The Sad Truth Behind Bush's War Rhetoric
A lot has been made lately of President Bush's sinking approval ratings and the related erosion of public support for the war. This gradual loss of support for the war has been attributed to, among other things, the failure to find WMD, the unexpected and persistent violence, and the difficulty in achieving our democratization objectives. While I suspect that these factors are largely responsible for the shift in opinion among the pundit class, I think that the loss of support for the war among the general public has a simpler explanation.
Reporters, pundits, commentators (and bloggers) have a tendency to analyze public opinion as if the general public is as well-versed on the intricacies of policy debates as they are. There's a tendency to assume, therefore, that those Americans who supported the war (and continue to support the war) did so for the same reasons that, say, Christopher Hitchens, Bill Kristol, and Charles Krauthammer did. For instance, the pundit class (right and left) has lately expressed bewilderment that President Bush continues to include passages like this in his speeches on Iraq.
What these intelligent pro-war voices fail to understand, however, is that Bush isn't really invoking the flypaper theory. His message, though vague, is much simpler, much more deceptive, and absolutely crucial to maintaining support for the Iraq war.
The reality is that Bush and his advisors have long understand something that most commentators do not, that support for the war rests largely on widespread ignorance about the very nature of the conflict. Polls have shown again and again that, among Americans who supported our invasion of Iraq, the vast majority were under the mistaken belief that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were somehow responsible for the 9/11 attacks. As difficult as that may be for the pundit-class to believe, it's the truth.
The Bush administration has always relied heavily on this ignorance. In the lead up to war, they did everything they could to perpetuate the misconception that Saddam's regime was behind the 9/11 attacks. Saddam, Iraq, and 9/11 were always mentioned in the same breath. Bush's public statements always referred cryptically to "our enemy" or "they," making little, if any, attempt to explain to Americans the differences between Al Qaeda and Iraq. For a great many supporters of the war, the logic behind it was always very simple: "they" attacked us, so we need to attack "them." We'd all like to assume that everyone understands the difference between Al Qaeda terrorists and secular Baathists, but that's simply not the case.
The Bush administration made the case for war on two very different levels. On one level, they argued that Iraq's possession of WMD was a threat to national security. This argument was very explicit and largely for the benefit of the pundit-class and the international community. For much of the American public, however, this argument was superfluous. To this audience, the Bush administration made its case not with explicit arguments, but with carefully crafted and deliberately vague rhetoric. They knew that these folks didn't know a whole lot about the geopolitics of the Middle East, and they knew that if you mentioned Iraq and 9/11 in the same sentence enough times, many people would assume that Iraq was responsible for those attacks.
So when Bush says that we must "take the fight to the enemy" and that we must "defeat them abroad before they attack us at home," he is not attempting to invoke anything as complex as the flypaper theory. Rather, he is speaking directly to the significant percentage of Americans who still don't understand the difference between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. Bush and his advisors know that, for these people, the crucial difference between the war in Iraq and the war in Vietnam is the fact that, unlike Vietnam, the war in Iraq followed an attack on U.S. soil. If you think that Iraq was responsible for that attack, the logic behind the war is not all that different than the one behind our response to Pearl Harbor in WWII. And for many Americans, this false narrative is still compelling. There were, of course, more intelligent reasons offered by the Bush Administration and commentators for invading Iraq, but I suspect that they weren't the ones that ultimately sold most Americans on the war.
What scares the Bush administration more than anything is the prospect that more and more Americans might come to understand the rather large disconnect between the events of 9/11 and the decision to invade Iraq, that they might realize that when Bush refers to "the enemy" he is actually conflating a number of entirely different things. The fanatics who attacked us on 9/11, after all, were not Iraqis (though significant numbers of Americans continue to think they were). They had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein. That fact can only be glossed over for so long, and Bush and his advisors realize that ignorance about that fact is what keeps many people from viewing the war in Iraq as another Vietnam. So don't look for Bush to try to educate people any time soon. Despite the mockery and bewilderment of his own intelligent supporters, he will continue to make cryptic references to "our enemy" and will continue to talk about "defeat[ing] them abroad before they attack us at home." He has no choice. Support for the war depends on it.
Reporters, pundits, commentators (and bloggers) have a tendency to analyze public opinion as if the general public is as well-versed on the intricacies of policy debates as they are. There's a tendency to assume, therefore, that those Americans who supported the war (and continue to support the war) did so for the same reasons that, say, Christopher Hitchens, Bill Kristol, and Charles Krauthammer did. For instance, the pundit class (right and left) has lately expressed bewilderment that President Bush continues to include passages like this in his speeches on Iraq.
