Rooting for Your Team:
I just had another thought about citizen involvement in the GWOT. Many have long contended that organized sports is an emotional substitute for warfare. Consider how involved fans become with their teams. They even buy at great expense "official" clothing and wear it to show their support. Teams cultivate their fans, at least smart ones do.
However, unlike WWII, with this real war, no such "official" involvement exists. And given press coverage of the war, you cannot even stay reliably informed of its progress — unless you follow blogs, of course, but that is a highly niche audience. The only box score you get is how many soldiers and Iraqi civilians have been blown to bits each day. This is like following a team by reading just the daily injury reports (which true fans do read).
To push the analogy to the breaking point. Think of the NFL players in the backfield on a defensive stand waiving to their arms to get the fans to scream. Think of the effect of a home team quickly falling behind in a game, so they lose their "home-field advantage." The obvious analogy here is to efforts to support the troops, etc.
But here is where the analogy breaks down, but in an illuminating way: In asymmetric warfare, unlike in sports, terrorists are hoping they do not have to defeat the opposing players on the field. They just have to sufficiently demoralize the "fans" until their players get "redeployed." So their actions are aimed at the fans, through the media, as much as at their opponents on the field. Which is all the more reason why cultivating fan or, rather, citizen involvement with a real war is even more important than with war-subsitutes like organized sports. With American wars prior to Korea, this seems to have been better understood by the administration in power.
(Civil comments only please)
However, unlike WWII, with this real war, no such "official" involvement exists. And given press coverage of the war, you cannot even stay reliably informed of its progress — unless you follow blogs, of course, but that is a highly niche audience. The only box score you get is how many soldiers and Iraqi civilians have been blown to bits each day. This is like following a team by reading just the daily injury reports (which true fans do read).
To push the analogy to the breaking point. Think of the NFL players in the backfield on a defensive stand waiving to their arms to get the fans to scream. Think of the effect of a home team quickly falling behind in a game, so they lose their "home-field advantage." The obvious analogy here is to efforts to support the troops, etc.
But here is where the analogy breaks down, but in an illuminating way: In asymmetric warfare, unlike in sports, terrorists are hoping they do not have to defeat the opposing players on the field. They just have to sufficiently demoralize the "fans" until their players get "redeployed." So their actions are aimed at the fans, through the media, as much as at their opponents on the field. Which is all the more reason why cultivating fan or, rather, citizen involvement with a real war is even more important than with war-subsitutes like organized sports. With American wars prior to Korea, this seems to have been better understood by the administration in power.
(Civil comments only please)
Related Posts (on one page):
- Rooting for Your Team:
- Balkin on Hamdan:
If everybody in Jacksonville, Florida and Portland, Oregon were 100% behind the war effort, exactly how would that stop warfare between Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents?
Many believe that bin Laden wanted the U.S. to invade Iraq. After all, it helped his cause by making the U.S. look like crusading imperialists hell-bent on stealing Muslim land and oil. Why would Al-Qaeda want us to leave Iraq? Their goals are the the total destruction of America. The best way to attack the infidels is to have the infidels invade lands where the terrorists already live. Remeber: never get involved in a landwar in Asia.
The "demoralizing the other team's fans" argument is more relevant to actual military wars, like the one being fought right now in Iraq, but the sports analogy there is much more strained. It's not clear who exactly the teams are (I'm sure that there are more than two in Iraq), or what it would mean for different teams to "win". "Redeploying" our players is an essential move within the game, not a forfeit (and it can be mis-played in a variety of ways). And of course the Iraq war is not an isolated game that can be scored on its own terms, since it's embedded in the much larger game that I described in the first paragraph.
America history over the last few decades shows that we tend to leave our allies in the lurch after we start taking casualties. Bin Laden and his cohorts are well aware of this and use our past lack of resolve as a recruiting tool. We'll just have to see whether the next administration lives up to Bin Laden's expectations.
And since there's no World Cup post yet today, DEUTSCHLAND UEBER ALLES BABI!
