[N]: So you were a historian of antiwar movements–
[B]: And antiwar strategy and tactics. And I was a participant in the Vietnam antiwar movement. I’ve written and spoken about Kerry’s involvement. There’s a plan: always bring religious people in, plus some disgruntled soldiers, and racial minorities saying there is injustice (for instance, the Nation of Islam in World War II didn’t want to fight against what they referred to as another colored race, meaning Japan). That combination appealed to a broad spectrum.
In the beginning of the Afghanistan war, there were rumblings in the media: there were rocky mountains, the British had failed there, the weather would be bad, this could be trouble. And back when John Kennedy had sent troops at the beginning of Vietnam the antiwar movement did it this way (in Vietnam, the Socialists supported the Communist takeover””but you don’t put that on a flyer, do you?) During the Cuban missile crisis what you’d say is that Kennedy is all concerned about Cuba, but he’s ignoring what’s happening in Vietnam. Or in Berlin. Then when he’s in Vietnam, you talk about how he’s ignoring Cuba. Ted Kennedy now talks about North Korea.
[N]: So these are strategies for all situations.
[B]: Yes, it’s a rhetorical device. You go from one thing to another, to add negativity to the media and the academic world. Regular people don’t like war””who does?–we all hope a rumor of war is not true. And if we start hearing things to discourage us it feeds on that: “we can’t win anyway, and we should be doing something else that’s more important.”
I had observed this during the Iraq War but did not know the history of the planning to do it:
Some people will just never support the war we are in right now. I doesn't matter what the war is at the moment.
They will cover their opposition by saying they supported a past war that we won (or even a lost war) even when they opposed such wars at the time. Just listen to those who now claim that they supported the Gulf War or Afghanistan campaign or who even respect the soldiers who fought in Vietnam. It's just this war in Iraq they oppose.
They may even say that another problem is more severe and must be met first--possibly with force--before waging the war in question. North Korea and Iran spring to mind. But you can always be sure that if the issue they once said is more important comes up, there will be another problem that must be dealt with first.
Whether too hot or too cold, the question of a war to defend us is never just right.
They are perpetually Looking for Mr. Good War.
Which, as I predicted, they would find. In Libya of all places. Libya remains crippled by factions and jihadis since the 2011 civil war --that America led NATO into--which overthrew the Khadaffi regime (which killed Khadaffi in the process, not that I'm crying over his death). I ran across this old contrast between Obama's Libya War and the Iraq War. Just add a dash of Hopeandchange, and stir! Voila, "good" war!
Indeed, I had also predicted the "good" war in Afghanistan would go "bad." Funny enough, I even noted that dealing with nuclear-seeking Iran could become the reason to lose that once-good Afghanistan war!
Now, of course, Iran is the potential war to be resisted at all costs. Even though the issue is confronting Iran and not invading it to defeat the vile and aggressive nuclear-seeking mullah regime.
And that places in a new light a James Fallows pre-war piece on the potential problems of the Iraq War, which I discussed here regarding whether the Iraq War was an "enormous strategic blunder" as Fallows claimed, in support of Eric's email debate with Fallows on the Iraq War:
I honestly don't follow Fallows. But I did look at the two articles Fallows cites to justify his current view.
The first was published in the November issue of The Atlantic. Despite being cited as an example of why the war was a big error, it was actually just a collection of people discussing all the ways things could go horribly wrong. If you throw up enough potential problems it sounds bad. But that pre-war laundry list is not an argument for error.
Pro-war people who dismissed or downplayed potential problems in order to defeat an evil threat are condemned by our Left. But isn't this just the flip side of the people who throw out every conceivable problem to derail a war against a monster rather than to inform the public debate?
I have no idea if Fallows actively participated in such a movement regarding the Iraq War. But he was clearly part of it whether wittingly or unwittingly, it seems.
UPDATE: Trying to find disgruntled soldiers can be a problem, of course.