"After September the 11th, I made a commitment toAlthough the President has never explained it as such, his most loyal apologists have come to call this line of reasoning the "flypaper theory." Extrapolating from Bush's words, they suggest that our presence in Iraq has the (intended) consequence of drawing terrorists out into the open so we can more easily dispose of them. Not surprisingly, most serious-minded supporters of the war admit that this argument is rubbish. In a recent post, blogger Greg Djerejian--a supporter of the war-- thoroughly dismantled the so-called flypaper theory and expressed his frustration that Bush continues to invoke it. His sentiment is shared by the vast majority of intelligent supporters of the Iraq invasion. (see here, here, here).
the American people: This nation will not wait to be
attacked again. We will defend our freedom. We will
take the fight to the enemy. Iraq is the latest battlefield
in this war. Many terrorists who kill innocent men,
women, and children on the streets of Baghdad are
followers of the same murderous ideology that took
the lives of our citizens in New York, in Washington, and
Pennsylvania. There is only one course of action against
them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at
home." (from the President's June 28, 2005 speech at
Fort Bragg)
What these intelligent pro-war voices fail to understand, however, is that Bush isn't really invoking the flypaper theory. His message, though vague, is much simpler, much more deceptive, and absolutely crucial to maintaining support for the Iraq war.
The reality is that Bush and his advisors have long understand something that most commentators do not, that support for the war rests largely on widespread ignorance about the very nature of the conflict. Polls have shown again and again that, among Americans who supported our invasion of Iraq, the vast majority were under the mistaken belief that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were somehow responsible for the 9/11 attacks. As difficult as that may be for the pundit-class to believe, it's the truth.
The Bush administration has always relied heavily on this ignorance. In the lead up to war, they did everything they could to perpetuate the misconception that Saddam's regime was behind the 9/11 attacks. Saddam, Iraq, and 9/11 were always mentioned in the same breath. Bush's public statements always referred cryptically to "our enemy" or "they," making little, if any, attempt to explain to Americans the differences between Al Qaeda and Iraq. For a great many supporters of the war, the logic behind it was always very simple: "they" attacked us, so we need to attack "them." We'd all like to assume that everyone understands the difference between Al Qaeda terrorists and secular Baathists, but that's simply not the case.
The Bush administration made the case for war on two very different levels. On one level, they argued that Iraq's possession of WMD was a threat to national security. This argument was very explicit and largely for the benefit of the pundit-class and the international community. For much of the American public, however, this argument was superfluous. To this audience, the Bush administration made its case not with explicit arguments, but with carefully crafted and deliberately vague rhetoric. They knew that these folks didn't know a whole lot about the geopolitics of the Middle East, and they knew that if you mentioned Iraq and 9/11 in the same sentence enough times, many people would assume that Iraq was responsible for those attacks.
So when Bush says that we must "take the fight to the enemy" and that we must "defeat them abroad before they attack us at home," he is not attempting to invoke anything as complex as the flypaper theory. Rather, he is speaking directly to the significant percentage of Americans who still don't understand the difference between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. Bush and his advisors know that, for these people, the crucial difference between the war in Iraq and the war in Vietnam is the fact that, unlike Vietnam, the war in Iraq followed an attack on U.S. soil. If you think that Iraq was responsible for that attack, the logic behind the war is not all that different than the one behind our response to Pearl Harbor in WWII. And for many Americans, this false narrative is still compelling. There were, of course, more intelligent reasons offered by the Bush Administration and commentators for invading Iraq, but I suspect that they weren't the ones that ultimately sold most Americans on the war.
What scares the Bush administration more than anything is the prospect that more and more Americans might come to understand the rather large disconnect between the events of 9/11 and the decision to invade Iraq, that they might realize that when Bush refers to "the enemy" he is actually conflating a number of entirely different things. The fanatics who attacked us on 9/11, after all, were not Iraqis (though significant numbers of Americans continue to think they were). They had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein. That fact can only be glossed over for so long, and Bush and his advisors realize that ignorance about that fact is what keeps many people from viewing the war in Iraq as another Vietnam. So don't look for Bush to try to educate people any time soon. Despite the mockery and bewilderment of his own intelligent supporters, he will continue to make cryptic references to "our enemy" and will continue to talk about "defeat[ing] them abroad before they attack us at home." He has no choice. Support for the war depends on it.
posted by A.L. at 3:54 PM
1 Comments:
This administrations reliance on the ignorance of large portions of the American public has reached new heights for government and extends into policy areas far beyond Iraq. Ignorance is also something that I feel they actively promote. Their social policy despite the rhetoric seems largely geared to creating a super wealthy class as you mention in the estate tax topic and a huge poorer, uneducated, fat, drug addicted and powerless underclass easily manipulated by advertising methods.
We are becoming a society ruled and manipulated by our implanted needs for consumption.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home