The problem is that this offers a ready-made failure-responsibility shiting mechanism for everyone. Those who do not support the invasion and/or execution of the occupation can plausibly argue that the failure of "fan" support is directly attributable to the administration's instant politicization of the war, excessive overuse of ugly words like "treason," and decision to mount an invasion with, at best, a polarized American polity behind it.
The supporters of the war will plausibly argue that the failure of fan support was entirely the fault of the liberal media, etc.
I fall into the former camp. I believe that the political strategy for "selling" the war at home was deeply, unforgivably flawed. This president made zero, absolutely zero effort to prepare the country for what was coming. Instead, we got predictions that we would be greeted as liberators, and that we would be showered with flowers as if it were the liberation of Paris.
This contrasts very unfavorably in my mind with the lead up to Desert Storm in 1992. At that time, there was serious talk of very heavy casualties, of the purchaing of body bags, and non-grandstanding talk of renewing the draft. I recall this clearly because, in 1991-92, I was at the age that would be most affected by any new draft. It was all very deadly serious. Even the debate in Congress, in which the Democrats were "wrong," emphasized the deadly seriousness of the whole affair. I think this process had the American people prepared for a worst case scenario in Desert Storm.
Bush did all this even though he and his team HAD to know that the Iraq's defenses in Kuwait were so vulnerable--otherwise how did they know how to destroy the Iraqi forces so quickly?
Bush the Younger took the opposite strategy in the face of much greater risk: he sold the best case scenario. When reality proved uglier, I think this awful decision made it impossible to secure the necessary "fan" support back home.
Anyhoo, back to Randy's post, I wouldn't attribute any special foresight to pre-Korea administrations. They simply had a lot more control over news coverage. In part that was due to tightly controlled access to the battlefield -- something which is much more difficult when there are no front lines -- and in part that was due to the fact that the press largely saw themselves as cheerleaders for the war effort. Thankfully times have changed. I'd much rather have a press that is too skeptical than one that omits negative information.
Second, however, I think the sport analogy breaks down in at least one serious way. Sporting events are played because they are fun, entertaining, and generally a good thing. Wars are generally bad things, or at least they cause a lot of suffering and death, which means they need a really strong justification. In the case of Iraq, at least to an increasing number of Americans, the justifications are increasingly looking discredited: no WMDs, no connection to 9/11, and the whole "establish a beach-head of democracy in the Mid-East" thing has been tenuous at best. Rooting for the home team in, say, a meaningless pre-season game is one thing; supporting a way that seems to lack justification is another.
So, generally, while it's interesting to think about how Bush could have prosecuted the war in a less divisive, partisan way and/or tried to get more "investment" by the public, I don't think the war's increasing unpopularity is due to bad salesmanship -- it's because it's a bad product.
The Bush administration did the same thing, saying we could have a war with few casualties, Iraq's oil would pay for the war, we would be greeted as liberators and with no resistance, etc. Two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq plus a big tax cut at the same time! Now that Americans are seeing the pain continue to spread in blood and cost, mentally they feel betrayed by the whole experience.
I think the root cause of that shift in sentiment is that the general public was detached from the war from the invasion of Afghanistan onwards. Public support drives were made to seem symbolic rather than necessary, optional rather than critical to our long term success. In short, as Randy said, the administration never sought to bring the broad public on board apart from a few throw away lines in stump speeches.
Since that's exactly what Bush used to put troops in Iraq in the first place.
Is this meant sarcastically? I definitely agree that one doesn't get fully reliable report of the war in Iraq, etc. from the MSM coverage, but the notion that blogs somehow DO keep people more reliably informed is laughable. Can anyone name a single blogger that has access to this type of information?
