Sunday, March 19, 2006
The Incredible Shrinking Peace Movement
Since I lived about 100 miles south of Washington DC in the late 60s early 70s and went to school across the bay from UC Berkeley from 1971-75, I was aware of or at some of the larger of the anti-Viet Nam War protests. the largest of which, with perhaps 700,000 people, was in November, 1969 (and I watched them fade to background noise as we shipped our troops back to the World by mid 1973). President Kennedy started our troop involvement (with advisors) in Viet Nam shortly after he entered office and his VP actually started sending in soldiers (up to 500,000) starting in March, 1965, but the real war protests (except at Berkeley) didn't come until 1967 and then they just kept getting bigger. There was a delay between troops deployed and the big anti-war rallies against the war in Viet Nam.
In the several months of our well telegraphed punch at Saddam Hussein more than 3 years ago, there were millions of people across the World, protesting our Coalition's completing Gulf War 1. Today, all over America, on the third anniversary of the start of Gulf War 2, the anti-war protestors measured in the tens and hundreds and no where in America reached a thousand. Around the globe, the protests have a hundredth of the numbers they had before the war. The DC mall was nearly protestor free today. So the protests grew with Viet Nam; they've shrunk with Iraq.
What if they gave a war protest and nobody came?
What's the deal? Are the pacifists staying home in numbers because of the college basketball tournament? Is it too harsh a very late Winter day? (It was cold in November 1969 in DC). Do the anarchists have to get up early to go to work? Puzzling?
How about this for an explanation? There are no protestors, or very few, because they finally get that it's too late. The war is being waged and the only disaster we could face is losing our nerve and pulling out early--the sin of Onan on a moral, rather than a sexual plane. You'd think with the polls showing growing dissatisfaction with the President's handling of the war, there would have been a few more of those intellectually stimulating Chimpy McBushHitler signs out there. They really make you think, you know.
Is it possible that it's not the anti-war snow ball rolling down the mountain the MSM portrays the national mood to be? Just asking.
UPDATE: OK Portland had 10,000 protestors. Good job. Still a little short of the million plus across the nation on October 15, 1969, not that I'm saying we were cooler in the 60s (our clothes were actually worse).
In the several months of our well telegraphed punch at Saddam Hussein more than 3 years ago, there were millions of people across the World, protesting our Coalition's completing Gulf War 1. Today, all over America, on the third anniversary of the start of Gulf War 2, the anti-war protestors measured in the tens and hundreds and no where in America reached a thousand. Around the globe, the protests have a hundredth of the numbers they had before the war. The DC mall was nearly protestor free today. So the protests grew with Viet Nam; they've shrunk with Iraq.
What if they gave a war protest and nobody came?
What's the deal? Are the pacifists staying home in numbers because of the college basketball tournament? Is it too harsh a very late Winter day? (It was cold in November 1969 in DC). Do the anarchists have to get up early to go to work? Puzzling?
How about this for an explanation? There are no protestors, or very few, because they finally get that it's too late. The war is being waged and the only disaster we could face is losing our nerve and pulling out early--the sin of Onan on a moral, rather than a sexual plane. You'd think with the polls showing growing dissatisfaction with the President's handling of the war, there would have been a few more of those intellectually stimulating Chimpy McBushHitler signs out there. They really make you think, you know.
Is it possible that it's not the anti-war snow ball rolling down the mountain the MSM portrays the national mood to be? Just asking.
UPDATE: OK Portland had 10,000 protestors. Good job. Still a little short of the million plus across the nation on October 15, 1969, not that I'm saying we were cooler in the 60s (our clothes were actually worse).
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 5:39 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Your explaination, though valid, misses a few very important points.
1. The Draft: Since this army is 100% volunteer, there are no stories of a completly unwilling 19 year old being sent to his death against his will. (Compared with thousands of such stories in '67 and more every day).
2. Number of Casualties: This is a no-brainer. People are going to get more fired up over 50,000 dead (many non-volunteer) than 2,000. Forgive me for rounding down, I mean no disrespect.
3. Size of Deployment: Again, a no-brainer. People are going to get more fired up when we have 500,000 troops deployed (many non-volunteer) than when we have 133,000 (all volunteer) troops deployed.
Indeed, as you point out, it is too late. Millions took to the streets when there was the perception that we could do something to stop this before it started. We were foolish not to recognize that this war had actually started 15 years ago.
We were foolish to think anything could stop this war train.
Growing opposition to the war is matched with the growing realization that our opinions don't matter. We could take to the streets again, but that won't change anything.
