We're not raising kids to be war heroes

[Amelia]

We're not raising kids to be war heroes

James P. Pinkerton

June 30, 2005

Newsday.com

'Americans have always held firm." So said President George W. Bush in his Iraq-war speech on Tuesday night.

But in point of fact, Americans haven't been holding firm in recent decades. And there's an underlying demographic logic to that softening, which Bush, as well as future presidents prosecuting future wars, will have to take into account.

Bush's speech will surely boost popular support for his Iraq campaign, but what's most striking is the steep decline in support during the past two years. A Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 53 percent of Americans now believe that the Iraq war was "not worth fighting" - the seventh consecutive poll during the past nine months to show such a majority.

A further peek at the poll numbers finds that by a margin of 69 percent to 29 percent, Americans view the level of casualties in Iraq as "unacceptable." And yet by historical standards, in the sweep of U.S. history, the Iraq casualties - about 1,750 killed in the past 27 months - are, to put it bluntly, negligible.

During the Civil War, Union forces lost 360,000 men, out of a population of 22 million. Which is to say, almost 2 percent of the entire Northern population was killed in four years. Yet President Abraham Lincoln hung on to his support and was re-elected by a landslide in 1864. Of course, public opinion polling and television didn't exist back then.

But there's another factor, too: big families. In 1860, more than half the population of the U.S. was under 19. It's a cold fact that if there are a lot of kids around the household, it's easier to give some over to war. But the long-term trend toward smaller families has undercut this demographic "surplus."

That's the underlying reason Americans did not "hold firm" in Vietnam, and why they do not seem to be holding firm in Iraq. Then and now, American forces were not in danger of losing on the battlefront. But the home front was, and is, a different story.

The first Americans were killed fighting in Vietnam in 1957. By the summer of 1965, total KIAs in Vietnam reached the same level that they are in Iraq today. Yet four decades ago, support for the war stayed stronger longer. A majority of Americans didn't say Vietnam wasn't worth fighting for until August 1968, by which time some 30,000 American soldiers had been killed. So while Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam War was one-hundredth as costly as Lincoln's Civil War, on a relative basis - the 36th president, unlike the 16th president, was thwarted in his bid for re-election.

The percentage of children in the country was a key factor in these shifting war-presidency fortunes. By 1965, the share of under-19-year-olds had fallen sharply, to 37 percent. So in 'Nam, each combat fatality - magnified, of course, by the media - was felt more strongly. Today, the under-19 percentage is down to 27. Families that once had five or six kids now have a couple at most. Poll numbers on Iraq - and plummeting enlistment rates - show the impact of demography on the polity.

These long-term trends, and their political implications, were evident to one farsighted thinker more than a decade ago. In 1994, Edward Luttwak, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., surveyed the U.S. experience in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia and concluded, in a Foreign Affairs article, that America had entered its "post-heroic" era, in which the public would have a permanently low tolerance for casualties.

In his piece, Luttwak considered possible responses to this new reality, such as recruiting more non-Americans, a la the French Foreign Legion, or learning to ignore "tragedies and horrific atrocities" when they occur around the world. In this Luttwakian scenario, the U.S. would need either mercenaries or a less interventionist agenda.

Bush, and probably most Americans, would likely reject both those options. In which case, the challenge to be faced is squaring a heroic foreign policy with a post- heroic demography.

[Jeannieb43]

Good column, Amelia.

Our going to war to make the president look good, is for the birds.

[Neil D]

[:"blue"] Here is another colum that I found disturbing.....[/]

Nearly 9,000 U.S. troops dead?

A NATIONWIDE CALL FOR INFO FROM SURVIVORS.

Author: peaceseeker

29 Jun 2005

This work is in the public domain

Has the Bush administration drastically understated the U.S. military death count by redefining "death"? The following article suggests that it has, and it calls for a nationwide campaign to honor deceased service members by naming and counting them.

According to the article: "...DoD lists currently being very quietly circulated indicate almost 9,000 [u.S. military] dead"; this far exceeds the "official" death count of 1,831. How can this be? It's largely because "U.S. Military Personnel who died in German hospitals or en route to German hospitals have not previously been counted."

In other words, "death" has been redefined.

WHAT YOU CAN DO RIGHT NOW:

1. If you know (or know of) service members who've died in Bush()'s wars, look for their names on the full, alphabetized "official" Pentagon death list, at www.tbrnews.org/Archives/list.htm. IF THEIR NAMES ARE NOT INCLUDED, PLEASE SEND A REPORT TO: []tbrnews@hotmail.com.[/] You're also encouraged to notify your Congress members, your local newspaper, and other interested parties.