Moving on, Joseph Slater hits it on on the head. War is fundamentally different from sports in that the real stakes are so much higher. I didn't support the invasion of Iraq not because the US Army failed to market properly, but for a host of reasons that don't fit it to any sports analogy that comes to mind (the inspectors should be given more time, Iraq is not a real military threat to the US at this point, the war is doomed to fail to achieve its stated goals, there's not connection between Iraq and 911, etc., etc.). I have great respect for Professor Barnett but I frankly think that this recent line of thought--that if the gov't had just instilled more team spirit in us that that would have gotten us all behind what many consider a deeply mistaken and immoral action--to be insulting.
There is a fundamental disagreement at the heart of all this and it has nothing to do with whether one hopes America will win or lose the war on terror.
Some people believe Iraq, setting aside the issue of how we got there, is the central front in the war on terror and we simply cannot afford to accept anything other than total success. Any sort of retreat from Iraq, they argue, short of eliminating all the terrorists we can find and setting up a stable, democratic government, would embolden our terrorist enemies and encourage them to attack America again. If the cost is high - although it certainly can be called low by comparison to war efforts such as WWII and Vietnam - it makes no difference, because if we care about beating the terrorists, this is a front on which we simply must prevail.
Other people believe Iraq was a mistake and a distraction from the overall fight against terrorism. They believe we are inflicting relatively little damage on the worldwide terrorist infrastructure through our presence in Iraq, and that we are, indeed, aiding the terrorists' recruiting efforts and providing them with free propaganda material by continuing to occupy a Middle Eastern nation. They believe that the majority of the ongoing problems in Iraq relate to sectarian violence which, while regrettable, has little to do with the international terror networks we seek to destroy; and they believe our continuing presence in Iraq only serves to exacerbate the sectarian violence. These people believe that we can "redeploy" from Iraq, focus our efforts and manpower elsewhere, and thereby increase our chances of ending the terrorist threat.
These are diametrically opposite viewpoints; but it seems clear there is plenty of room within each of them for plenty of people of good faith. Yet at least on the Internet and in our public political sphere, there is so little good-faith discussion of these issues, and it's quite sad.
I really don't understand the dichotomy you're setting up here, Prof. Barnett. From where I sit, for example, no one of any significance is opposed to government surveillance of suspected terrorists. The debate over the NSA wiretapping program is between those who believe the program is fine as is, and those who believe that FISA warrants should be required, to avoid the possibility of abuse and because it's the law. Virtually everyone who has taken sides on the NSA issue aligns with one of those two perspectives - is it truly your contention that only one of the two sides "supports the GWOT"?
There are a lot of people who believe that we could be mounting a stronger, more effective effort against the terrorist threat by doing things differently than the present administration is doing them. It seems odd, and more than a bit slanted, to suggest that people in this category simply don't support the war on terror.
Assuming facts not in evidence.
As opposed to those who think terrorist should be left in peace? Nice straw man.
You guys write as if Bush thinks Osama bin Laden is the enemy. The enemy is now, and always has been, liberals and the Democratic Party, and OBL is merely a convenient front. Don't believe me? Fall 2002. Bush is getting his Iraq War resolution. Those of us with brains know he means to go to war—even before we read that VP Cheney has been informed by that great Cincinnatus of the Central Valley, Victor Davis Hanson, that a war is a precondition for being a Great Leader—how hard would it be to throw the Democrats a sop and let public employee unions do their thing in the Homeland Security Department? Real hard. Bush counts the votes; he sees he can screw the unions and, bonus time, make the Democrats look weak on Homeland Security as some of them will refuse to accept his version. I don't have to remind you of the result, right? The 2002 midterm election goes great for Bush. Dick Gephardt is so confused by what hit him, the doofus still hadn't clued up two years later. George Bush doesn't care how many people are behind his war, so long as one more person is behind him than his political opponent.
"He [Bush] truly enjoys getting people to knuckle under."
I have serious doubts that earlier administrations had a "better understanding" of this phenomena, given that marketing/public relations is a far more evolved science today than it was in the WWII era and earlier. What seems more likely is that because of the scale of those earlier conflicts (with the arguable exception of the Spanish-American War) it was actually necessary to mobilize a major part of the American economy for a realistic prospect of victory. As is being demonstrated in Iraq/Afghanistan, the US economy is now so huge it can fight against an insurgency movement indefinitely without significant economic dislocation.
