Cynical Nation

During the war in Afghanistan, Bush enjoyed 86% approval ratings, including majorities of Democrats. Imagine if Bush had shown the wisdom of his father and allowed the Senate to make a vote on the war right before we were about to go to war, not just push for a resolution that authorized war at a time when war was not necessary. During FDR's day, Americans were very reluctant to enter the European War. Because of this, FDR exhibited great restraint until events proved that war to be absolutely necessary. Bush did not exhibit similar restraint, in my view. Had FDR rushed to war and then the reasons for war proved to be wrong, then the public would have been outraged back then as well.

The press has always been full of cynical snickerers. Go watch "The Front Page" or read newspapers from 20,40,60 years ago. The difference is that the rationale for WWII proved to be correct. Japan and Germany were trying to conquer the world, as well as try to exterminate a religion. Saddam, on the other hand, has not proved to be the international threat that he was presented as in 2002.

FDR reportedly worried about what the American people thought and took time with the "Why We Fight" series to be straight with the American people regarding the threat we faced (and these movies hold up today!) George Bush is on record saying that the decision was totally his and he didn't concern himself with polls.

The difference does start at the top.

I should have said:

Imagine if Bush had shown the wisdom of his father and allowed the Senate to make a vote on the war right before the actual fighting, not just push for a resolution that authorized war at a time when war had not yet proven to be necessary.

Not mentioned often enough (if at all) is how the current counter-insurgency compares to similar conflicts in history. Three that leap immediately to mind are:
* Algeria (1954-1962) - 400,000 peak deployment, French forces;
* Vietnam (1961-1973) - 550,000 peak deployment, US forces;
* Afghanistan (1979-1990) - 680,000 peak deployment, Soviet forces.

What these all have in common is 1) The attempt to overwhelm the insurgency with massive force infusion; 2) All failed miserably and nearly destroyed the governments that prosecuted the conflict.

Here's one that has been almost completely overlooked (except, perhaps, by the estimable Morton Kondrache):
* Philippine Insurgency (1899-1902) 126,000 peak deployment, U.S. forces - A higly controversial war that followed in the wake of the U.S. overthrow of a brutal imperial regime in that country.

President, and Civil War veteran, William McKinley was excoriated for his imperialist adventure -- and for perennially failing to engage sufficient troops and resources.

The U.S. actually faced three different insurgencies in the Philippines: The nationalist, independance war of the culturally dominant Tagalogs on the main, northern island of Luzon; The Visayan uprising of the central islands -- who were more concerned about independance from the Tagalogs of the north; and the Moros (Muslim) uprising (which continued until 1913) centered on the big southern island of Mindanao, who wanted to establish a Caliphate in the islands.

The Americans suffered about 1000 killed in action and another 3000 non-combat deaths. something between 200,000 and 300,000 Filipinos died. The old empires of Europe were appalled at the scale of native losses (but found no cause for introspection regarding their own imperial conduct in Asia, Africa and the Middle east).

In the end, we won that war, and 44 years later oversaw the transition of the Philippines to a sovereign, if troubled nation. It would have happened sooner, but two world wars and a worldwide depression delayed the result that everyone intended. To this day, the Philippines remains one of our truest friends in the Pacific.

So tell me: Which of the four counter-insurgencies described above most closely resembles the current situation in Iraq?

Posted by PE:

I should have said:

Imagine if Bush had shown the wisdom of his father and allowed the Senate to make a vote on the war right before the actual fighting, not just push for a resolution that authorized war at a time when war had not yet proven to be necessary

You seem to forget that Kerry voted against that war as well, PE.