the opposite.
Great post flike!!!
All evil begins with a lie. Since this war was built, from the beginning, on lies, how could we as a nation conclude that it is anything other than evil?
It is an evil war for greed, money and oil, designed to benefit the military industrial complex. I guess the rest of america can just eat cake.
chocolate or vanilla?
The reason that the public FINALLY turned against this war is because they finally realized that this immoral, illegal war was sold to the public on (obvious) lies. Based on the definitions of war crimes laid out, largely by the US after WWII, our “leaders” could easily be considered guilty.
The War we voted for when it was popular. The War we criticize when it’s not.Democrat Party
The poll is comparing apples to oranges.
The big difference between Vietnam and Iraq is that some of us REMEMBER Vietnam . . . there was not nearly as much support going into Iraq as going into Vietnam.
It was barely a majority that supported Iraq to begin with.
Joe B–
It’s true that the Dems suck.
But they weren’t the ones that sunk us into the quagmire . . .
And, Joe, your guy is down to 31 percent approval. Nixon was at 27 percent when he RESIGNED.
And Bush still has 2 more years to show America what it means to be Republican . . .
Good point. Shrub is no more a Republican than Ted Kennedy.
But all these apologists will fall right in line when Shrub Jr. steps to the plate in 08 to continue the American Royal Family’s reign of terror.
JJ:”But all these apologists will fall right in line when Shrub Jr. steps to the plate in 08 to continue the American Royal Family’s reign of terror.”
We can only hope. See this link.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060510/pl_nm/bush_jeb_dc_1
There’s another difference: Vietnam was foisted on America by a Democratic Party able to tout a thirty-year legacy of successful majority rule that immeasurably improved the country. It took a while to spend all that inherited trust and good will.
The contemporary GOP has no such legacy to fall back on. More, the Democratic Party built itself on an ethos of the common good and shared sacrifice (Great Depression, W.W.I.I.), whereas the modern GOP is all about naked self interest and nothing more (lower taxes, smaller government). If the GOP message is always ‘me first!’, it’s no surprise to see voters peeling away in droves. A call for shared sacrifice contradicts the message the GOP has been running for the last thirty years. And it is this contradiction that has doomed the Iraq adventure so quickly.
Not to mention the GOP’s general bankruptcy of ideas:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/09/AR2006050901504.html
heh DD, maybe jeb wont run because he doesnt have anything to prove to the old man. Unlike his big brother who has used the entire nation to work out his issues with his father.
KFG:”Unlike his big brother who has used the entire nation to work out his issues with his father.”
How true! GW is even beating GHW’s job disapproval numbers! Those Bushie’s are just too competitive for our own good.
Great link DD on the r’s lack of ideas. I especially like this part:
“On taxes, the Republican legislative leaders’ top priorities are to make permanent the tax cut on investment income and to repeal the estate tax — economics, as ever, for our wealthiest 1 percent. (This at a time when the entire theory of trickle-down has been negated by the propensity of U.S. corporations to use their shareholders’ investments to expand abroad rather than at home.)
And the democrats have no plans for governing?
“In a recent spate of interviews, Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi has emphasized her party’s fast-forward version of its first Hundred Days in power — in this case, what the Democrats would do in their first week running Congress.
They would raise the minimum wage for the first time since 1997. They would repeal the section of the Medicare drug plan that forbids the government from negotiating lower prices with the drug industry. They would fully implement the recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission, and they would restore the congressional rule, suspended by Republicans, requiring that all new programs be paid for by a specific new spending source or offset by a commensurate cut in another program.”
What is not to like about THAT?
Oh yea, fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets are something the r’s like to TALK about, not something they would DO anything about.
While I, too, like Myerson’s article, I smell a rat in his conclusion:
“Her critics on her left and right notwithstanding, Pelosi is one of the smartest pols on the political landscape — as is attested by her ability to unify her fractious colleagues and designate John Murtha to attack the administration on the war.”
Um, Harold, aren’t you leaving out the fact that the pack of House Dems–Pelosi at the head of the pack–ran frantically in the opposite direction from Congressman Murtha? This wasn’t a united front. It was Pelosi setting up Murtha to deliver the bad news and then dissociating him from the House Democratic ‘leadership.’ That Myerson remembers things having gone this way suggests that, frankly, he’s part of the inside the beltway Dem establishment that is cautioning Democrats to step off of the GOP’s collective windpipe.
That’s a losing strategy. If you want to be a winner, kick the GOP while they’re down and don’t stop until the votes are counted. To do any less is to do what Dems have done every time–to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. And when Myerson warns Pelosi to avoid the liberal blogosphere, it’s clear where he stands: he’s yet another, same old, losing, pussified Democratic ’strategist.’
“Myerson warns Pelosi to avoid the liberal blogosphere, it’s clear where he stands: he’s yet another, same old, losing, pussified Democratic ’strategist.’”