And one last thing: I think it is almost comical how whenever someone one the left tries to compare Vietnam with Iraq, the right cries, "Foul! Apples and Oranges!" But in THIS case the juxtaposition is valid?
Just asking.
1. The Draft: Since this army is 100% volunteer, there are no stories of a completly unwilling 19 year old being sent to his death against his will. (Compared with thousands of such stories in '67 and more every day).
2. Number of Casualties: This is a no-brainer. People are going to get more fired up over 50,000 dead (many non-volunteer) than 2,000. Forgive me for rounding down, I mean no disrespect.
3. Size of Deployment: Again, a no-brainer. People are going to get more fired up when we have 500,000 troops deployed (many non-volunteer) than when we have 133,000 (all volunteer) troops deployed.
Indeed, as you point out, it is too late. Millions took to the streets when there was the perception that we could do something to stop this before it started. We were foolish not to recognize that this war had actually started 15 years ago.
We were foolish to think anything could stop this war train.
Growing opposition to the war is matched with the growing realization that our opinions don't matter. We could take to the streets again, but that won't change anything.
And one last thing: I think it is almost comical how whenever someone one the left tries to compare Vietnam with Iraq, the right cries, "Foul! Apples and Oranges!" But in THIS case the juxtaposition is valid?
Just asking.
All good reasons for the lack of protests here in America. Very perceptive of you. I've compared Iraq to Viet Nam where there was a valid comparison to be made. I think the guys on the right who wish to avoid any comparison do so to nip defeatism in the bud, but perhaps I'm thinking too highly of them. Viet Nam was the down side of having civilian leadership of the Armed Forces; the politicians screwed it up. There was never a batalion sized battle we lost, usually slaughtering the other side. Tet, which a lot of people see as our Stalingrad, was an overwhelming victory for us and the Viet Cong were combat ineffective for the rest of the war, but we lost that war because of the loss of our political will to fight it. Almost all of that loss of will took place here in America. I'm just glad that doesn't appear to be happening yet in the greater war against militant islmicists, of which, I think Iraq is just a front. The bad news is that it only gets harder from here on. Thanks for the comment. I always look forward to reading them.
R,
The comparison of Iraq to Viet Nam is valid in some ways, more and more I think as time passes.
The U.S. involvement in Vietnam was a bad idea. The Japanese,the Chinese, the French, and the United States all involved themselves in a Vietnamese war of self determination, thereby causing me to invoke Vizzini: "Ha, ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famoius of which is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well known is this: Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line."
Well it didn't work out for Vizzini nor did it work out for the U.S.in Vietnam. I am rapidly reaching the conclusion that there are no military solutions to political problems. What I mean is there are no third party military solutions to nationalistic political issues.
Was there ever a scintilla of doubt that we were going to kick the snot out of the conventional Iraqi military forces? We did so in GW I b/f they were badly degraded.
We are now providing security for the Iraqi government, hoping that the governemnet will be able to provide its own security w/in a reasonable period of time. The process in Iraq, however, is becoming more and more political one as opposed to a military one, and is manifestly one of Iraqi self determination. At some point, the United States in its capacity of liberator of Iraq from Saddam will be viewed as occupier of Iraq. Indeed, some Iraqis have always viewed us as such.
You and I hope that when the Iraqi governemnet asks us to leave--they will and we will--that what follows is not a serctarian bloodbath prompting a military coup or an Islamic revolution a la Iran or Afghanistan.
Rog, w/ all due respect, dump the term "MSM." I think the presidents poll numbers are real and the use of "MSM" makes you seem like a conspiracy nut which I know you are not or that you believe in the Bogey Man. Of course, I do believe in the Bogey Man. His name is Rumsfeld and I believe that he has mismanaged the war b/c he has been guilty of drinking his own bath water as opposed to listening to those who did not agree w/ him, like Edward Shinseki.
Let's leave aside the the issue of whether we should have invaded Iraq. I believe that the entire process could have and should have been better managed. The issue isn't whether we could or would kick the snot out the Republican Guard. The issue is should Mr. Rumfeld have known that what happened and what is happening would happen?
I think the answer to that question is "yes," but he didn't.
T
The comparison of Iraq to Viet Nam is valid in some ways, more and more I think as time passes.
The U.S. involvement in Vietnam was a bad idea. The Japanese,the Chinese, the French, and the United States all involved themselves in a Vietnamese war of self determination, thereby causing me to invoke Vizzini: "Ha, ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famoius of which is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well known is this: Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line."
