Meant to publish this months ago, but never quite got around to it.
According to a report from the Strategic Posture Commission, the United States should prepare itself for simultaneous wars against both Russia and China.
One anonymous official explained how there are serious worries about how Russia and China might be cooperating amongst themselves, forging a potential new alliance which, by implication, may threaten a wider armed conflict.
Here is one quote from the anonymous official in the article about this report from October of last year:
"We worry ... there may be ultimate coordination between them in some way, which gets us to this two-war construct," the official said on condition of anonymity.
Not long ago, during the days of the George W. Bush administration, the United States frankly recklessly entered into simultaneous wars against much weaker nations than China and Russia. You may remember that it did not go so well. We attacked Afghanistan a month after the September 11th attacks, and seemed at first to root out the Taliban regime, which had harbored terrorists, including those responsible for the September 11th terror attacks. Then, before the Taliban had actually been fully removed, and without yet having captured Osama Bin laden, the man most responsible for those attacks, the Bush administration aggressively pined for an invasion of Iraq, largely citing the same justifications, claiming that this was part of the wider "War on Terror." They never outright stated hat Saddam Hussein's Iraq was actually involved in the September 11th attacks, although they used his name, and the country he was head of, so frequently with key words implying terrorism, that a solid majority of Americans believed that Saddam's Iraq had some kind of a role in the attacks. Americans continued to believe this even after the Bush administration and their key political allies conceding that there was no actual evidence of this. Below is a snippet from an article from The Guardian dated just days before the two year anniversary of the September 11th attacks, and nearly six months after Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq in March of 2003:
Seven in 10 Americans continue to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a role in the 11 September 2001 attacks, even though the Bush administration and congressional investigators say they have no evidence of this.
Sixty-nine per cent of Americans said they thought it at least likely that Saddam was involved in the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, according to a Washington Post poll published yesterday.
And we Americans wonder why so much of the rest of the world thinks that we are backwards and dumb, at least when it comes to our collective political thinking?
Americans also believed the claims by the Bush administration - which blamed Tony Blair and Britain for the allegedly faulty information - that Saddam's Iraq had built up an enormous arsenal of weapons of mass destruction (WMD's). Despite this absence of any evidence either of involvement by Saddam's Iraq in the September 11th attacks or of WMD's, we had gone to war, again with a solid majority of Americans (72 percent after Bush's State of the Union address in 2002, and still 66 percent supporting the invasion once it actually began) supporting the war. The Bush administration had promised a quick and decisive victory, with then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly predicting that the war might last days or weeks, but would not last months. Only as the war continued on and on (as it did for the better part of two decades) did this support for the war finally wane. Suddenly, it dawned on us that fighting this war - especially while we were fighting another war that had far clearer links to the September 11th attacks - might not have been the best idea. Of course, the time to consider such things should have been before we committed to war, not after the fact.
So why do I mention this? Didn't the Iraq invasion happen decades ago? What relevance could it possibly have now?
Well, it seems relevant because since World War II, we Americans collectively always seem to be ready to throw support to go fight a war. Many Americans deny this when you outright mention it, or the implications that, far from being a peace loving nation as most American political leaders claim, the country generally seems to like war. In the very beginning of our major involvement in Vietnam in August of 1965, 61 percent of Americans supported the conflict. Those numbers started to wane as the war dragged on and on, and as it seemed to grow worse for Americans. More and more Americans conceded that our involvement there was a mistake, and by May of 1971, only 28 percent of Americans still supported the war in Vietnam.
Lesson learned?
No, not really. When Reagan won the White House, militarism spiked up. There seemed to be a sense that Vietnam had been some sort of an aberration, rather than a warning. It felt like some people hungered for another war, so that we could prove that Vietnam was some sort of a fluke. Movies like the Rambo franchise, as well as Top Gun, Iron Eagle and Red Dawn seemed to reinforce this renewed militarism. In his book "The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism," author and former American Colonel Andrew Bacevich suggested that Reagan's relentless and jingoistic propaganda seemed to convince most Americans of it's nation's military invincibility. When Reagan launched a military invasion of Grenada, he enjoyed "broad popular support for his decision to invade Grenada," according to Time magazine. In 1989, combatting a reputation that he had for some reason obtained as a "wimp," President George H.W. Bush launched an invasion of Panama, which was called "Operation Just Cause." It came to be viewed almost in an almost comical light after Panama's now deposed leader Manuel Noriega hid out in the Vatican embassy, with Americans rooting him out by playing very loud music continuously. Yet, much like with Grenada, Americans very much supported it, and potential criticism of the invasion was stifled because of this enormous public support. According to a 2018 article by Politico on the Panama invasion:
Bush’s reasons for the invasion provided sufficient justification to secure bipartisan congressional support for it. In any event, the speed of the successful invasion, and public support for it — 80 percent of Americans approved — precluded any determined Democratic objections to Bush’s initiative.