That description might hurt the WE Blog numbers as Joe W. warned on another thread. But is hard to think of a more descriptive adjective than “pussified”. Well done. And, yes, let’s crush that windpipe, while we have the chance.
IF we had found WMD, and enriched uranium, the American public would today be strongly supporting the war. The public’s rejection of the war stems from the fact that the reasons originally given, which seemed sensible for invasion, have been proven to be completely false.
Most Americans can “get” this. It’s interesting that most Kansans can’t, yet.
Trudy Rubin is not credible. A few years ago she said (in an Eagle-reprinted commentary) that the invasion had nothing to do with oil. It had EVERYTHING to do with oil. Oil isn’t just some marginally important commodity. It underpins modern life. It is the most strategically important natural resource on the planet.
The administration could have explained this to the public. But for whatever reason, it decided that it could not trust the public to support a war to control oil. So it concocted a phony, “Iraq is going to terrorize us with WMD’s” fantasy story.
http://thegreenknight.blogspot.com/2006/05/dolchstosslegende.html
This is a GREAT article on the right wing “america is being stabbed in the back by traitors who dont support the war” meme.
It even talks about vietnam. Gives you real insite into hank and how he bought into this myth.
Great link, KFG. You know who the “hero” against the traitor, Alger Hiss, was? That’s right. Richard Nixon.
KFG, great link. I don’t particularly agree with Greenknight’s contention that there’s no culture war, but otherwise, he’s spot on.
How can anybody can fail to see similarity in these 2 wars? Iraq is Vietnam on fast forward. Vietnam was a bonanza for a lot of American business. It was a gravy train that nobody wanted to stop. Kind of like what’s happening today in Iraq.
On Vietnam, It was the “Military/Industrial Complex”. Now, it’s Haliburton. The Military/Industrial Complex didn’t want the war in Vietnam to end. Kellogg Root doesn’t want to see the War in Iraq end, either.
War is a profitable enterprise.
“A Democratic administration started the war in Vietnam. Republicans dragged it out and lost it.”
KFG,Interseting link, but there are some falsehoods contained: While Jane Fonda’s actions in North Viet Nam had no effect on the war, it did have immediate, harmful effects on the prisoners shown with her.
The spitting incidents did take place. I can personally vouch for that. When I returned from Viet Nam in 1966, I flew to Los Angeles from San Fransisco. My arrival at San Fransisco airport via bus from Travis AFB was greeted by taunting, jerring and spitting individuals. As I stated in an earlier post, it took all my will power to keep from taking out all my war frustrations on those morons.
Sometimes what is printed is just plain wrong. Much of the article you linked to fits that catagory. I’m sure some of it has merit, but for the most part, when I read something I know to be inaccurate, I put it aside and forget it.
Viet Nam was wrong; this war is wrong, but I don’t need inaccurate articles to prove that to me. All I have to do is see whats going on in the world today and make intelligent conclusions. After reading the first few paragraphs in the article I think I made that decision and clicked it gone.
Good posts all.
A few things I haven’t seen mentioned.
America is a lot more cynical place now then it was in the middle 60’s. Vietnam is a part of that cynicism. As is mentioned upthread, this war was grounded in unjustified fear made from lies. So the quick distaste for this war can be found in words spoken by the man who started it.
“Fool me once shame on you fool me twice…..we can’t get fooled again” George Bush
Too, the Vietnam war was only painful reality at 6 and 10 for a few minutes a night. The lies that made Iraq and the continued lack of any closure there are revealed 24/7.
The fact is mentioned that far fewer have died in Iraq than Viet nam. This is true but ignores that many who have been horribly injured in Iraq most likely would have been killed 35 years ago.
I think J Ms post is telling here too. I am sorry that happened to you J M. I think America is sorry that happened to you. Maybe they are even ashamed of it. So I think you did not suffer scorn in vain. I see it at parades and other places where Nam vets get applause when they pass. I think Americans now (thankfully) take more seriously just what it is to send men to fight and die. They feel a need to “protect” the troops. And that is a good thing. It may very well keep this war from becoming another Vietnam.
Lack of tolerance for all but the most necessary and justified wars is a good thing for the most powerful nation on the planet.
Mothers will end this war when they get fed up with losing their children.
Sooner or latter, somebody is going to have to answer for this crap.
Had enough?
I also knew vets who received the treatment you described – but not from me or any of those with whom I was affiliated in California at the time. We reserved our ire for McNamara, et.al., NOT the troops.
I also got to see a wheelchair-bound Vet beaten by a bunch of armed thugs with clubs. The thugs were the Los Angeles Police Department.
Walker,I, too, appreciate your sacrifice. Our country can never really repay you.
XXX:”Sooner or latter, somebody is going to have to answer for this crap.”
X,That is also quite true. I’ve had more than enough. We’ll soon see if that is true across the country.