Well it didn't work out for Vizzini nor did it work out for the U.S.in Vietnam. I am rapidly reaching the conclusion that there are no military solutions to political problems. What I mean is there are no third party military solutions to nationalistic political issues.
Was there ever a scintilla of doubt that we were going to kick the snot out of the conventional Iraqi military forces? We did so in GW I b/f they were badly degraded.
We are now providing security for the Iraqi government, hoping that the governemnet will be able to provide its own security w/in a reasonable period of time. The process in Iraq, however, is becoming more and more political one as opposed to a military one, and is manifestly one of Iraqi self determination. At some point, the United States in its capacity of liberator of Iraq from Saddam will be viewed as occupier of Iraq. Indeed, some Iraqis have always viewed us as such.
You and I hope that when the Iraqi governemnet asks us to leave--they will and we will--that what follows is not a serctarian bloodbath prompting a military coup or an Islamic revolution a la Iran or Afghanistan.
Rog, w/ all due respect, dump the term "MSM." I think the presidents poll numbers are real and the use of "MSM" makes you seem like a conspiracy nut which I know you are not or that you believe in the Bogey Man. Of course, I do believe in the Bogey Man. His name is Rumsfeld and I believe that he has mismanaged the war b/c he has been guilty of drinking his own bath water as opposed to listening to those who did not agree w/ him, like Edward Shinseki.
Let's leave aside the the issue of whether we should have invaded Iraq. I believe that the entire process could have and should have been better managed. The issue isn't whether we could or would kick the snot out the Republican Guard. The issue is should Mr. Rumfeld have known that what happened and what is happening would happen?
I think the answer to that question is "yes," but he didn't.
T
# posted by 
: 9:50 AM
: 9:50 AM
Roger,
I agree with you and Tony that comparisons are valid. Tony brings up alot of good points (in fact I generally agree with his entire analysis).
One of the things that is similar is the effectiveness of insurgency. You mentioned Tet, and the fact that here and elsewhere the US kicked butt in major battles. This is true, as in Iraq, and yet had we remained in Vietnam, I imagine that bombs would have continued to go off in Saigon and US troops would continue to get ambushed. Sure, the VC could never acheive a military victory of any size, but we would never be able to root all of them out. Chaos would have continued, American lives would continue to be lost, and in the end, we would be forced to leave.
As Tony points out, military victory was never in question. The question should have always been, "how do we achieve stability." Rumsfeld should have known what would happen afterward. That is his job. I can not believe that he didn't. If a young punk with a bachelor's degree from UC Davis could predict the insurgency, certainly the Secretary of State of the United States should be able to.
When I said in my post that "I'm a better analyst", that was a bit of tounge and cheek. Please, they had to know. If Rumsfeld is really that incompetent, he has no business keeping his job.
Indeed, as Tony says, the question is not whether or not we should have invaded (as that question is moot). What we should be doing is looking at what can be done now to achieve stability.
Clearly, Rumsfeld is either too incompetent to answer this question, or he has a stake in the continuing chaos.
Pick your poison.
I agree with you and Tony that comparisons are valid. Tony brings up alot of good points (in fact I generally agree with his entire analysis).
One of the things that is similar is the effectiveness of insurgency. You mentioned Tet, and the fact that here and elsewhere the US kicked butt in major battles. This is true, as in Iraq, and yet had we remained in Vietnam, I imagine that bombs would have continued to go off in Saigon and US troops would continue to get ambushed. Sure, the VC could never acheive a military victory of any size, but we would never be able to root all of them out. Chaos would have continued, American lives would continue to be lost, and in the end, we would be forced to leave.
As Tony points out, military victory was never in question. The question should have always been, "how do we achieve stability." Rumsfeld should have known what would happen afterward. That is his job. I can not believe that he didn't. If a young punk with a bachelor's degree from UC Davis could predict the insurgency, certainly the Secretary of State of the United States should be able to.
When I said in my post that "I'm a better analyst", that was a bit of tounge and cheek. Please, they had to know. If Rumsfeld is really that incompetent, he has no business keeping his job.
Indeed, as Tony says, the question is not whether or not we should have invaded (as that question is moot). What we should be doing is looking at what can be done now to achieve stability.
Clearly, Rumsfeld is either too incompetent to answer this question, or he has a stake in the continuing chaos.
Pick your poison.
Great comments (and long) and I only have short answers. General Giap (who is still alive, if you can believe it) said that after Tet failed so completely, they thought seriously about giving up the reunification struggle but changed their minds when they watched the growing anti-war movement.
