Poll Tacks
Zogby, whose reliability I find to be hit-or-miss to the extent I pay attention to it, has conducted a new poll that shows substantial majorities in favor of pulling out of Iraq either immediately or within a year – substantial majorities of troops, according to Editor & Publisher’s gloss of a Nicholas Kristof column. (See also: Stars & Stripes.) Tom Knapp suggests possible reactions to the information by the nation’s remaining war supporters, but I’m not sure he isn’t overthinking it:
- The War Party diehards will publicly stomp on their own cranks as they usually do, but this time really hard. Look for them to blame the troops and start whining about how Patton wouldn’t have given up and how all the boys and girls in uniform are just a bunch of disloyal wusses if they can’t or won’t make William Kristol’s wet dreams come true and buy him a pony as well.
I think they have a much easier time squaring the circle than he suggests. It’s a simple matter of saying, “Soldiers have always grumbled; it’s what they do. Now they can grumble to pollsters. American soldiers in particular have a glorious history of grumbling through every one of the nation’s successful wars.” We’re two weeks off a lengthy peroration from Victor Davis Hanson about how the Spartans grumbled the whole time they were standing shoulder-to-shoulder at Thermopylae. Actually, we saw that kind of thing beginning in 2003 when soldiers first started complaining about extended TDYs and stop loss.
My other concern is that hawks aren’t alone in feeling needy about their relationship with the military. “Support the Troops Bring Them Home” rhetoric mirrors the “Support the Troops AND THEIR MISSION” campaigns from the “other side.” I think home is the best place for the troops, for their sake and the country’s, but I can’t fool myself that any particular soldier will be grateful I feel that way. I was for peace when, as best we can tell, most of the actual uniformed military was pro-war. It didn’t feel good that I was at odds with most of our soldiers, but it didn’t stop me either.
Now I agree that hawkish “support” for the troops has been for the most part narcissistic, sentimental and cloying, not unlike England’s famous “Little Mother” of WWI, about whom Arthur Silber wrote the other day. I’ll enjoy seeing prowar hypocrisy wriggling on this new pin as much as anyone. The collapse of support for the war within the armed forces is an important measure of our failure. But we doves shouldn’t get too cozy about it. I’m not talking about Thomas and Arthur here. I’m talking about me.
Comment by John Emerson —
March 1, 2006 @ 7:28 am
The ”Support the Troops” rhetoric is one of the reasons that my political commentary consists mostly of cursing and venting. My niece and her husband would be at risk of being sent over if Bush still dared, and they have a toddler. It’s been a nightmare for my sister and I. ”Supporting the troops” for us would consist of raising the toddler for the duration, or permanently, and we don’t want to do that at all.
Traditionally in Europe the lowest-ranking troops were regarded as disposable units of human trash, only barely tolerable because they were doing a necessary job. (”Rum, Sodomy and the Lash”). The American citizen-soldier tradition was different, but it didn’t survive Vietnam.
V.D. Hansen would like to define the military as the citizenry and have non-veterans step aside, but even conservatives think that he’s a bit ”off”.
”Support the Troops” is like hostage-taking: ”You wouldn’t want us to have your son killed for nothing, would you, Mrs. Jones? So why don’t you tell yourself that this is all worthwhile?””
My niece and her husband do not agree with me on this, but there are a lot of problems with the way they think about a lot of things.
Comment by chuckles —
March 1, 2006 @ 11:36 am
A Zogby poll is less than worthless.
Need I remind you that Zogby called North and South Carolina for Kerry on Election Day?
Comment by Gary Farber —
March 1, 2006 @ 1:16 pm
Poll results here.
Naturally, the ”85% said the U.S. mission is mainly ’to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,’” part is a bit disturbing.
”â€Support the Troops†is like hostage-taking….”
Assuming we have an all volunteer hostage force, sure.
”The American citizen-soldier tradition was different, but it didn’t survive Vietnam.”
Could you explain how the draft era relates to today, save in that the Vietnam era eliminated the draft? You can’t be implying that the draft started in the Vietnam era, since of course it didn’t, but Vietnam did end the draft. Or are you saying that we only had citizen-soldiers when we had a draft, and that was a good thing? I’m not at all clear what your points are, John. My sympathies to your family, of course.
Okay, hit ”preview” three times, and all that’s happening is my comment is vanishing.
Ah. That seems to be because when I fixed ”bracket i end-bracket” to ”em,” I typoed it to ”am.”
Comment by John Emerson —
March 1, 2006 @ 2:12 pm
Yeah, with the draft everybody was potentially a soldier, and military service was everyone’s duty. Citizenship and military service weren’t quite identical, even for men, but they were very closely related.
Now we have a professional army, and war is their business. Large demographics wouldn’t think of serving, and the military is an interest group. Plenty of war supporters (Andrew Sullivan for one) basically say ”They signed up, it’s their job, that’s their problem.”
And a lot of people close to the troops end up being bullied with ”How can you oppose George Bush when your son is willing to die for him? Do you reject your son — who might be killed any day now?” And the son may never have expected or wanted to go to war; maybe he was just gambling on Guard service in order to get the benefits.
So a creepy piece of shit like George W Bush gets a free ride because people are terrified for their son’s life.
