« I was listening to the | Main | As the world knows by »
July 6, 2004
Controversy and the War in Iraq - An Historical Perspective
It is routinely alleged that because the war in Iraq is controversial George Bush has been a bad president. There is no question that the war is controversial. But it is not at all clear to me that this leads to the conclusion that he has done a bad job as president.
We have a tendency, I think, to view most of our wars as glorious crusades where we all link arms and march off to defeat evil. World War II is the classic example of this, with the Revolution not far behind. With the Second World War this view is largely correct. There was broad agreement that the war was necessary, and serious protest was nonexistent. But World War II was the exception rather than the rule. It was an unusual war in many respects, most wars being limited wars for limited aims. World War II is thus usually not the best one to use as an historical base.
This is not to say that the "glorious crusade" view of history is a bad thing. All cultures need historical legends, even when they are only partially true. After all, defeating evil is a good thing, and we Americans have done more than our fair share in this regard. Americans tend to view themselves as the saviors of the world, and, much to the chagrin of others, in the last century we usually were.
We do, however, need to acknowledge the internal struggles which accompanied most of these wars. We also need to recognize that World War II was the exception rather than the rule.
Only about one third of American colonists were in favor of independence from the British crown. Another third were loyal to Great Britain, and another third didn't really care one way or another. Far from being united, we were quite divided.
Further, since each state considered itself a sovereign nation, each wished to field it's own army. These state armies were forbidden to leave their home state. Few states wanted to contribute soldiers to a national army. And if Congress was going to insist there be a national army (or "Continental Army", as it became known), then they wanted to make sure that a general from their state was in charge. It took much arm-twisting on the part of a few enlighened individuals before Washington's army became a credible force.
In the Civil War both sides had to resort to a draft to fill their armies. Popular support for the war fell dramatically as people on each side realized that the war would be much longer and more costly than they had initially imagined. The draft was so unpopular in the North that violent riots broke out in New York City. The Democrat party hated Lincoln and opposed his war policies. Lincoln looked sure to lose the 1864 presidential election, and his Democratic opponent was a former Union General, George B McClellan. It was only after Union victories in Georgia that Lincoln was able to win back popular support and win the election.
The First World War was extremely popular when we entered it in 1917. Yet a few short years later it was seen as a mistake. The Senate voted down Wilson's League of Nations, and the Nye Commission "blamed bankers and munitions-makers for U.S. involvement in World War I."
Even the Second World War had its share of internal conflicts among the allies. General Eisenhower spent most of his time during the Second World War mediating conflicts between British General Bernard Montgomery and American General George Patton.
My point here is not to go through each and every war we have fought. It is simply to point out that wars that we now take for granted as necessary were not always popular at the time.
Posted by Tom at July 6, 2004 11:57 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/86