The British waged a bloody, difficult but ultimately successful counter insurgency by Communists in Malaysia. I think the Brits are great soldiers generally but not that much better than we are. Is Malaysia a dictatorship now?
Finally, the acronym MSM invokes in you, Tony, what your mention of Shinseki does to me. I'll stop if yow will. (but you won't like the replacement)
The British waged a bloody, difficult but ultimately successful counter insurgency by Communists in Malaysia. I think the Brits are great soldiers generally but not that much better than we are. Is Malaysia a dictatorship now?
Finally, the acronym MSM invokes in you, Tony, what your mention of Shinseki does to me. I'll stop if yow will. (but you won't like the replacement)
Maybe true with Vietnam, still a factured insurgency such as the one in Iraq will be harder to call off. Who is the General in Iraq? Sadr? Zarqawi? Al-Sistani?
The brits may not be superior soldiers, but they are certainly better at quelling insurgencies having literally hundreds of years of (colonial) experience.
I'm not saying quelling an insurgency is impossible. Just that if you create a vacuum and replace it with foreign troops, any prideful nation will respond with insurgency. It should be predicted, and everyone should know that the fight will be bloody, long, and very expensive.
The brits may not be superior soldiers, but they are certainly better at quelling insurgencies having literally hundreds of years of (colonial) experience.
I'm not saying quelling an insurgency is impossible. Just that if you create a vacuum and replace it with foreign troops, any prideful nation will respond with insurgency. It should be predicted, and everyone should know that the fight will be bloody, long, and very expensive.
The general In Iraq is al-Zarqawi. Yes it will be a long difficult struggle, and the next front may well be much more difficult. But the solution to the al Qaeda attacks on us is to treat them like a war and to take it to the enemy. Long, hard, bloody, costly...but necessary. Treating it like crime, (as Clinton did and John Kerry embraced) is exactly wrong--it is equivalent to a Maginot Line strategy.
R,
Correct me if I ma wrong, but weren't most memebers of the communist insrgency in Malaysia ethnic Chinese and did not this conflict occur during and after the Communiist takeover on the mainland?
No deal. Why are you so down on Edward Shinseki? He disagreed w/ Donald Rumseld do the secretay, like a good pol, cut him off @ the knes by naming his replacement 18 months b/f the general retired.
The one comment I recall you making on this subject was that if we had more troops on the ground, more would be being killed by IEDs.
If we had more troops on the ground when we went in, maybe there would be fewer IEDs b/c we would not have bypassed the ammo dumps which would not have been looted. Maybe we could have prevented the National Museum from being looted. Just a thought here.
Correct me if I ma wrong, but weren't most memebers of the communist insrgency in Malaysia ethnic Chinese and did not this conflict occur during and after the Communiist takeover on the mainland?
No deal. Why are you so down on Edward Shinseki? He disagreed w/ Donald Rumseld do the secretay, like a good pol, cut him off @ the knes by naming his replacement 18 months b/f the general retired.
The one comment I recall you making on this subject was that if we had more troops on the ground, more would be being killed by IEDs.
If we had more troops on the ground when we went in, maybe there would be fewer IEDs b/c we would not have bypassed the ammo dumps which would not have been looted. Maybe we could have prevented the National Museum from being looted. Just a thought here.
# posted by : 10:02 AM
: 10:02 AM
The Malay thing was 1948 to 1960 so it's after the takeover in China. I know there was and is sectarian divide but ethnic Chinese exist in every indo china nation (perhaps in every nation) so I can't say it was strictly an ethnic chinese chinese communist run thing. In fact deep in my rapidly fading memory is some comments about ethnic Malays during this time.
Oh, the museum was "looted" before we got to Baghdad and I think most of the missing items are in the museum now. Not looting I'm familiar with.
And I'm not down on Shinseki, but the only reason your ilk even knows his name (you possibly excepted, as you are so well read) is because he is something you can beat Rumsfeld up with. It wasn't that yuo were the first to mention him in the Rumsfled revenge context but that you were one too many.
Post a Comment
Oh, the museum was "looted" before we got to Baghdad and I think most of the missing items are in the museum now. Not looting I'm familiar with.
And I'm not down on Shinseki, but the only reason your ilk even knows his name (you possibly excepted, as you are so well read) is because he is something you can beat Rumsfeld up with. It wasn't that yuo were the first to mention him in the Rumsfled revenge context but that you were one too many.
<< Home
