Some of us wish that rational argument, cogent evidence, and humane sentiment would persuade a preponderance of the public to demand an end to the war. History suggests, however, that only personal grief and economic pain will induce the American public to act against their perfidious leaders.
On October 19, 2001, in speaking about the new government controls and heightened surveillance already being clamped on the American people in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Vice President Dick Cheney said that the new war “may never end. At least not in our lifetime. . . The way I think of it is, it’s a new normalcy.” We should have taken his grim forecast more seriously.
The U.S. attack on and occupation of Iraq, represented by the Bush administration as a critical element in the larger Global War on Terror, began nearly five years ago, and it shows no signs of ending soon. Indeed, if John McCain is elected president and (with help from his successors) carries out the not-so-veiled threat to keep U.S. troops in Iraq for a hundred years, then we can confidently expect that the war will not end in our lifetime. Such a prospect is so seemingly preposterous, however, that one’s mind does not readily assimilate it.
It is difficult enough to absorb the reality that the United States has now been at war against the Iraqis for almost five years. An engagement sold to the public as a “cakewalk” and represented just six weeks after it began as a “mission accomplished” has now (as I write) continued for 1,760 days. Compare this duration with the time the United States was formally engaged in World War I (589 days) or World War II (1,365 days). In the 1940s, the U.S. forces (with important allies, to be sure) defeated two major economic and military powers in a globe-circling war in less time than the U.S. forces have been engaged in Iraq.
And after all this time, where does the U.S. venture stand? Evidently it is no closer to the “victory” the President has repeatedly said he seeks than it was immediately after the occupation began. The 901 U.S. troops who lost their lives in Iraq during 2007 were the largest number in any calendar year since the war began. As 2008 begins, we read reports of a U.S. air strike on the outskirts of Baghdad in which B-1 bombers and F-16 fighters dropped 40,000 pounds of explosives, an attack described by Major Alayne Conway as “one of the largest airstrikes since the onset of the war.” The attack came only a day after six U.S. soldiers participating in a major ground offensive were reported killed in the “biggest one-day loss in Iraq since May.” These events do not epitomize minor “mopping up” activities. The war obviously has no end in sight.
Notwithstanding these inauspicious developments and Senator McCain’s bizarre pronouncement, we might well think in a more focused way about what will ultimately bring the war to an end, because it almost certainly will end someday. Given its nature, it cannot be ended as each of the world wars was ended, by the formal capitulation of an enemy state. Loosely organized insurgents and guerrillas do not stop fighting in that fashion. In view of the particulars on the ground in Iraq, it would seem that no complete cessation of armed hostilities can occur there until the United States withdraws its military forces. So the question becomes: What will induce a future U.S. president or a future U.S. Congress to act decisively to bring the troops home?
In the abstract, the answer is easy: U.S. authorities will extract their occupation force when they perceive that doing so is in their interest. Note well that I said, “in their interest.” Whether a U.S. withdrawal serves my interest, or yours, or that of 95 percent of the American people is not necessarily important, because government leaders do not act to serve other people’s interests. Anyone who has advanced beyond infancy in his understanding of political affairs knows that despite all the dutiful claptrap that political leaders and their functionaries spout in public, they invariably pursue their own interests. Those interests may be material, political, institutional, or ideological, but in any event they are their own interests, not yours or mine.
It follows directly that up to this point the continued prosecution of the war has served the leaders’ interests. They may say they are trying to end the war. They may have secured their election or reelection, as many of the Democrats now serving in Congress have, by promising to do whatever they can to end the war. Yet the truth is that they’ve sold the public a bill of goods. When the leaders have considered all the personal consequences they expect to follow from acting to end the war, they have concluded that, all things being considered, doing so does not serve their interest, and therefore they have refrained from doing so.
After all, it’s not as though the U.S. war effort has a mind of its own. Whenever the President wants to remove the troops, he can do so; he has the power. Whenever the members of the majority in Congress want to remove the troops, by stopping the funding to support them there, they can do so; they have the power. The posture of powerlessness that our leaders often affect ― my goodness, what can I do? my hands are tied ― is a disingenuous pose. They can stop the U.S. engagement in the war whenever they want to do so. Thus far, they simply have not wanted to do so.
What might cause them to reach a new conclusion about what serves their personal interest? Several developments might turn the trick. Nearly all of them work by heightening the public’s anger with their leaders’ decisions.
Historically, the decisive development in similar instances has been the cumulation of public costs, especially the costs in life and limb. In both the Korean War and the Vietnam War, the public’s disfavor of the engagement closely tracked the cumulation of casualties. As political scientist John Mueller showed in his book War, Presidents, and Public Opinion, “every time American casualties increased by a factor of 10, support for the war dropped by about 15 percentage points” in the polls.
