posted
I don't even want to get in to the post of mine that Tres drug up from back around the election.
But I do want to say this:
Do you know what the real lesson of Vietnam was?
The real lesson of Vietnam was that it's nearly impossible to fight a war with too many people in the war room.
In the case of Vietnam, the American people had their opinions about everything going on. So since politicians live and die by public opinion, they thought it would be best to start running the war themselves. Moves were not made based on what would be the best thing to bring about victory--moves were made based on what would be the best things--or less bad things--in the polls back home.
In other words, the media created another front that the war was being fought on. A real front that was costing real lives. Energy expended on that front cost progress that could have been made on the other front. Progress that could have ended the war faster and got everybody back home.
We've never learned how to execute a long-term war effectively since.
We can do fine in the short term, rally everybody up, get in, get out, get your week in the news cycle, you're done. Much more than that, though, and we're headed into trouble.
The pressure's on to call the war finished before it really is, so that your detractors will shut up. The pressure's on to put less emphasis on important targets than you could, to make what's happening seem less dramatic.
The other side's learned these lessons well. They've learned that as long as they provide a body count each day, the number will make it into the US papers. That to some people, deaths are all that matter, they don't want to have to bother with the rationale or justifications behind them.
And so public opinion is based off of what soundbite they caught or pundit they listened to or which first four paragraphs of an article got read.
Or, more commonly, what letter is in parenthasis after the name of the person speaking. _______________________________________
So here are my suggestions for what both sides can do to bring about victory.
First, the people who back the war should stop saying things like "unforseeable" and "unpredictable." The fact is, this stuff happened.
You also need to stop simply telling people that their dissent is dangerous to the war. While that's true--both in context of my two-front theory above and in how it emboldens the terrorists--people are perfectly willing to sabatoge a war they find unjust. You've got to sell them on the war being just, period. They will stop dissenting when they stop feeling a need to dissent.
If you don't have the right ideas, you've got nothing.
And you also need to start pushing for what is really needed--for the Administration to stop pulling it's punches in dealing with the terrorists. To stop making so many decisions for PR reasons, and concentrate on the Iraqi front.
Second, those who are worried about our image in the world--spend some of the energies that you're spending talking about how the President is ruining our image in the world promoting and publicizing those groups and organizations you feel will present a better face to the world.
While you're linking to pictures of dead soldiers, link to organizations and groups that will bring aid and comfort to the Iraqi people, so that Iraqis can see us as someone besides just guys with guns. So they can see us as being sensitive and caring, so they can see us as being more useful and helpful than the insurgents.
Chances are people from both sides of the aisle could rally behind those kinds of things, if we were looking for common ground instead of mud to fling.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
