A Question of Patriotism
MichaelW on Jan 19 2007 at 7:15 pm | Filed under: Domestic Politics, Foreign affairs, Media, MichaelW's Page
Via McQ at QandO we see from a recent Fox poll that at least some Americans are rooting against the home team:
19. Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed?
——————————– Yes —- No — (Don’t know)
16-17 Jan 07 ————- 63% — 22 — 15
Democrats ————— 51% — 34 — 15
Republicans ————– 79% — 11 — 10
Independents ———— 63% — 19 — 17
A little over one fifth of Americans would rather see the “surge” fail than succeed. And it’s highly unlikely that the respondents misunderstood the question, since the very next question was “20. How likely do you think it is that the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week will succeed?” How any citizen can wish for the failure of his or her own country is mind-boggling to me. But, should I really be surprised?
In a post deriding what passes for debate about the war, Callimachus poses an interesting question, which I think informs our analysis of the poll answers:
A war and an anti-war driven by a politicized mass media and a media-gaming political class naturally devolves to a place where words and clichés trump realities.
The new SecDef seemingly had to pass only one confirmation test: Use the words “not winning in Iraq” in front of Congress. Anti-war types get all apoplectic over whether Bush calls it a “war” or not. “Stay the course” … “mission accomplished” … “cut and run.” Everybody knows these; what kind of war is it where everybody on the home front can bicker about slogans and no one can name a hero?
Words like “neo-conservative,” “civil war,” WMD,” “democracy,” “treason” inhabit the core of the public discussion about Iraq — and no two people who use them daily can agree on what they mean. Are 20-year-old Sarin gas artillery shells WMDs? Is Dick Cheney a neo-conservative? Is Iran a democracy?
(To be fair, some can name the heroes.)
Militarily we are unbeatable, and as I’ve pointed out before, this war will not be won or lost on the battlefield, it will be won or lost on the airwaves and in the tubes. Because the debate over the war is so focused on political considerations (i.e. winning the war = Bush winning politically; losing the war = Democrats winning politically), it seems that the actually prosecution of the war is a side issue. Winning the war does not seem as terribly important to some as who will be in charge of the government here at home. Because the entire debate about the war (driven by the MSM and media savvy politicos) amounts to little more than finger-pointing and self-righteous prognostication, the actual prosecution of the war — i.e. our victories and our setbacks; our accomplishments and our failures — gets short shrift. Of course, a good share of the blame for this situation falls squarely at the feet of President Bush who, aside from executing a poorly concocted post-war plan, has virtually abdicated the bully pulpit, and has done little to nothing to energize Americans’ support for the war effort. That there are those who wish us to fail in Iraq should then be unsurprising.
By the same token, those who wish us to fail should expect to have their patriotism challenged, and indeed they may want to question it themselves (if you really want us to fail, why are you here?). As should those who place political considerations above our national interests in defeating the insurgency in Iraq, stabilizing the government, and getting into a long stare-down with Iran and Syria. If you are more concerned with your political party winning (or with a hated candidate losing) in the elections than with your country winning in the war, your patriotism is suspect at best. That goes no matter whether you are Republican (11% want us to fail), Democrat (34%) or Independent (19%). Rooting for the US mission to fail because it suits your political druthers indicates that you have no patriotism, and really begs the question as to whether or not you’re an American. I can sympathize with those who merely want us to end the war, those who thought it was a bad idea from the get-go, and even those who just plain old hate Bush. But hoping that your country fails is simply intolerable, and if you really feel that way, then maybe you should just leave.
Technorati Tags: patriotism, questioning, fox poll, surge in Iraq, war in Iraq, GWOT
Sphere: Related Content14 Responses to “A Question of Patriotism”
Trackback URI | Comments RSS
I remember when Glenn Reynods said much the same as you did and caught hell from the Greenwalds and out of touch lefy media people of the blogosphere.
But it’s exactly true, and this poll just goes to show that some people are unpatriotic, what else do you call it when you want America to lose?
I really don’t think there is another term for it, and all the whining from the moral indignation crowd isn’t going to sway me from using it. The bottom line is, if you don’t want your patriotism questioned, stop acting like the enemy.
I’m still a bit in shock over those numbers. I mean, as you and ChrisB have said, what else do you call putting your partisan hate before the good of your country?
I’ll admit to not being at all in favor of Kosovo, and said so. But never once, after we were committed militarily, did I hope (speaking of a “chosen war”) that we’d fail simply because I wanted to see Clinton “shown up”.
I’m at a further loss for words, really.
As I said at your place, I have always felt it was true of a great many. I suspect it is true of a great many people who deny that they themselves feel that way as well (not to mention those who it is true of, but refuse to admit it even to themselves) so the issue is larger than the poll.
That was the subtext of one of my first posts, The Left I Admire and Imagine, which pissed off some people. Heck, it has been the subtext of quite a few posts, but that one was the most explicit.
As with Lance, my views on this matter (and the entire matter of the US at war, period) were expressed at QandO. Regardless of your support for or opposition to the US entering into a war, once the first bullets start flying, it is time to stop questioning whether we should have gone to war or not and start demanding that the Administration provide concise objectives that must be met with the minimum of loss to US forces. Anyone who honestly opposes the war should focus on such arguments, as opposed to the unceasing efforts by some war opponents to convene investigations and impeachment hearings, plus the results of this poll. There is nothing unpatriotic about having opposed the war before the troops hit the ground. There is everything unpatriotic about wishing that the mission will fail.
OK, here goes.