(Note that the alphabetized list is updated regularly at tbrnews.org. It currently includes deaths reported up through early June.)

2. FORWARD THIS WEB PAGE TO ANYONE YOU KNOW WHO MAY KNOW SERVICE MEMBERS WHO'VE DIED.

3. Forward this web page to veterans' groups, other organizations, responsible journalists and respectable elected officials.

[jasd]

Re: We're not raising kids to be war heroes

Whenever I watch Jay Leno’s ‘Jaywalking’ -- I am incredulous that our NEA has not yet gone to ground for shame. Given that, I wonder, if American kids, in general -- even know what a hero is outside of the cinema and video games.

Who failed? example of a recent skrool (thanks, Rush) exam contained approx 30% ‘green’ questions with none on civics or American history… Is it any wonder?

>>…such as recruiting more non-Americans,…<<

By ignoring safeguards on our southern border we might, at some point near future, have additional millions of illegals to award green cards. With a little bit of luck, come time, we would have an enlarged pool from which to, possibly, round up a few million more warm bodies for the draft -- how fortuitous! for them and for us.

Uncle Sam wants you… :-o

>>…or learning to ignore "tragedies and horrific atrocities" when they occur around the world.<< [ed.]

“Around the world”? How about when they occur right here in America? seems, by current media standard and coverage, 9/11 has gone by the way -- ignored, forgotten.

>>…the U.S. would need either mercenaries…<<

Ah yes, private armies beyond the restraints of scrutiny and/or other restrictive norms as might obtain for govts… no more mewling over the political embarrassment of an Abu Ghraib, a Club Gitmo, or other resort facility serving ‘friendlies’ --lemon chicken for dinner. Kidstuff…,

a woman standing too close to the detainee while conducting her interrogation!? is cause for gripe? yikes! Mebbe a little perspective is in order -- my frat strangled its pledges to unconsciousness... fun and games.

>>…or a less interventionist agenda.<<

Can we afford to be less the “interventionist”? (read Brzezinski, following post)

[jasd]

Re: Bush’s war

“When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf was, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn’t know.” --former president Bill Clinton, in an interview with Larry King, July 22, 2003

“Given Saddam Hussein’s attitude over the past few years, [we] feel, in the light of experience, that he might use the chemical, biological weapons he possessed.” --de Villepin, -- France Inter, November 2002

He (de Villepin, no friend of America) then added for emphasis, “And I want to repeat here that we also suspect there’s an embryonic nuclear element he may possess. We can’t run that risk.”

(“This was stated at the time Resolution 1441 was being orchestrated during passage in the UN)

De Villepin is so far removed from a centrist paradigm that he and I are probably neighours in the tall grass of anarchy -- with our Evian, slingshots, and shared phobic theories. We part company in that he is stridently antiAmerican.

Given the above article, one might bemoan the loss and our need of the heroic -- whilst bearing in mind the various factions worldwide --assiduously angling for the dominant position --center stage.

Lacking heroes, we must make do, eh?

(A mere handful of our enemy, using three of our own commercial airliners, --raped America’s psyche and played havoc with her peoples in terms of life lost and property damage (if subscribing to orthodoxy). Given the above acknowledgements by the above two eminent fellows sinister of center, how much more will the next laminae of religious malcontents or other enemies of America wreak upon her/us? and how far do we go playing masochismo before we raise a protest against the calculatingly treacherous fifth column within our community --posing as the fourth estate? Good grief,

we’re at war; the lot of us -- willing or not. Abe Lincoln! whither habeas corpus?)

“ “[3]…keep the barbarians from coming together.” [4]Eurasia -- everything (roughly) east of Germany to the North Pacific Ocean -- is the key to the world: "A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. . . . About 75 percent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about 60 percent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." [5] Therefore, he concludes, "The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitrating role." [6] Within Eurasia the "pivotal" and most volatile area is Central Asia, centered roughly around the Caspian Sea: "Another major uncertainty looms in the large and geopolitically fluid space of Central Eurasia, maximized by the potential vulnerability of the Turkish-Iranian pivots. . . . This huge region, torn by volatile hatreds and surrounded by competing powerful neighbors, is likely to be a major battlefield. . . ." [7] The facing page holds a map with the area Brzezinski considers most "volatile" circled; Afghanistan is nearly in the middle.

