Cindy Sheehan has left the building. If it hasn’t already happened, mainstream media coverage of the protest at George W. Bush’s ranch will soon dwindle to the level given missing black women, and we can all quit thinking about dead and wounded Americans and Iraqis.
My friend Dick says democracies can’t fight long wars. I agree with him, but I have to ask: What’s long, and how do you measure it, in duration or deaths?
- We fought in WWII – a “popular” war – from 1941 to 1945, at the cost of 413,000 American lives. Worldwide, between 1937 and 1945, approximately 68 million died in WWII. (link)
- We fought in Korea – a terribly unpopular war – from 1950 to 1953, at the cost of 62,371 American dead and missing. Total dead and missing of all involved nations: 2,500,000. (link)
- We fought in Vietnam – an even more unpopular war – from the mid-1960s to 1975, at the cost of 72,238 American dead and missing. Total dead and missing of all involved nations: over 2,500,000. (link)
- The 1991 Iraq war, Desert Storm, was short, popular, and cheap (for us): less than 500 American deaths. The Iraqis, on the other hand, lost more than 120,000 people, military and civilian. (link)
- The current Iraq war is less and less popular: two years into the invasion 1,863 American troops have died and another 13,877 have been wounded. (link) No one knows how many Iraqis have been killed and wounded; guesses run from 23,580 to 26,705. (link)
But as I said, I agree with my friend, and frankly I’m amazed we stayed with Korea and Vietnam as long as we did, never mind Iraq. Why? Because we have access to information. Although our vaunted free press has in the main uncritically supported the Iraq war, detailed information – the piggy-dirties about the premises under which we went to war, how we planned it, how we’re executing it, and how we’ve botched it – has always been available to any American who wants to learn.
I submit that the more we learn about war – any war – the less likely we are to support it and the more likely we are to oppose it. That’s a consequence of living in a democracy. You can pretty much sum up the pro-war coalition’s criticism of Cindy Sheehan in two words: Shut up!
How long will it be before Rush Limbaugh picks up on the astute recommendations of the Medium Lobster? I can’t resist a short quote:
Given the number of riots, the amount of violence, and the attacks by insurgents that appear to have erupted since the dawn of the war, it’s clear that something has to be done to stop news of the conflict from getting out to crazed terrorists, who, becoming so excitable about the prospect of American torture, might well become livid if they learned of the US’s involvement in preventively invading a muslim country and killing thousands there in a massively botched occupation. . . . The Medium Lobster recommends in the strongest possible terms that no mention be made ever again of the war, its disastrous progress, its inept and incompetent leadership, or the mystifying reasons for which it was launched, ever again – for the sake of national security.
There are those among us – quite a few of them, I suspect – who would equally well say that something has to be done to stop news of the conflict from getting out to the American public.
But we live in a democracy, so that can’t happen.
Dick 08/21/05 10:28 AM
Historically, stress cracks appear and opposition to wars start around three years. The Civil War started in April of 1861 and by 1864, there were riots in New York City. The Spanish American War and WW I were extremely short and remained popular. World War II was unique because of the enemy, but by 1944, stress cracks were appearing in our society. The desertion rate was up, the draft was very unpopular, and the black market was raging.
Much the same happened during the Korean War, and by 1968, public sentiment had turned against the war in Vietnam.
Perhaps the most amazing war we fought was the Revolutionary War. It dragged over six years and by 1781, it is estimated that only one-third of the population supported the war and wanted independence. Victory was a tribute to George Washington’s leadership and he truly gave the majority something they didn’t deserve.
The three year rule is alive and well in Iraq and Cindy Sheehan is part of that process. But that’s another story.
Time is the one thing we don’t have in fighting wars. That’s just the way it is and part of the real politik of conducting wars in a democracy.
Battered Woman 08/22/05 1:22 AM
I’m not arguing for or against the current war but am interested in something Dick! mentioned regarding the Revolutionary war – if only 1/3 of the population supported it, why did it continue and why do we now have our independance? The reason I’m asking is because one would think that politicians would use whatever was used back then and apply to today’s situation in Iraq?
Battered Woman 08/22/05 6:47 AM
Hi Dick,
I’m sorry – I thought you were a different Dick, thus the exclamation mark… just ignore that….
I still want to know the answer to the question though.
thanks,
Battered Woman
Dick 08/22/05 7:53 AM
Good question. By 1781, the population was roughly divided into thirds; one third for independence, one third Royalist, and one third neutral. But a number of things were very different then. First, the third supporting the war tended to be the folks who owned land and paid taxes. Second, most of the leaders supported the war. The Royalists tended to be concentrated in pockets and many left for Canada.
One of the biggies was the existence of the frontier. If someone really got in a dither over the war, they simply packed up and moved west.
Also, communication was slow, unreliable, and, well, primitive. Things moved at a much slower pace then.
Then there was the British and the nature of warfare. Wars were different. Battles were relatively small-scale, far between, set-piece, and few people were involved. Mel Gibson aside, the British did fight a very civilized form of war and few civilians were involved or killed. War changed with Napoleon and our Civil War. Napoleon integrated the army and the nation-state, greatly increasing the scale of warfare. Our Civil War was the first modern war in terms of technology, huge casualties, large scale, and total involvement of the population.
Finally, there was George Washington. The man was a leader and that made all the difference.
I guess the answer to your question is that the lessons of our Revolutionary War are not really transferable to the modern age. Bummer.
A word about the war in Iraq. I guess you can call it a war, but it is very different and is a type of war our military has never fought before, nor was it trained to fight. The old adage that “You train like you intend to fight” should be etched in stone, or at least on the backside of every military/political leader. I suppose the term “Insurgency” works. But the big lesson is we are engaged in a new type of conflict that we are just now learning to deal with. The rules and the way it is fought are different.