WWII was a defensive war. Expecting WWII level support for an offensive war is a set up for disappointment. > [Original Message] > From: Eric Yost <eyost1132@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: 1/19/2006 6:53:42 PM > Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Iran Charade > > Judy: and it is true that public opinion's turning > against > the Vietnam War was crucial. But military defeat and > the ending of war (and of course they are not > identical) are not to be attributed to that alone. > > Eric: In the case of Vietnam, we had no real > military defeat, but under pressure from massive > public distaste for it, we withdrew. And South > Vietnam held its borders in the conflict until we > withdrew funding later, again in response to > public distaste, and the North Vietnamese (Soviet) > tanks came rolling in. > > But rather than get sidetracked by historical > revisionism of Vietnam, think of WW2 versus Iraq. > Although public opinion was solidly against entry > into WW2, opinion changed as we went into it. The > Marines sometimes lost more troops in a day than > we have lost in the entire Iraq conflict, > including civilian and mercenary casualties, and > yet we kept on plugging through the Pacific. > > If we had the WW2 level of public support for the > Iraq invasion, no one would doubt that we were > winning, having suffered only a few thousand > casualties. So given the limits of military power, > I think national morale (in a liberal democracy) > is key. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, > digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html