But this "decisive arbitrating role" requires policies, expenses and sacrifices that the US public is not willing to make under ordinary circumstances:” quoting --Zbigniew Brzezinski

Am looking… for dictatorial powers wearing the face of autocracy -- soon; as well as, Corporate [states] utilizing their own militias (read: Military arm) to operate clandestinely where govts cannot.

And as to all the mothers in America who instill in their children the “The Timid Soul” of milquetoast or sop, and to all the fathers who’ve likewise failed to brass their son’s testaments -- it is axiomatic that that being so…

our chirren will not inherit the future --except as The Wretched; for as certain as bears prefer Charmin… other’s chirren will inherit the future.

Mt 24:6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all [these things] must come to pass, but the end is not yet. v7 For nation (ethnos) shall rise against nation (ethnos), and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. v8 All these [are] the beginning of sorrows.

[jasd]

“A president who can give a media performance in southern California to (in his words) "hug and empathize" the victims of recent fires, is apparently unwilling to show up for the funerals of young victims of his own firestorm!” --Butler Shaffer

Like, POTUS and his security detail can really attend those funerals -- how many? and counting?

Is Butler hypothesizing or hyperventilating?

Sometimes I think the sinister of aisle parade is really gone ‘round the bend.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

what's most striking is the steep decline in support during the past two years.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I have no idea how this could be "most strikig". Look at all the negetive press this war has gotten. The mainstreatm networks slant their reporting against the war. All we ever hear about from them are bombings and deaths.

Case in point: Does anyone know the status of the reconstruction of the electrical grid? Does anyone know how the electrical grid is being built differently than when Saddam controlled it? Does anyone know what the literacy rate is in Iraq and what is being done to improve it? Does anyone know how much economic activity is now happening between Turkey and Irag? Does anyone know the average number of ships that pass through Iraq's port daily? Does anyone know what an average soldier, airman or marine does to help out the everyday, average Iraqi citizens? Does anyone know what the re-enlistment figures are for those that have served in Iraq? - It is doubtful because these are all positive news items that the mainstream press has no interest in broadcasting.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Yet President Abraham Lincoln hung on to his support and was re-elected by a landslide in 1864. Of course, public opinion polling and television didn't exist back then.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

They missed the boat here. The reason the north stayed behind the war effort was because there wasn't a free press like there is today. The Vietnaum War was the first war with a real free press. In previous conflicts reporters reported what the government wanted them too. Those that spoke against the war went to jail. We live in a different time.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

have no idea how this could be "most strikig". Look at all the negetive press this war has gotten. The mainstreatm networks slant their reporting against the war. All we ever hear about from them are bombings and deaths.

---

Yeah, I hear about how they are attempting to make the sewer problems go away, and improve the water supply and how they are working on the electrical grid. Trouble is that they can not get parts to replace the damage the insurgents have done. As a result, the population is complaining that there is not enough being done. And I also hear that they lack inititive, ie see a problem and work to fix it. They have been dependant upon the goverment too long, seeking permission to do things...And their society rules is attempting to maintain thier structure and is straining...And the traditionalists [fundementalists] are upset that things are changing...So, their sympathies are with the insurgents.

Quote:

---

The Vietnaum War was the first war with a real free press. In previous conflicts reporters reported what the government wanted them too. Those that spoke against the war went to jail. We live in a different time.

---

That is not all of the truth, Shane. Sure, the military controled some of the information that was given to the public but there was a large amount that came thru channels apart from the military.. Besides, historically speaking, Remember the freedom of the Press in the Constitution??? There were independant reporters who reported what they saw during the battles of both the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. Of course, there were newspaper Barons who controled the press and wanted to control what the people thought, but there were other ways to get information, slower more trustworthy methods, like a underground railroad.

The Vietnam War was where the army allowed the press to accompany the military. What the Military didn't figure on was that the press was gonna report what they saw when they got back to the States. As the war progressed, and the country's mood changed against the war, some reporters started to slant thier reporting toward what the public feared [or feared to be reported]. And some of those reporters were given "the treatment" for not reporting the truth...

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

I hear about how they are attempting to make the sewer problems go away

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I suspect you and I are a little more informed than the average American.

During both world wars there were laws that forbid freedom of speech and the laws were enforced. The Supreme Court ruled the laws were constitutional due to national security. I do not know if such laws existed in previous wars.