War, the pyschology of

AMERICANS WANT TO WIN IN IRAQ

NATIONAL SURVEY SAYS PUSH TO RENOUNCE WAR IN WASHINGTON
ON DIFFERENT PAGE THAN MAJORITY OF AMERICAN PEOPLE ON IRAQ WAR

.

(Alexandria, VA) February 20 — In the wake of the U.S. House of Representatives passing a resolution that amounts to a vote of no confidence in the Bush administration’s policies in Iraq, a new national survey by Alexandria, VA-based Public Opinion Strategies (POS) shows the American people may have some different ideas from their elected leaders on this issue.

.
The survey was conducted nationwide February 5-7 among a bi-partisan, cross-section of 800 registered voters. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent. The survey was commissioned by The Moriah Group, a Chattanooga-based strategic communications and public affairs firm. “The survey shows Americans want to win in Iraq, and that they understand Iraq is the central point in the war against terrorism and they can support a U.S. strategy aimed at achieving victory,” said Neil Newhouse, a partner in POS.

“The idea of pulling back from Iraq is not where the majority of Americans are.”

• By a 53 percent – 46 percent margin, respondents surveyed said that “Democrats are going too far, too fast in pressing the President to withdraw troops from Iraq.”
• By identical 57 percent – 41 percent margins, voters agreed with these two statements: “I support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security” and “the Iraqi war is a key part of the global war on terrorism.”
• Also, by a 56 percent – 43 percent margin, voters agreed that “even if they have concerns about his war policies, Americans should stand behind the President in Iraq because we are at war.”
• While the survey shows voters believe (60 percent- 34 percent) that Iraq will never become a stable democracy, they still disagree that victory in Iraq (“creating a young, but stable democracy and reducing the threat of terrorism at home”) is no longer possible. Fifty-three percent say it’s still possible, while 43 percent disagree.

Read more

SECRETARY RUMSFELD: Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you so much.

.

Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, I thank you so much for joining us, and I thank you for those generous words, and for your support these many years.

.

Chairman Pace, thank you for your sound advice and for your unfailing good humor through enormously challenging times.

.

Deputy Secretary Gordon England, you’ve been a valued partner in this mission, and I thank you so much. You make a difference here every single day. Thank you, Gordon. (Applause.)

.

Service Secretaries, members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, combatant commanders — I saw my friend, former Chairman General Dick Myers, down here in the front row. Dick, it’s always good to see you. Chairman Warner, members of Congress, ladies and gentlemen, thank you all. And all of those gathered, military and civilian, who make this great Department what it is, thank you so much for what you do for our country.

.

As I look back over these past six years and reflect on what’s been achieved, I feel a sense of gratitude — gratitude to Joyce, to be sure, and our three wonderful children and seven grandchildren, we have been together in this every minute; gratitude to the hundreds of thousands of people in this Department who, out of love of country, contribute so much; and gratitude to all those amazing young people who volunteer and step forward and proudly wear our nation’s uniforms.

.

Last weekend I was in Iraq. I wanted to personally express my heartfelt appreciation to the troops for their service and for their sacrifice. I wanted to leave them a sense of what they have given me: pride in mission, and an abiding confidence in our country. It has been the highest honor of my life to serve with them, these makers of history.

.

Mr. President, over the past six years, at your request, as you pointed out, this Department has been determined to create a new framework to better defend against the irregular threats of this new era. These folks have had to depart from the conventional and the familiar, to wrestle with the new and the unfamiliar. And they do it with no guidebook, with no road map, and they do it in full view of the Congress and the press and the world, with generous scrutiny from all sides. (Laughter.)

.

Today I’ll break with convention one more time, and instead of the traditional farewell remarks on past achievements, I will focus squarely on the future. I say this with the perspective of one, as the President indicated, who’s had the opportunity to lead this Department in two different eras, in two different world conflicts, for two different Presidents — and, yes, it’s true, in two different centuries.
.

Read more

 WASHINGTON, Oct. 18, 2006 — President Bush said in a one-on-one interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos that a newspaper column comparing the current fighting in Iraq to the 1968 Tet offensive in Vietnam, which was widely seen as the turning point in that war, might be accurate.

Stephanopoulos asked whether the president agreed with the opinion of columnist Tom Friedman, who wrote in The New York Times today that the situation in Iraq may be equivalent to the Tet offensive in Vietnam almost 40 years ago.

"He could be right," the president said, before adding, "There’s certainly a stepped-up level of violence, and we’re heading into an election."

Naturally, in typical knee-jerk fashion, his detractors went wild. "Bush! Iraq! VietNam! Hooraay!" Now comes the final step towards the antiwar crowd’s (and the Democrats, of course) ultimate nirvana: pullout from Iraq a-la Saigon, 1975. With that, they believe, will come the complete disgrace of their most hated enemy: President Bush.

