Post by: Perd Hapley on May 06, 2008, 01:03:18 PM
War protesters frustrated by apathy
Monday, May 05, 2008
By Jerome L. Sherman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Three protesters, a half-dozen signs and a missing petition.
"People walk past and say, 'I'm glad you're doing something,' " said Marty O'Malley, a Forest Hills council member who has attended more than 100 anti-Iraq war events, as he stood in front of Democratic U.S. Rep. Mike Doyle's Downtown office last week with the small gathering of activists. "I want to shake them and say, 'Why aren't you doing something!?' "
After $500 billion in spending and 4,000 military deaths, this was supposed to be an election year dominated by the war. Both Democratic presidential candidates, Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, support a withdrawal, while Sen. John McCain, a Republican, argues that the U.S. risks losing Iraq to terrorist groups and Iranian influence if troops leave before the country is stable.
In Washington, D.C., Congress is preparing to consider President Bush's latest emergency funding package for the fighting, with a price tag of $108 billion. But a worsening economy has easily overtaken Iraq as the top concern for voters, according to a New York Times/CBS poll released last week. Only 17 percent of respondents picked the war as the "one issue" they'd like to hear the candidates discuss more.
Americans still have strong feelings about the conflict: 62 percent want the next president to pull out of Iraq within a year or two of taking office, the poll said. Yet war opponents and supporters are having trouble getting the public's -- and the media's -- attention. A March survey from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press discovered that just 28 percent of Americans knew the approximate number of U.S. deaths in the war.
"Obviously, I wish that the American people were more engaged in understanding what's at stake in Iraq," said Pete Hegseth, who served there with the 101st Airborne Division and is now executive director of Vets for Freedom. "I think it's unfortunate that here on the homefront we're not interested in what's going on overseas." [I note that Hegseth's opinion on the war is not given. Vets for Freedom supports a continued presence in Iraq until success is achieved. - fistful]
A year ago, the situation was very different. In the face of growing public angst, President Bush committed nearly 30,000 additional troops to the war. News coverage was then absorbed by a showdown between the new congressional Democratic majority and the president over war funding. With Democrats unable to gather enough votes to overcome a presidential veto, attention turned to September, when Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker delivered a positive progress report on President Bush's troop "surge."
The media's focus on the war then began a steady decline. In February, only 3 percent of print, television and online coverage was dedicated to Iraq, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism, or PEJ, a Washington-based organization. That's down from 22 percent a year before.
Mr. Hegseth faulted media organizations for covering bombings and the death count in the war's early years, while ignoring the steady drop in violence that accompanied the U.S. troop increase in Iraq.
But two other issues loom larger in the decline in coverage: a sinking economy and a presidential campaign that has tended to revolve around questions of personality, such Mr. Obama's relationship with his former pastor and his decision not to wear a flag pin. "[The candidates] are talking about Iraq," said Tom Andrews, a former Democratic congressman from Maine and the national director of Win Without War. "Unfortunately, the press coverage seems to be more focused on lapel pins than on the war."
All three major candidates do bring up Iraq in their stump speeches. Still, none is willing to make the war a centerpiece issue.
Mr. Obama emphasizes his opposition from the war's beginning; yet he faces concerns about his lack of experience on the international stage. Mr. McCain focuses on his criticism of the Bush administration's early handling of the war and cites his backing of the surge; but he needs to contend with a strong majority of Americans who want to see a change of course.
And Mrs. Clinton highlights her experience as first lady and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee; but scores of anti-war Democrats remain angry about her 2002 vote to give President Bush the power to invade Iraq. "It's a tough topic for all candidates involved," said Amy Mitchell, PEJ's deputy director. "They all have potentially problematic views."
Some observers say the war will resume a prominent place in the campaign once the Democrats settle on a nominee and can stress Mr. McCain's unpopular stance. The Democratic National Committee is already trying to do that. A week ago, the party started a nationwide airing of an advertisement that attacks Mr. McCain for telling a town hall meeting in January that staying in Iraq for 100 years "would be fine with me."
Republicans have called the ad dishonest because it cuts off the rest of the senator's quote: "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaida is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."
In response, DNC Chairman Howard Dean said Americans weren't willing to stay in Iraq for that long under any circumstances. "Think of the hundreds of billions of dollars that are being spent in Iraq which we need right here at home right now to preserve American jobs," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
At the grassroots level, anti-war activists are also trying to keep the war in the public eye. Last month, nine protesters gathered in front of the Regional Enterprise Tower, Downtown, where U.S. Sens. Arlen Specter and Bob Casey have offices. "Please think about this. It's important," Lynne Flavin, 60, of Lawrenceville, told passersby. She held a blood red sign that said, "Support the Troops. End the War." Few people gave more than a glance.