Except, in sports, you play who the schedulers decide you play; here, it's like Dolan and Thomas decided to send the Knicks to play a curling match in Siberia against the Russian Curling Team. Not a whole lot of good can come of that, for the Knicks, but bad stuff can.
I haven't a clue what "cultivating . . . citizen involvement" would look like in this context. What would that be? Sending civilians out in the field to get their heads cut off? Sending returning soldiers around officially to talk to civilians and tell them how horrid our enemies are? Printing out home team gear (i.e. American flags, eagles), and getting people to paste them everywhere? Posters talking ominously about how loose lips sink ships, and encouraging the population to report all suspicious activity to the authorities? Soviet-style Nuremburg show trials for the defeated enemy, broadcast on primetime? Getting the churches to pass around the donations hat for the soldiers in the field? White feathers for young men who don't enlist?
Really, I am at a loss. Am I barking up completely the wrong tree here?
This is the sort of thing that I meant when my first post referred to the Bush administration's divisive, partisan conduct of the war. Maybe the sports analogy is a team manager calling half his potential fan base disloyal fools.
The ironic thing is that in comparison to at least most previous wars (Vietnam, for example), there is almost certainly a much smaller portion of the U.S. population that actually sympathizes with the "other side" in the war on terrorism. Seriously: liberals don't like religious fanatics. But the Bush admin. and some of its supporters feel it necessary to pretend they do. Whether that's because they want to try to shift blame, simply press a political advantage, or both, it's shameful.
That the terrs are playing to the stands is pretty clear, though.
As somebody said, the terrs and the MSM have framed the issue such that blowing up an old Lada within sight of the journos' hotel is a victory. Killing forty of them is meaningless. The terrs, I mean, not the journos.
That the terrs are playing to the stands is pretty clear, though.
As somebody said, the terrs and the MSM have framed the issue such that blowing up an old Lada within sight of the journos' hotel is a victory. Killing forty of them is meaningless. The terrs, I mean, not the journos.
Better analogy: The US has the best baseball team money can buy, but the game is test cricket, which the administration has actually figured out, but insists on continuing to tell the fans that the game is merely going into extra innings.
In this situation, though, just how the Administration could get the citizenry more involved, in any helpful way, isn't clear. But I don't believe the percentages have shifted much. Those who won't face the reality of the current war against medieval religious bellicosity are, perhaps, a third of the population, as mentioned above. Those who believe it's a real war, and a serious one, are the rest. That split was apparent, I think, on September 12 - a good chunk of the electorate was defeated, morally, by the attack the day before, and will never recover. The percentages haven't changed much since then. The constant barrage of polls telling us that support is falling are inconsequential, as they fail to differentiate between those who insist there's no war at all, and those who think it should be pursued with more vigor - both are lumped into the same category, even though they couldn't be more different.
theory of the GWOT.
Don't let the facts get in the way of your theory, friend.
But he is completely correct. Somewhere in his 9/12 hypoxic dungeon, VP Cheney lost it, morally. That isn't whom he meant?
And given press coverage of the war, you cannot even stay reliably informed of its progress — unless you follow blogs, of course,
Is this meant sarcastically? I definitely agree that one doesn't get fully reliable report of the war in Iraq, etc. from the MSM coverage, but the notion that blogs somehow DO keep people more reliably informed is laughable. Can anyone name a single blogger that has access to this type of information?
Of course it's not sarcastic, where have you been? There are several bloggers like Michael Yon who travel with the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and provide infititely better coverage on their blogs than the reporters at the hotels in the green zone in Baghdad. Like moment by moment reprots on raids and ambushes. See:
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/
I think I have a good view of this war. It's clear as very frothy mud.