Comment by Robby K. —
March 1, 2006 @ 3:33 pm
As far as the relationship between VDH and reality goes, he did write a book about how the Peloponnesian War was not as bad as we make it out to be. Isn’t that like writing a book saying that all that radiation was more helpful for Nagasaki and Hiroshima than people think?
Comment by Kn@ppster —
March 1, 2006 @ 4:02 pm
Well, yes, troops grumble. But there’s a substantive difference between soldiers’ grumblings and an expressed opinion of the mission.
When my unit shipped out in 1990, we grumbled about everything — the weather, the chow, the chain of command, the living conditions, the transport, some tactical approaches … everything except the overall mission (if any of us grumbled about that it was 1 in 50, not 70 in 100).
Of course, that particular war’s darkest moments were mostly before it actually started due to a pretty comical over-estimation of the enemy’s capabilities (quote from memory: ”Look to your left; look to your right; those two guys will be coming back in bags, but not to worry — after you bag’em, you will be, too”).
Even later, when you heard troops bitching that they wanted to come home, it was because they felt like the mission was accomplished and they were tired of cold showers and sand in their boots. The poll indicates that these troops don’t regard the mission as accomplished or possible to accomplish.
I’m sure you’re right that the chickenhawks will portray this as ”warrior grumbling,” but that characterization doesn’t ring true. 100% of Marines will bitch about pretty much everything. 58% won’t say the mission is FUBAR unless their actual, informed opinion is that the mission is FUBAR.
Comment by Jaybird —
March 1, 2006 @ 4:32 pm
I don’t know that the attitude of the SUPPORT OUR TROOPS BUY THEM BULLETS people will necessarily be that we should stay over there ”until the job is done”.
They’re more likely to say ”We tried what we could but the damned Ay-rabs liked the ’insurgents’ more than they liked freedom. They deserve each other.”
Then they’ll call for victory to be declared and the troops can come home.
And we’ll go isolationist. (That’s how I’d bet, anyway)
Comment by Jim Henley —
March 1, 2006 @ 7:05 pm
Thomas: Oh I agree. I’m not saying their rationalization will be legitimate. Only that it’s there for them to make.
Jaybird: You’re just trying to cheer me up!
Comment by diana —
March 1, 2006 @ 8:14 pm
VDH is fun. He manages to avoid 30 years of scholarship about Greek sexuality and claims that the Greeks are just like us. I don’t understand what his rep is based on. Oh yes, I do.
Comment by John Emerson —
March 1, 2006 @ 9:58 pm
Oddly, I like VDH’s writing about military history. But the signs of nuttiness were there from the start.
Comment by MQ —
March 1, 2006 @ 10:18 pm
Oh, come on, Jim, have you read VDH’s latest piece of military history junk about the Peloponesian War and how it somehow justifies our Iraq misadventure? Check out this review –
http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_12_19/review1.html
Comment by tequila —
March 2, 2006 @ 5:49 pm
VDH has contributed in a valuable way to our understanding of Greek hoplite warfare and he can turn out polemics like no one’s business. But few historians could get away with allowing their biases to so transparently infect their writings. A good example is his chapter on the Boeotians and Epaminondas in SOUL OF BATTLE, where he castigates Athens as a pack of effete urban liberals blackmailed by an urban mercenary underclass, while essentially proclaiming Boeotia as the true homeland of democracy because of its comparatively agricultural economy. He even includes whole sections about how Athenian artistic elites looked down on Boeotian hicks. The relationship to Hanson’s own farm upbringing in Fresno is downright embarassing – political fanfiction as history.
Comment by Hesiod —
March 3, 2006 @ 12:03 am
The Spartans also institutionalized Nambla style buggery as a means to train and enforce ”comraderie” among their hoplites.
And, at least the Spartans actually fought and died at Thermopylae. Unlike Victor Davis Hanson and his war.
BTW, do I get royalties for ”Poll tacks?”
Comment by Hesiod —
March 3, 2006 @ 12:06 am
As far as the relationship between VDH and reality goes, he did write a book about how the Peloponnesian War was not as bad as we make it out to be.
Based on what evidence? Our only two sources are Thuycidides and Xenophon. And they both say it was really bad. In particular, the Athenian Sicilian expedition was Napoleon retreating from Moscow bad.
Comment by Hesiod —
March 3, 2006 @ 12:13 am
Oddly enough, as I study them, I have far more respect for the Romans than the Greeks as a civic culture. In Rome, women were treated far better. They had rights their Greek counterparts didn’t have. And, by the middle Republican period, Rome had a functioning civil society that actually did a better job protecting individual rights than the Greeks did.
The Romans get a rep for being brutal and warmongering, but who the hell wasn’t in that period? Compared to Alexander and his generals, the Romans actually had relatively honest motives for their actions early on.
And, oddly enough, the Perian Empire was probably the most humane of all of them. It was a damn shame Alexander raped it.
Comment by John Emerson —
March 3, 2006 @ 11:36 am
One of VDH’s biases is toward hand to hand combat, as opposed to cavalry raids, archers, and peltists (slingers). Projectiles from a distance and sudden raids can win wars, but they don’t have the existential-political oomph.
Likewise, universal military service creates a national bond that a professional army can’t.
This works for the Athenians, but not us. Much of our firepower is long-distance projectiles, and many of our forces rely on surprise and suddennness (like Mongol cavalry).