Posted on 01/24/2007 3:34:31 PM PST by Publius
For the most part, calls for peace and understanding were met with derision and outright hostility by most Americans.
That response by the American people was squandered by the lack of an effective propaganda campaign by our leaders, IMO.
I wasn't around for Pearl Harbor, but I have a rather massive collection of WWII posters and homefront items. With the Government constantly pounding the message, the business community and even Hollywood followed along.
The scope of this surge of patriotism touched nearly every product category. I have hundreds of pieces of patriotic jewelry; dozens of childrens' toys (Victory rifle, Our WAC Joan paper dolls, Little Army Nurse and Doctor kits to name a few); "Victory" stationery and ink wells; "Victory" waxed paper; even a "Victory" lipstick tube (refillable to save the metal case). I also have dozens of the government-issued posters that appeared in post offices and other public places.
Right after 9-11, I picked up some of the patriotic items that appeared for the first few months after the attack...and then they were gone as the entire feeling of patriotism and resolve just seemed to gradually vanish.
Except for FR, of course!
For the moment, let's put aside the French characterization of Israel as a "shitty little nation."
Throughout the almost 60 years of Israel's existence, Europe has been hostile to it, as has our own Foreign Policy Community. For the Europeans, it's all about oil. Just make Israel disappear, they think, and all the problems of that region will be solved. Oil will flow like wine at a French party -- and cheaply.
Making Israel go away, keeping it under control, or even just shrinking it into insignificance, have all been European goals since the beginning.
Being able to "Name the Enemy" is important; in this case, Naming the enemy, unless you're willing to call it "Islam" or even "Radical Islam" is difficult, and it becomes a "War on Terror" which makes as much sense as calling the war against Japan a "War on Naval Aviation".
But nobody asked me about it at the time :)
It is difficult to argue against any of this hypothesis.
To defeat our enemies I would commit myself to all those ways of WW2 thinking. And I would absolutely drool seeing people like Rosie put in prison for treason!
Depends on just how heinous the attack was.
In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, there were in fact voices that said that Bush had created the attacks himself because the press was about to finish its own Florida recount and show that Gore was the legitimate president. Those voices were restricted to the Internet. No one in the Mainstream Media or Congress took the chance of uttering those words.
Don't count on Kerry or anyone else who understands political expedience taking the enemy's side after a future attack.
I was in NYC on 9/11 and in the months afterward, and the patriotic response was universal. Even the muggers stopped working for a while to join the solidarity. A black woman on the subway, who normally wouldn't deign to speak to a man, let along a white man, told me all about her four sons in the service. People who normally would avoid eye contact were talking to each other.
That lasted for several weeks. Then things started to bog down, while congress refused to pass any security measures unless airport security personnel were all given government appointments, joined the public service union, and agreed to vote Democrat. After a month or so it was back to politics as usual. I suspect if Bush had not been so polite he could have rammed a lot more through then. But not later.
That's why you need to seize the psychological high ground immediately.
Meanwhile, without the forces necessary to occupy the areas we defeat, the terrorists will simply rush back into Iraq, then Iran, then Syria, as we move on to the next stage.
That's not to mention what state we'd be in should China or Russia get uppity. Or what about if the Commies that are on the march again in Central and South America decide the time is right to go after Mexico? Once upon a time, we had a "two and a half war" posture, which we should never have dropped. No, we need a much larger military. Period.
Oh yeah, and we need to get the damn politicians and diplomats out of the way and let slip the dogs of war.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
...it becomes a "War on Terror" which makes as much sense as calling the war against Japan a "War on Naval Aviation".
The two of you have the key. From the beginning the term “War on Terror” made no sense, but we didn’t want to antagonize all Muslims – including our own homegrown Nation of Islam. (Who needs a fifth column at home?) But if you can’t say the enemy’s name, how can you fight him, much less win?
We had quite a bit of propaganda, much of it painfully accurate, as to the mind set of our enemy. But the media began a slow but steady campaign to make the connection to Vietnam, and it worked.
Would the "No Blood for (insert any U.S. strategic objective here)" crowd, the liberal news media and the Democrats demand a cut and run policy any less vehemently for any U.S. war if a declaration of war is on the books?
No.
During the Barbary Wars, a declaration of war was rejected because such a diplomatic courtesy is given only to sovereign nations and not to a bunch of cutthroats such as the Barbary Pirates. A declaration of war would only have inflated their international standing.
A declaration of war against a terrorist organization during a time of armed conflict is the diplomatic equivalent of appointing a U.S. Ambassador to such an organization during the absence of armed conflict.
A declaration of war recognizes your opponent as a sovereign nation worthy of such a diplomatic courtesy. That is why the United States of America never declared war on the Confederate States of America.
You are so, so right.
And we are so, so screwed.
later
>>Unless there was another catastrophic attack on the US with a nation openly declaring war on us, these "WW2" rules would never fly.<<
They would have on Sept 12.
We're not fighting a "War on Terror"
we're fighting a "Minor Incovenience on Terror"
It's time we woke up!
My memories are the same, but with an urban setting. I was in charge of the victory garden we had on school grounds.
WWII worked because evrerybody pitched in.
No nonsense about a 20% saving in oil consumption in 10 years! (to me the most disappointing part of the State of the Union):
What if the President had said: "A car with no passengers is a car with Osama bin Laden inh passenger seat"
You're probably right, at least they would have for awhile. But these kinds of sacrifices are not necessary. We have the ability to wipe out entire countries without the massive use of resources, or soldiers for that matter. It is this ridiculous idea of nation building that is putting a strain on us, not the actual war itself.
Yet we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq – two sovereign nations – and overthrew governments internationally recognized by the UN and other nations. Wouldn’t a declaration of war have been the proper instrument to use?
Would the "No Blood for (insert any U.S. strategic objective here)" crowd, the liberal news media and the Democrats demand a cut and run policy any less vehemently for any U.S. war if a declaration of war is on the books?
Let me ask you this question. When we fought under World War II Rules last time, did any American person, newspaper or radio personality (other than Tokyo Rose) take a stance against the war? If they had, how would they have been treated?
See my point?
But even if you wipe a country off the map, you still need "boots on the ground" to occupy the land. It doesn't matter whether you opt for nation building or ruling the conquered land as a colony, you still need infantry to occupy and control.
Most importantly, you need a nation to back your mission and your soldiers. Even without shared sacrifice, a nation needs to speak with one voice and one mighty resolve. Compare our resolve in World War II (and the means that the government used to achieve it) with our resolve in this war, and you'll see what I'm getting at.
BTTT Many excellent points here, Publius. Many in the US don't take the war seriously when it makes no difference in their day to day lives. And AGAIN we hamper our troops with "rules of engagement." How could we not have learned?
bump for later
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.