One reason the public has continued to tolerate their leaders’ continued prosecution of the war in Iraq is that the casualties have not been nearly so great, by an order of magnitude, as they were in Korea and Vietnam. So far, not quite 4,000 U.S. military personnel have been killed in Iraq. That’s only one death for every 75,000 persons living in the United States, and therefore the loss of life has not cut deeply into the public psyche ― most Americans have not been personally acquainted with anyone killed in the war. (The vastly greater loss of Iraqi lives seems to have made even less impression.) Sad to say, the public may not turn decisively against their leaders’ continued prosecution of the war until many more American soldiers have died.
Economic costs have also mounted, and they have loomed relatively much larger in this war than in the earlier wars in Korea and Vietnam. Who says the military leaders never learn? They’ve certainly learned how to increase hugely the financial costs of fighting a war. Estimates of the costs to date vary widely, depending on how one accounts for various joint, indirect, and implied costs, but a total cost to date in the neighborhood of a trillion dollars is not implausible, and later costs, including those associated with decades of care for the war’s legions of physically and mentally disabled, will add enormously to the total.
In earlier wars, even though the costs were relatively greater in blood than in dollars, the public eventually wearied of the economic sacrifices entailed by the financial expenses of continued fighting. Economist Hugh Mosley concluded that the Johnson administration “was reluctant to resort to increased taxes to finance the war for fear of losing public support for its policy of military escalation.” Historian Stephen Ambrose wrote that President Richard Nixon “realized that for economic reasons (the war was simply costing too much) and for the sake of domestic peace and tranquility he had to cut back on the American commitment to Vietnam;” the retrenchment was “forced on [him] by public opinion.”
As the recession that has just begun deepens, the public may well object more strenuously to the government’s squandering of such vast amounts of tax money on a senseless continuation of the war in Iraq. When their purses are not so full, people may resent every additional dollar spent on the war more than they did previously. Ultimately, they may become so angry that they will take actions to punish severely the political leaders who continue to support the war. Serious political challengers may attract a mass following by embracing the example of Dwight D. Eisenhower, who promised in the 1952 campaign to end the enormously unpopular war in Korea and, after he took office, kept his promise expeditiously.
When substantial negative feedback begins to jeopardize the personal job security, not to speak of the respect and fawning, the electorate affords incumbents, they will begin to take notice, and to discount more heavily the contributions from defense contractors, big financial establishments, petrochemical companies, and other high rollers who have encouraged them to stay the hopeless course ― though not hopeless for these special interests, of course; for them it has been a bonanza. George W. Bush parlayed a campaign of fear-mongering into his reelection in 2004, but unless another major terrorist attack occurs in the United States, the public will grow increasingly resistant to such appeals and more eager to throw the rascals out as the war’s costs continue to mount.
It is extremely unfortunate that escalating costs in blood and money are the only proven means of bringing the general public to resist strongly their political leaders who are committed to a continuation of unnecessary, unwise, and immoral war. Some of us wish that rational argument, cogent evidence, and humane sentiment would persuade a preponderance of the public to demand an end to the war. History suggests, however, that only personal grief and economic pain will induce the American public to act against their perfidious leaders. Needless to say, if the public remains as passive and as easily bamboozled as it has been during the past seven years, the war will continue, maybe even for the hundred years in which Senator McCain declares that a U.S. occupation of Iraq would be “fine with me.”
rhiggs@independent.org
http://www.independent.org/review.html
Read more articles by Robert Higgs
Interesting, the author is certainly aware that he has intentionally ignored the obvious, that he is comparing apples to oranges, yet publishes anyway. Probably hoping that readers won’t catch on. Hmmm…
He quickly hangs his hat on the length of time from beginning to the end of activities in WW I and WW II, claiming we have been in Iraq far longer. True. But where are the sheer numbers of casualties? Particularly, WW II. I suppose the administration could have done as we did then, expend hundreds of thousands of US soldiers’ lives and limbs to utterly destroy the cities and towns of Iraq and a few million people too. That way no one is left with the will to fight. And there is nothing left to fight for either. That’s how it used be done. But you wouldn’t know if from this article. In past wars civilians didn’t die just from errant bombs from the sky missing their intended targets; anyone in the way of advancing infantries were typically shot, didn’t matter who they were. But for the most part, that’s not how the war in Iraq has been conducted. Instead, more resources /money were spent on tactical methods, to save more lives, particularly American lives. The effort during this “lengthy” engagement has cost approximately 4,000 US military lives, and none of them drafted. Does the author know how many US men died at Normandy? Iwo Jima? He vaguely points out the casualty’s haven’t been so great, but he intentionally doesn’t print the numbers, as he does when citing length of duration by days. He then moves on to costs. We should leave now because it too costly. Huh. We didn’t leave Germany, or Japan, or the 38th Parallel and others. There must have been vast US interest in maintaining troops in those places for a generation as well. What about NATO? No mention of the US budget for that one either. Or the fact that we are just now beginning to announce major base closures in Europe, some 60 years later. Oops.