In an interview last week, Mr. Casey said he shared the frustrations of Pennsylvanians who want to see a change in Iraq. "People have a profound concern about this war," said Mr. Casey, a supporter of Mr. Obama. "If there's anything we can all come together on, the one area of resounding consensus is that we need a new president."
[
Do I have to explain what is so side-splittingly funny about that? That's a Senator talking. ]Both he and Mr. Specter, a Republican who backs Mr. McCain, have been critics of the war, but they've been reluctant to tamper with funding for troops who are already on the battlefield. "Had we known that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction, we would not have gone in," Mr. Specter said last week. "Now that we're there, we don't want to destabilize the situation by leaving precipitously."
Last Thursday marked the fifth anniversary of President Bush's speech in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln. Anti-war groups had planned events across the region to bring attention to the continued cost of the American presence in Iraq.
Mr. O'Malley stood outside Mr. Doyle's Downtown office, wearing a Vietnam veteran hat and seven Obama buttons. He blamed last-minute organization efforts for the poor turnout. As he and two other protesters waited, Maddie Smith, a student at the Art Institute of Pittsburgh, approached Mr. O'Malley and asked for a sign for her lawn in Brookline. He gladly gave her one. He also gave her instructions: "Put it so it's facing traffic. Otherwise no one will see it."
Jerome L. Sherman can be reached at jsherman@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1183.
First published on May 5, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Moderators: I've posted this in politics because it discusses various politicians vis-a-vis the Iraq War. I hope I got the right forum.
Post by: mek42 on May 06, 2008, 05:51:10 PM
Part of me is disappointed that after taking control of Congress, the Democrats did not just collectively say, "Ok, then it won't be funded" the first time President Bush vetoed a war spending bill with other stuff attached. It would have been nice to see them collectively grow a set and play just as tough.
On the other hand, I'm glad they didn't play such games with the lives and well being of our folks in uniform.
I don't think we should have gotten involved for the reasons we did, but now that we're there ... doesn't seem to do too much good to at least not try and restore some form of stable government to the Iraqis. Damned if I know what would be considered an achievable success there though.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 06, 2008, 06:14:28 PM
Post by: mek42 on May 06, 2008, 06:37:11 PM
Europe though - I think there are more USAF bases in the UK than sheep in Scotland! I can see wanting some presence in Europe still, but not what we currently have. If nothing else, cross training with other nations military forces can help us learn new ways of looking at things. Even if these ways of conducting war are not useful to our forces they are useful as intelligence.
Some of our overseas bases have legitimate strategic value, but I think many of them are just Cold War leftovers.
Post by: Finch on May 06, 2008, 07:46:07 PM
Matter of fact, what ARE we still doing in those two spots, anyway?
Wasting a ****load of money and resources...
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on May 06, 2008, 07:55:28 PM
Matter of fact, what ARE we still doing in those two spots, anyway?
Wasting a ****load of money and resources...
Post by: Manedwolf on May 07, 2008, 05:10:14 AM
Japan I can buy as a projection of power / naval resupply basing in the Pac Rim.
Europe though - I think there are more USAF bases in the UK than sheep in Scotland! I can see wanting some presence in Europe still, but not what we currently have. If nothing else, cross training with other nations military forces can help us learn new ways of looking at things. Even if these ways of conducting war are not useful to our forces they are useful as intelligence.
Some of our overseas bases have legitimate strategic value, but I think many of them are just Cold War leftovers.
Europe though - I think there are more USAF bases in the UK than sheep in Scotland! I can see wanting some presence in Europe still, but not what we currently have. If nothing else, cross training with other nations military forces can help us learn new ways of looking at things. Even if these ways of conducting war are not useful to our forces they are useful as intelligence.
Some of our overseas bases have legitimate strategic value, but I think many of them are just Cold War leftovers.
Ramstein makes sense. It's a lot easier to have a huge base of operations there than all the way over here. There's hospitals and everything there, in a friendly country.
Post by: Scout26 on May 07, 2008, 11:47:48 AM
Nice to have some place outside the US for Forward defense.
Post by: taurusowner on May 08, 2008, 11:46:07 AM
Post by: mek42 on May 08, 2008, 03:15:24 PM
Well apathy is what you get when you're platform rests on a bunch of college hippies and deadbeats.
What made the 1960's different? Was it just the draft?