Bush Senior was still in power for the next military action, which wound up being the "big one" that many Americans had been waiting for. Saddam Hussein's Iraq invaded Kuwait early in August of 1990, prompting an international (largely led by the United States) response. Was it popular? Did Americans use caution in proceeding with the first major war since Vietnam?
Not so much, no. In fact, not only did a huge majority of Americans support the first Gulf War against Saddam's Iraq, but George H.W. Bush received levels of popularity that few American presidents ever reach. Here is a snippet of an article by David. W. Moore in early 2001:
By the end of the Persian Gulf War, there was widespread public support for U.S. participation in the war and approval of the way President George Bush was handling the situation. In fact, in the wake of the cease-fire, Bush received the highest job approval rating any president has received since Gallup began asking the question in the 1930s, with 89% of Americans indicating their approval and just 8% disapproval. President Harry Truman received his highest rating (87%) in June 1945, right after Germany's surrender in World War II. The only other two presidents to receive approval ratings of at least 80% are Franklin D. Roosevelt , who received his highest rating (84%) in the wake of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and John F. Kennedy, whose highest approval rating (83%) came after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba.
I remember mentioning all of this to a former American girlfriend of mine some years ago. She could not accept my contention that Americans seemed militant. But when I mentioned how widespread public support was for each of these wars - Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Gulf War I and Gulf War II - she fell silent. These numbers don't lie. While popularity for some of these wars waned over time, it only did so once things took an obvious and irrefutable turn for the worst.
It seems that Americans may finally have become a bit war wary for the time being. This is not all that surprising, following not one but two seeming defeats in recent years, with the situation in Iraq having turned bad with ISIS having taken over much of Iraq as we were winding down our involvement there, and with the Taliban having ultimately conquered pretty much all of Afghanistan by the time of our final withdrawal there in 2021. Finally, Americans are recognizing that it might not be a very good idea to throw our weight around militarily anytime that a leader wants us to do that.
So when I see reports like this, which seem to be laying the groundwork for another potential war - and this one would be major, quite possibly, even perhaps likely, a world war - with both China and Russia simultaneously, I cannot help but wonder if Americans can be persuaded to support such a war. It seems to me that in recent years, there is a political divide regarding these two nations in particular. Republicans - particularly Donald Trump and his supporters - seem to demonize China. Democrats seem to demonize Russia.
Behind these hostilities is what now feels like typically reckless American boisterousness. It hardly takes much for Trump to get his supporters to get all worked up when it comes to China. Similarly, it does not take much for Biden to get his supporters all worked up when he demonizes Russia. So yes, there is a militarism there, and I feel justified in worrying about it. Perhaps even the two recent disastrous wars, which so seriously compromised America's reputation the world over, were not enough to dissuade Americans of their faith in what Bacevich described as the perception of America's military invincibility. And it worries me that we seem to be hearing the echoes of the drumbeats of war for yet another possible conflict, this one perhaps bigger than any conflict since at least World War II. I wonder if we yet possess the wisdom collectively to approach such a potentially calamitous conflict seriously and soberly, or if this will be yet another case of diving into a war with a majority supporting it, only to voice regrets well after the fact, just like we did in Vietnam and Iraq.
Below are the links to the articles I used in writing this particular blog entry, including both quotes and specific information, particularly the poll numbers showing support for conflicts:
US must be ready for simultaneous wars with China, Russia, report says By Jonathan Landay October 12, 2023:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us-must-be-ready-simultaneous-wars-with-china-russia-report-says-2023-10-12/
Public Opinion and the Vietnam War
https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/active_learning/explorations/vietnam/vietnam_pubopinion.cfm
Grenada: Getting Back to Normal By Ed Magnuson Monday, Nov. 21, 1983
https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,926318-2,00.html
THIS DAY IN POLITICS United States invades Panama, Dec. 20, 1989 By ANDREW GLASS 12/20/2018:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/20/united-states-invades-panama-1989-1067072
Americans Believe U.S. Participation in Gulf War a Decade Ago Worthwhile by David W. Moore, February 26, 2001:
Small majority favor new war to remove Saddam Hussein from power
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1963/americans-believe-us-participation-gulf-war-decade-ago-worthwhile.aspx
Polls show support for Iraq War drop in 20 years post invasion by Jonathan Lehrfeld Mar 17, 2023:
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2023/03/17/polls-show-support-for-iraq-war-drop-in-20-years-post-invasion/
US public thinks Saddam had role in 9/11 by The Guardian, Sat 6 Sep 2003:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/sep/07/usa.theobserver
No comments:
Post a Comment