Realistically, whatever happens in Iraq between the moment you read this and the moment the last US serviceman, contractor, and piece of equipment leave Iraq will be spun as a brave victory by the Republicans and an ignoble defeat by the Democrats. This is a given; there will be no Japanese Admiral Surrenders to MacArthur sort of ending to our involvement in Iraq — the situation is now complex and unstable and will be complex and unstable when we leave.
Given that, we need clear and attainable objectives, realistic planning, ample resources, and a fixed (though not necessarily public) timetable to get the hell out. Without a timetable, it will drag on forever (look at Kosovo and Bosnia; those were “strictly limited one-year” engagements).
We are great at blowing things up, pretty good at guarding things we don’t want blown up, and wretched at “nation building”, whatever that might be. Our involvement in Iraq — regardless of the merits of our reasons for invading — is at this point a net liability. We need to reduce our exposure and start realistically dealing with the fallout from our actions there — e.g. increased terrorism risk, since we provided al-Q with a readymade “failed state” to set up in.
If this be unpatriotic, so be it. I would like the “surge” to succeed, for some reasonable meaning of “succeed”, but I see no reason for optimism — and politicians have a very, very long history of throwing lives down ratholes to avoid losing face. I’d rather not see that happen here.
You’re kinda going out of your way to be offended here, Craig. The post is specifically about that 22% who want the mission to fail.
It is exactly this kind of strawman argument, where someone likens themselves to the person whose patriotism is actually being questioned and thus assumes the mantle of “offended one”, that hopelessly confuses the issue and causes unnecessary divisiveness.
Here it is in a nutshell, Craig: If you do not want the “surge” to succeed, then your patriotism is being questioned — in fact, your total lack of any patriotism is being pointed out for all to see. If you do want the “surge” to succeed, then you have nothing to complain about on this issue.
Sure there is: “subversive.”
=P=
[…] With the passage Wednesday of a Senate resolution rebuking the President’s planned “surge,” and the recent revelation that more than one fifth of Americans want that plan to fail, I couldn’t help but recall these inspiring words: In all of history, I know of no war, aggressive or defensive, that was won by a nation that entered it with a plan for how and when the nation would surrender. […]
[…] I am hypocritical about this by the way, and unashamedly so. If a reporter were to go on the Charlie Rose show and give their opinion that there was no chance to accomplish something I would be un-offended. However, should a reporter say that he didn’t want the effort to succeed, the opposite of Mr. Gordon’s view, I would have been offended and suggested Mr. Calame take action. Not because he expressed an opinion, but because some opinions are so disgraceful they should be condemned. Hoping the “surge” fails is one such example. Hoping we succeed is not. I’ll give an example of a personal opinion from another Times reporter, Neil Mcfarquhar, I got from Newsbusters as well: “If you talk to people my age — I’m in my mid-40s — and who grew up in poor countries like Morocco, you know, they will tell you that when they went to school in the mornings, they used to get milk, and they called it Kennedy milk because it was the Americans that sent them milk. And in 40 years, we have gone from Kennedy milk to the Bush administration rushing bombs to this part of the world. And it just erodes and erodes and erodes America’s reputation.†[…]
[…] So here we have two different utterances of opinion, by two different reporters, with two different political bents to their remarks. To his credit, Calame treated both the same, and in fact gave much more attention to the Greenhouse incident than the Gordon one. However, as Lance also noted, there is a much more important distinction to be made: I am hypocritical about this by the way, and unashamedly so. If a reporter were to go on the Charlie Rose show and give their opinion that there was no chance to accomplish something I would be un-offended. However, should a reporter say that he didn’t want the effort to succeed, the opposite of Mr. Gordon’s view, I would have been offended and suggested Mr. Calame take action. Not because he expressed an opinion, but because some opinions are so disgraceful they should be condemned. Hoping the “surge†fails is one such example. Hoping we succeed is not. […]
[…] I’ll give McGovern credit for honesty. Many deny that was their intention to this day, but their actions went way beyond just wanting us out. So it is true today. Many openly root for our defeat, but there are many others who would never claim that is true, who would deny with anger that they want us to fail. Yet, every failing is a chance to show how wrong we are, every piece of evidence is magnified to show we did this under false pretenses, they cheer and enrich Michael Moore, every hopeful sign is treated with disdain. There is no balance, it speaks of a desire for us, or more specifically this administration, to be humiliated, the consequences be damned. Others are at least conflicted. There is perhaps no greater testimony to the celebratory atmosphere that surrounded the Communist victory in Vietnam than the 1975 Academy Awards, which took place on April 8, just three weeks before the South’s final surrender. The award for Best Feature Documentary went to the film Hearts and Minds, a vicious piece of propaganda that assailed American cultural values as well as our effort to assist South Vietnam’s struggle for democracy. The producers, Peter Davis and Bert Schneider [who plays a role in David Horowitz’s story—see page 31], jointly accepted the Oscar. Schneider was frank in his support of the Communists. As he stepped to the mike he commented that “It is ironic that we are here at a time just before Vietnam is about to be liberated.” Then came one of the most stunning—if intentionally forgotten—moments in Hollywood history. As a struggling country many Americans had paid blood and tears to try to preserve was disappearing beneath a tank onslaught, Schneider pulled out a telegram from our enemy, the Vietnamese Communist delegation in Paris, and read aloud its congratulations to his film. Without hesitating, Hollywood’s most powerful people rewarded Schneider’s reading of the telegram with a standing ovation. […]
[…] Another tidbit of fact that undermines the “splinter group” line of reasoning is what was revealed in this poll done in January of this year: 19. Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed? […]
[…] along towards winning this war. Unfortunately, to some, political power is much more important. As I said before: If you are more concerned with your political party winning (or with a hated candidate losing) in […]