Post by: Regolith on May 08, 2008, 03:32:30 PM
Well apathy is what you get when you're platform rests on a bunch of college hippies and deadbeats.
What made the 1960's different? Was it just the draft?
Probably. Nothing motivates deadbeats and hippies more than thinking that they may be forced to be something other than deadbeats and hippies.
Post by: Josh Aston on May 09, 2008, 03:50:45 PM
Damned if I know what would be considered an achievable success there though.
Miles and miles of glass as far as the eye can see.
Post by: Scout26 on May 09, 2008, 05:30:03 PM
Damned if I know what would be considered an achievable success there though.
A stable, functioning, parlimentary nation, like Germany, Japan or Italy, perhaps ??
Post by: Josh Aston on May 09, 2008, 06:02:07 PM
Damned if I know what would be considered an achievable success there though.
A stable, functioning, parlimentary nation, like Germany, Japan or Italy, perhaps ??
Glass sounds better. Lots of it.
Post by: S. Williamson on May 10, 2008, 02:15:35 AM
Grassland can always be developed.
Post by: CAnnoneer on May 13, 2008, 08:42:19 AM
Post by: Josh Aston on May 13, 2008, 02:02:49 PM
I read that as "grass" and agreed. Grassland can always be developed.
Grassland can always be developed.Glass can too. In about 50 years or so.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 14, 2008, 04:10:53 AM
Quote
Probably. Nothing motivates deadbeats and hippies more than thinking that they may be forced to be something other than deadbeats and hippies.
Yeah, I mean, being shot by some guys you care little about in a faraway land for little pay, that's so awesome.
Post by: taurusowner on May 14, 2008, 12:48:17 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 14, 2008, 01:31:21 PM
Quote
Probably. Nothing motivates deadbeats and hippies more than thinking that they may be forced to be something other than deadbeats and hippies.
Yeah, I mean, being shot by some guys you care little about in a faraway land for little pay, that's so awesome.
I think he was saying that the possibility of being drafted encouraged them to protest the war.
Post by: wmenorr67 on May 14, 2008, 07:51:06 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 14, 2008, 09:33:11 PM
I think he was saying that the possibility of being drafted encouraged them to protest the war.
Yes, but the idea that being a draftee soldier is merely 'an opportunity to make something of yourself', while hippies are somehow 'useless' is really ridiculous.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on May 14, 2008, 10:08:09 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 14, 2008, 10:09:18 PM
Draftee's can clean gear and carry stuff for volunteer warriors.
There is a name for a system where people do work against their will.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on May 14, 2008, 10:25:00 PM
Draftee's can clean gear and carry stuff for volunteer warriors.
There is a name for a system where people do work against their will.
I didn't say anything about the nature of the draft nor its morality, I was merely addressing the comparative utility of draftees vis-a-vis hippies. From a military perspective in particular.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 14, 2008, 10:43:27 PM
Quote
I didn't say anything about the nature of the draft nor its morality, I was merely addressing the comparative utility of draftees vis-a-vis hippies. From a military perspective in particular.
From a moral perspective, of course, hippies are more utile than draftees - they oppose wars.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on May 15, 2008, 06:26:54 AM
Quote
I didn't say anything about the nature of the draft nor its morality, I was merely addressing the comparative utility of draftees vis-a-vis hippies. From a military perspective in particular.
From a moral perspective, of course, hippies are more utile than draftees - they oppose wars.
That presupposes all wars are immoral, which is not the case.
A hippy protesting a just or necessary war would be the immoral one.
Plus, I was speaking of practical utility, not moral utility.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 17, 2008, 09:29:26 PM
Quote
I didn't say anything about the nature of the draft nor its morality, I was merely addressing the comparative utility of draftees vis-a-vis hippies. From a military perspective in particular.
From a moral perspective, of course, hippies are more utile than draftees - they oppose wars.
That presupposes all wars are immoral, which is not the case.
A hippy protesting a just or necessary war would be the immoral one.
Plus, I was speaking of practical utility, not moral utility.
Observe my hypothesis:
1. Not all wars are immoral. Some wars however are.
2. Anybody touting a war will necessarily claim his favorite war is over.
3. As such, in a healthy society, you must have people who will oppose wars, otherwise the society will just rush headlong into conflict after conflict - q.v. the last two decades of the Soviet Union, wherein that country deployed its troops in 60 [!] local conflagrations in various African and Latin American crapholes, then bankrupted itself in meaningless war in Afghanistan.
Post by: roo_ster on May 18, 2008, 07:42:51 AM
Cleanliness is next to
