Fickle armchair warriors - ("disgraceful, unacceptable;" liberal impugning Bush & war effort!)

Success has many parents; failure is an orphan. That's the kind of fickle armchair opinions offered by some public figures and media commentators who are waffling supporters or critics of our mission in Iraq. Without embarrassment, their speeches and writings bounce around with the day's headlines.

Who cares? They're just a bunch of talking heads anyway. And, with the expansion of choices in media, people are able to choose which ones reinforce their own dispositions. Surveys show that supporters tend to watch Fox, and opponents tend to watch CNN.

The importance is two-fold. First, the larger middle is affected and confused by the waffling. Second, studies have shown that it is the division among leading elites that undermines national security policy.

For example, a good 1999 survey of the literature on public support for American interventions abroad, offers some valuable insights.

(See "Public Support for Peacekeeping in Lebanon and Somalia: Assessing the Casualties Hypothesis," by Demetrios James Caraley at www.ciaonet.org/book/caraley/ch03.html.)

Statistically, it seems that across World War II, Korea and Vietnam, public-opinion support correlated negatively with the length of the engagement and, most closely, with the rising number of casualties. Other factors were far less correlated.

The relevance of this is that many military and political leaders are highly reluctant to engage our military forces, or require quick, surgical strikes if they do. That is a significant limitation on the United States' range of options, and invites opposing forces to adopt strategies that focus on prolonging the engagement and staging high-visibility attacks - even though militarily counterproductive or disliked by the native populace - that discourage U.S. domestic opinion about prospects of success.

There are several significant qualifications to this line of understanding. First, statistics only measure what is measured, so other factors may not be adequately considered. Second, just because two factors correlate, like casualties and public opinion, does not mean they are necessarily causally connected, or that there aren't important intermediary connections necessary.

Caraley strongly suggests that the critical factor missing from the equation is the effect of opinion elites. When fairly united, public opinion is fairly united. When divided, not necessarily immediately but over time, public opinion tends toward division.

In short, major parts of the public have their own strongly held views, virtually unswayable and seeking confirmation from friendly sources, and large parts of the public are less decided or concerned and are more swayable by elite opinions.

When the opinion elites are divided, doubts or confusion rises in this swayable portion of the public. When added to the various costs of engagement, this portion of the public tilts the overall polls negatively. When enraged by atrocities and or offended by direct attacks - domestic or foreign - on our precious national honor or servicepeople, this portion of the public tilts the overall polls positively toward support of the engagement.

They operate in an environment, especially in the leading media and among some of the most liberal members of Congress, that is either unrelentingly opposed to seemingly anything the Bush administration favors, or is woefully uninformed by choice or avoidance from understanding the nature of war and the normal ups-and-downs of progress in any war.

Many of the armchair warriors share this latter ignorance, so are themselves erratically swayed by daily headlines, and are weakened in their own resolve by the liberal tilt of the majority of others in the leading media that surrounds them in New York or Washington.

I engaged in a multiyear study of the origins of the Cold War, what some called World War III. It taking two to tangle, my most important finding was that the firmness and consensus of U.S. resolve and actions developed over time as lessons were painfully learned about the nature of the threat. These lessons were unwelcome, as most Americans prefer other pursuits and do feel somewhat removed from events in other parts of the world.

It's largely similar this time, in what some call World War IV. I doubt any of us relish facing a savage and calculating enemy spread over many countries of origin in the Moslem world. This enemy is relatively new to most and only paid concentrated attention to after 9/11.

Its functional allies within our midst, an extremist alliance of far leftists and radical Islamists, who today combine to support any cause hostile to Western values, sow added hesitancy and confusion.

They ignore literally millions slaughtered and many tens of millions ruthlessly oppressed in Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Sudan and Zimbabwe. They ignore the amazing hypocrisy of U.N. leaders ripping off $1.5 billion from the oil-for-food program in Iraq. They ignore the mind boggling $400 billion, that's right, billion, ripped off by African leaders who demand more Western aid funds for their starving, disease ridden people so they can steal that too. They only delight in impugning America for the exception of panties on the head of a captured enemy at Abu Ghraib or for fiddling with the air conditioning at Guantanamo!

It's disgraceful, and unacceptable, when supposedly more responsible, sane and informed political leaders and media editorialists parrot this imbalance in their comments.

The Cold War was difficult to comprehend at first as most of it varied from our understanding of conventional wars. Similarly, this worldwide war on terror is difficult to adjust to, as it varies from our past experiences.

We've made tremendous progress: 25 million freed, major foes eliminated, terrorist organizations crippled and on the run, emerging formerly repressed voices of democracy and sanity in the Arab world, forging of new political orders that are more benign. We've paid a large price, directly in lives and wealth, and indirectly in the errors that are common to all wars.

But, difficult as it is to accept, we must see and be mature enough to realize that it's only the beginning, and will take many more years of determination.

The luxury of long learning curves is less available today than in 1945 and after. Then, countries far away were directly affected, and events moved less rapidly. Today, the U.S. is directly at risk from homeland attacks, and the pace of events has quickened.

We, ourselves, must become better informed and engaged. We also must demand of our political and media leaders that they learn more and exhibit more consistent spine and integrity in their actions and writings.

Don't be discouraged or deceived. This is still America. Columnists, their editors, politicians, still respond to expressions of opinion, like in personal letters and from groups to which you belong. That's what you can immediately contribute to the war effort.

"They operate in an environment, especially in the leading media and among some of the most liberal members of Congress, that is either unrelentingly opposed to seemingly anything the Bush administration favors, or is woefully uninformed by choice or avoidance from understanding the nature of war and the normal ups-and-downs of progress in any war.

"Many of the armchair warriors share this latter ignorance, so are themselves erratically swayed by daily headlines, and are weakened in their own resolve by the liberal tilt of the majority of others in the leading media that surrounds them in New York or Washington."

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.