Oil is the lifeblood of the US. And the sky is blue. Unfortunately, the majority of it comes from the Middle East. There is no need to be naïve about that. Cheney is right, not in our lifetime will American military forces leave Iraq. Regardless of which political party has presidential authority. It would be folly to do so. The cost, in American lives to be there, right now, and in the future will end up being the future bargain equivalent to the Alaskan purchase. Leave Iraq? Find an alternative to oil.
Comment by Riverhound | January 21, 2008
That's right Riverhound
1,365 days my ass! By my calculation it's been 24,151 days because we are still in Germany! Besides the war dead in Iraq, reported by the MSM, includes traffic accidents and other miscellaneous causes such as heart attacks. By that measure General George Patten was a WWII casualty.
Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | January 21, 2008
Riverhound, I am curious as to how to the war in Iraq, something on its own I have no problem with, actually helps our precarious situation with ME oil ?
As a military professional I can tell you history will not be too kind to either or CinC, his men or the continual procession of Centcom CCs who have failed miserably in the post war occupation strategy of both Iraq and Afghanistan. Politically you might say having a warm lilly pad next to Iran is smart, but we don't have that. We have a simmering cauldron of chaos brewing where we once didn't have it. Waiting for Saddam to simply croak would have been no less risky considering not even the military put terrorism from Iraq as a threat at any time before 911 and immediately afterwards. Before 911 we had a nice huge air base in Saudi to use and a large army presence in Kuwait. So really all the invasion and poorly thought out post op occupation did was to stir up a mess we really didn't need and cannot afford to deal with now. People forget how much deniro is literally sucked out of our economy daily to pay for this debacle. Something all the more apparent given the rapid fall our economy is experiencing. The Republicans and Bush have no one to blame but themselves really and probably will now pay for the debacle at the polls. We now have speculators running up the price of barrels of oil precisely because of the poor strategy the US has followed in removing Saddam and the resulting chaos and uncertainty and the rapidly failing situation in Afghanistan. No we cannot forget that now that country is under constant barrage from the taliban and AQ because of our misguided poorly thought out attempt for revenge in Iraq. While its easy to monday morning QB those men at the top are paid too much tax money, have too much intel. available to literally not see the future and make it what they need it to be to be allowed to screw up like they have.
Comment by Dean | January 22, 2008
My questions are: When do we say that the war is won? Who will the signators of the articles of surrender be? As I have reassessed my support for the war in Iraq, I have had to analyze the purpose that drove us to that particular country. 1) WMDs…Yes some have been found and intelligence has determined that the arsenal was relocated to neighboring allies of Saddam (Syria and Jordan). 2) Removing the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein…that was accomplished in record style within four months. 3) Changing the bathist regime…Again, accomplished in record style within six months.
Now, back to my original questions. Based on the objectives our President stated to the American people, I think the argument can be made that the war was undeniably won after the capture of Saddam, the elimination of his sons, and the capture and subsequent trail and conviction of all those who held a position in that brutal regime. So, now that leaves question number 2, who will sign the articles of surrender? Saddam is dead. The current Iraqi government should not acquiesce to surrender their now legitimate and sovereign government.
Our troops can come home today under the banner of victory and can stand in honor for their brave and courageous efforts in fostering the environment for a free society that has not seen freedom in over 20 years. Right now they are nothing more than policemen in a country that needs to learn to stand on their own.
Comment by ConservativePhrog | January 24, 2008
What a disappointing column. So many of the platitudes that pass for probing thought by Mr. Higgs offer no insight into the challenges in Iraq now, nor the unique battle we are fighting there and around the world against a stateless enemy bent on sowing deadly discord inspired by Wahhibist Islam. I get the sense that while our civilian and military leaders are pondering moves on the chess board, Mr. Higgs is playing checkers.
I won't go through all of his points, they have all been dismissed time and again over the last 4 years, and I can't bear the thought of spending more time deconstructing the obfuscation so common on this emotional issue. I'll simply stick to his main concern. He laments the days we have spent in Iraq, in a war against Iraqis, after declaring "Mission Accomplished". He sees in our leaders an unwillingness to abandon Iraq that translates into evidence of darker motives, and offers as proof of said evil the fact that surrender is a political winner, why not take it?.