But in addition, all those earlier wars were conquests for terrain, and you could see the progress charted on a map. Here, the really notable advances are political events related to Iraqi voting and the establishment of a government--important enough, but not remotely compelling like, say, the US advance across the Pacific.
I think that is about right.
Bush decided that Islam is a religion of peace and a tiny fraction of malcontents who dissented from that were the enemy.
If he was wrong, and Islam is the enemy and a tiny fraction of reconciliationists within the religion are the exceptions, then everything he has done was wrongheaded.
The first rule of grand strategy is to identify your foe.
Lol. Do yourself a favor, RB, stay away from war commenting. Your credibility's at stake...
The idea that the president should try to pull the nation together? A little too little, a little too late, babe. Hopefully this is civil, if a bit harsh.
Actually, given the Palestinian (leadership) outlook, this kind of overkill is exactly the right action. They see concessions as a spur to greater malevolent action, and they retreat in the face of violence. This is clearly the only way to work the situation. Since all previous 'diplomatic' solutions never result in action on the Palestinian side, this response must be the way to go.
For a while I've said that what Israel needs to do is unilaterally acknowledge the Palestinian state, and then declare war for countless causus belli. This looks to be pretty much it.
Um... it's not working? Israel has tried overkill, bombing for years now. What has it bought thus far? Wake me up when this new escapade proves successful -- other than as a costume play, I mean.
For a while I've said that what Israel needs to do is unilaterally acknowledge the Palestinian state, and then declare war for countless causus belli. This looks to be pretty much it.
Um... fine. Israel should pass the hat to folks like you who get your jollies off explosions that really accomplish nada.
Say, who's paying for that power plant it was necessary to blow up? To get the captured soldier back, I mean? Who insured the million dollar loss?
Check it out. All the working Americans will be paying for that folly. Wait 'il ya see how that one plays in Peoria... Oy Jesus. And some of you still think you're winning this game
U.S. officials would not say whether Washington would ask Israel for reimbursement.
Israel bombed the power plant on Wednesday at the start of an offensive to try to get Palestinian militants to free a captured soldier, Corporal Gilad Shalit.
A Western aid official involved in the matter said Israel's decision to hit the power plant was a surprise in large part "because it was American-owned."
The Israeli army, in a statement, defended the attack, saying the power plant was targeted "in order to disrupt the activities of the terror infrastructure involved directly and indirectly in the abduction of Corporal Shalit."
In July 2004, a subsidiary of Morganti Group Inc., a Connecticut-based construction company, received $48 million in political risk insurance for the 140 megawatt plant from the U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corp. (OPIC), an arm of the U.S. government that backs American business deals abroad.
The plant began generating power in June 2002 and reached full commercial operation in March 2004, OPIC said in a statement at the time announcing its support for the project.
"OPIC has been told by Morganti that it will be submitting a claim," said Micaela Schweitzer-Bluhm, spokeswoman for the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem. "OPIC has to assess the claim before it will make a decision."
But according to officials involved in the project, OPIC plans to reimburse the company for the damages using U.S. funds.
I'd say the failure isn't overkill, it's the lack of it; insufficient and improper use of force. Capturing Hamas 'officials' who are already wanted for trial is a good beginning.
Correction: one has to go in and win the ground game. Whether this game is y/ours to be won on the ground or not, remains to be proven. Which goes back to my very first point: where is even a whiff of success?, where is any evidence of progress? Surely with years of this type of strategy, you can point to some increased level of security? Some "bang" for the buck, as the saying goes? Tough guys indeed.
But time and time again has shown that when Israel is militarily strong the number of violent attacks goes down - and retaliatory strikes on Israel's part go down as well. When Israel 'shows weakness' the 'Palestinian Leadership' (if it can be called that) steps up attacks to push for more.
Certainly there are other factors, like the level of backing from outside forces. But I can safely say that much of it goes back to Middle Eastern philosophy. You can now cue Osama bin Laden's sound bite on strong horses and weak ones.