Yes, it is probably a lot like Tet. And luckily, we have a president who understands the meaning. Here is what Bush said on ABC that got kind of left out during the frenzy:

my gut tells me that they have all along been trying to inflict enough damage that we’d leave," Bush said. "And the leaders of al Qaeda have made that very clear. Look, here’s how I view it. First of all, al Qaeda is still very active in Iraq. They are dangerous. They are lethal. They are trying to not only kill American troops, but they’re trying to foment sectarian violence. They believe that if they can create enough chaos, the American people will grow sick and tired of the Iraqi effort and will cause government to withdraw."

Just like Vietnam. The President elaborated on this in his weekly radio address. He put it this way:

Another reason for the recent increase in attacks is that the terrorists are trying to influence public opinion here in the United States. They have a sophisticated propaganda strategy. They know they cannot defeat us in the battle, so they conduct high-profile attacks, hoping that the images of violence will demoralize our country and force us to retreat.

And

The terrorists are trying to divide America and break our will, and we must not allow them to succeed.

Often times I’ve wondered if the various leaders we’ve had through the years actually have a grasp of the "big picture" of the ways of the world. Listening carefully to President Bush’s words give me a certain measure of comfort, in that I believe he truly does "get it."

Click "continue reading…" below to read the entire radio speech.

Read more

The French government was heavily involved in the recent UN negotiations that led to the ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon. But French President Chirac was widely derided when he then announced that France would contribute only 200 troops to the international peacekeeping force. Within two weeks, France increased its commitment to 2000 personnel, part of a planned 15,000-man UN force in Lebanon.

France has a long history in this region. When the Treaty of Versailles divided the defeated Ottoman Empire in 1919, the League of Nations decided that four of its territories in the Middle East should be League of Nations mandates temporarily governed by the United Kingdom and France. The British were given Palestine and Iraq, while France was given mandate over the region of Lebanon and Syria.

In September 1920 France declared the creation of the State of Greater Lebanon, declaring Beirut as its capital. The new territory was granted a flag, merging the French Tricouleur with the Lebanese cedar. When the French government capitulated to the Germans in 1941, their mandate territories in the Middle East sided with the Nazis.

United Press correspondent Henry Tilton Gorrell was on the front lines during the fighting between the Allies and the Axis-supporting French Vichy government. In this fourth installment from his soon-to-be-published memoir “Eyewitness” (written in 1943 and currently being edited by GraniteGrok contributor Ken Gorrell), Henry reports on the fierce battles waged by the Allies to keep the region free from Nazi control.

The Allies had to take a lot of Vichy’s insolence prior to their decision to kick over the bucket and occupy North Africa, but the boys who swallowed the most were the Australians during the Syrian Campaign of June-July 1941.

Imagine a tough bunch of troops being told to go to war “with an olive branch in one hand and a grenade in the other.” And how’d you like to have been in their shoes when, proffering the olive branch under a white flag, they were mowed down by murderous machine-gun and mortar fire.

Read more

Terror in London, Conflict Imminent, Public Unprepared  ("Eyewitness" Part III)

History provides interesting parallels.  In September, 1939, United Press war correspondent Henry Tilton Gorrell arrived in London on assignment.  He found the British government unprepared for war.  The Germans were well on their way to overrunning Poland, and Britain had pledged to protect the Poles, but Prime Minister Chamberlain was still sitting on the fence, holding out hopes that appeasing a fascist dictator might prevent a larger conflict.  And then the terrorists struck. 

As war seemed imminent, Henry Gorrell wrote in his memoir “Eyewitness” that:

There were pathetic efforts to fortify London against aerial attack, carried out by a public wholly unprepared for war.  Children were being evacuated by the thousands, and hospitals were being cleared for action.  Doctors were being mobilized even as debate in Parliament continued.

The minds of the British public were made up, though, and as the man-in-the-street snapped up extras, one could see anger in his face.  Headlines revealed that no decision had yet been reached.  The Londoner was tired of the German war of nerves and was finally convinced of the inevitability of world conflict.  He realized that Hitler could be dealt with only in his own language – with force.

Read more

On July 19th the New York Times ran an article headlined:  "With Israeli Use of Force, Debate Over Proportion."  I can’t say with certainty that the Times has never run an article headlined "With Islamic Terrorist Use of Force, Debate Over Proportion,"  but it seems improbable given that paper’s track record. 

"Proportion" has become the new buzzword in journalistic circles.  Apparently, journalists think that in war, as in sports, the more closely matched the players, the more fair the game.  But of course war is not a game.  In war, combatants and civilians die.  This has always been the case and is likely to remain the case throughout our lifetimes.  In 1936 during the Spanish Civil War, United Press correspondent Henry Tilton Gorrell witnessed the killing of civilians as war tactic.  He reported the gory details, writing at the time:

General Franco’s forces shelled Madrid regularly at 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.

Read more