The resumption of the first Gulf War on March 19, 2003 ended three weeks later when coalition forces achieved movement "at will". The Iraqi government collapsed, what then transpired was the next phase in Iraq - rebuilding it. The Bush administration, contrary to the left's mantra that there was no plan after the invasion, had concrete ideas on what they would do. That their plans were mistaken, or whether Paul Bremer actually succeeded only in transforming what was a campaign of liberation into one of occupation, is a fascinating debate we will be having for years to come. But my point stands - the war was over, what we are in now is in a political and economic rebuilding effort, complicated by opportunistic attacks by insurgents within and without Iraq that rightfully see great reward in gaining control of the oil fields of Iraq. I won't get into a discussion of the power vacuum that invited terrorists abroad to join the ones already residing within Iraq before the invasion, other than to say there has never been a war that went according to plan. The dire situation in Iraq, whether of our making or not, necessitates an answer to one question: Our job of deposing Saddam done, should we leave?
The tally of days spent in Iraq grow because the consequences of abandoning Iraq will predictably result in a situation where we might find ourselves revisiting the Middle East after another terrible calamity on our soil financed by oil revenues from Iraq enjoyed by the new overlords of that country Al Qaeda. It's foolish to wax conspiratorial about neo-con war plans and the capitalistic thirst for profit because that doesn't recognize or address what we are to do NOW. Here, in the real world, ugly questions arise and commiserating with Mr. Higgs answers none of them responsibly. Surrender in Iraq because we should never have been there assuages none of the concerns that those in positions of responsibility must address.
As mentioned before, the 1763 days Mr. Higgs cites represent more than the war, they represent the battle not against Iraqis, but with them against encroaching ideologies. To me, that number represents more America's dedication, generosity and, as shown by General Patraeus, our ability to replan our approach to ongoing terrorist violence (with great success, I might add) than it does a confirmation of George Bush's greed and wanton disregard for life and sovereignty. As a conservative, naturally I am jealous of the blood of our military men and women, and I don’t like the idea of them fighting for the freedom of Iraqis who ought to be fighting for it themselves. But we are there now. We should finish the job, learn from our mistakes, and begin now to work ourselves free of dependence on foreign oil.
Comment by Evrviglnt | January 24, 2008
What the US should resist more fiercely than Islamofascism is UN and EU hegemony. It is in our short-, medium-, and long-term strategic interest to do so. Hence, we must stay in Iraq until the job is finished.
Merkel does not support further Iranian sanctions because said sanctions would damage Germany's commercial dealings with Iran. Let’s call this latest toxic ‘ism’ that Germany spawned “Commercialism”. (Sorry, I’m not well-enough read to use the proper nomenclature — if, indeed, there is any). Add this ‘ism’ to the long list of ‘isms’ that Europe has foisted on the world: Anti-Semitism, Arianism, Bolshevism, Bonapartism, Caesarism, Collectivism, Communism, Czarism, Ecclesiasticism, Fabianism, Fascism, Feudalism, Gaullism, Imperialism, Leninism, Machiavellianism, Moral Relativism, National Socialism, Postmodernism, Stalinism, Totalitarianism, & Vaticanism (There may [must?] be others).
Europe would have been happy to have applied Commercialism to Saddam’s Iraq. As a result, according to the last official Senate report on our pre-war intelligence breakdown, Saddam would be pursuing the bomb since Iran is pursing it. But, Europe’s overall GDP would be more robust due to the billions or tens of billions in trade with Saddam’s Iraq that Commercialism would have added to it. In the midst of all this trade would have been German nuclear technology. After all, trade is trade, isn’t it?
For every month of his 25-year reign, Saddam killed approximately 1,000 Iraqis per month. The ethos of Commercialism says nothing about the internal affairs of those countries that Commercialism effects except perhaps improving the financial fortunes of German casket makers.
Commercialism is realpolitick on steroids. It presumes that commercial dealings with an autocratic nation-state will sooner or later spawn a political democracy. After all, it worked in Europe. Europe tamed the German tiger by so interweaving the economies of European nations that German could never again involve Europe in war.
This peculiar self-centered worldview has been Europe’s assumption for millenia. Europeans presume that Europe’s solutions should be the world’s solution. This eurocentric hubris is what our invasion of Iraq confronts. More than Islamofascism, European Commercialism, aided and abetted by its UN partners, is a toxic ‘ism’ more dangerous than Islamofascism.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | January 26, 2008