 |
| |
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:16
|
|
After spending much, much time on 'Poly, while reading the posts of many American posters, I think this question is interesting. And it's a question that cannot be answered by a one big "duh!" in one direction or the other.
Why is this question interesting?
The US has a very comfortable #1 position in the world, in military and diplomatic matters. The US, as such, can go to war virtually unchallenged. The way the Americans at large (public opinion and political elites alike) see war has thus a strong impact on the world.
Besides, with Sept. 11, the Us has discovered that the post-cold-war world was a dangerous place for them too. War is one of the ways the US can adapt to these new threats (and the US has waged two wars already since Sept. 11)
Why would te Americans be warlike?
1. War is seen as an acceptable political method.
The US hasn't suffered any significant horror and destruction since the Civil War, bar Sept. 11 (and one may argue Sept. 11 is a pretty paltry horror in comparison to what other countries have experienced in their history, but that's not the point of this thread).
As a result, there are far fewer Americans than, say, Europeans, who oppose the very idea of war for the sake of principle. When Europeans want to use all political means until exhaustion, many Americans wish a swift action to be taken, because the "bad guys" don't care for words, and only understand force.
This "It's about time we do something that works!" mentality could be seen with the war in Kosovo (where the American diplomacy ruined the -maybe useless- European diplomacy by immediately siding with the guerilla and initiating the NATO war against Serbia). It could also be seen in Iraq, where the US wanted a war, as they distrusted Saddam to comply if not for that.
This mentality, I have also seen it time and time again, held by numerous posters. I am not arguing that it is right or wrong. I am arguing, however, that this mentality makes war something acceptable.
2. The belief in the US as a force of good.
The so-called 'Messianic self-opinion of the United States' strikes me as completely true, by my experience here. Nearly every American supporter of the wars happening after the Cold War argued that the American involvement would make the attacked country a better place.
Among our American posters who support outside intervention, most think that the US' role is to shape the world in a better place. Very few show their belief that the US should strive for its interests, and nothing else matters.
It means that the States have the right to impose their solutions to "shitholes", sometimes at gunpoint. The US has a right to change entire nations or regions in a fashion that the Americans think is better (again, I'm not judgemental - it has happened quite a few times that the modified nation strongly appreciates it).
Of course, since the Americans see themselves as the "good guys", and since their enemies are always the "bad guys", it makes war the more acceptable. Who wants to see bad guys still in place, when the good guys can do something about it?
3. The belief in technology and "Clean Wars".
The terminology is amazing. "Smart Weapons". "Clean War". "Zero-dead war". Admittedly, these concepts have suffered a bit since Gulf-War 2, as many Americans lost their lives in very nasty ways. And because some fights (Fallujah) were not done throough glitzy electronics, but showed the cruel reality of street warfare.
But despite these recents setbacks for the idea of a "clean" war, I think this belief is deeply ingrained in the American psyche. Many Americans here get defensive when someone mentions a 'absurdly' high amount of Iraqi casualties. It hints to a kind of shame that the Americans (the ones with the technology that can kill foes without killing friends) would kill too many people.
So, the Americans not only tend to believe that war is something acceptable (point 1 & 2), but also something that ought to be relatively painless.
4. The belief in the military as a force of good.
The way the Americans see their military strikes me as something completely different to what I grew up in. Over here, you'll never hear somebody saying "The troops defend our Freedom!" (how many times did I see Americans making that statement). The military is seen as force of freedom, of liberation.
To many, the military is also very formative. Many posters here (despite 'Poly being far more liberal than the bulk of the US) identify strongly with their military past. I don't remember even one non-American poster sporting its military past as a main aspect of their identity.
Besides, the military seems to be an important issue in everyday discussions. People are expected to visibly "support the troops", whether in our debates, or in real life. For example, OzzyKP told us about the "Yellow Ribbon Fever", the Yellow Ribbon was originally a symbol someone hung at his front door to say they had a relative serving in a war. It has turned into a symbol saying "I support the troops" to all your neighbours. The fact that it spread so much shows that 1) support for the troops is socially expected (and no, it is not obvious) and 2) many people consider it an important enough issue that they put a symbol on their front door that actively shows their concern.
Last edited by Spiffor on 01-01-2005 at 21:49
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:16
|
|
Why would the Americans not be warlike?
1. The temptation of isolationism.
The idea of isolationism is still alive in the US, even though it took a setback since Sept. 11. George Bush defended an Isolationist policy in his first monthes before the attack, and the US shows extreme distrust toward international bodies or agreements (distrust toward the UN, toward the ICC, toward Kyoto, etc.)
I think this distrust shows that many Americans continue to have the deeply-seated attitudes that favor isolationism, and it will emerge once again when the war on terror will be over. I think these isolationist tendencies were the main reasons why the Bush admin had to propagandize about the Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Saddam-Ossama link. Had the propaganda been only about the need to oust a brutal dictator, the support for the war would have probably been far less important among the Public Opinion.
2. The idea that the US are the good guys (again)
This belief makes "good" wars more acceptable to the American public. But in the same vein, it makes "bad" wars less acceptable. Many Americans (conservatives as well as liberals) will not accept that the good guys spill blood just for greed.
Unlike many other countries where the leaders can decide to go to war pretty much on a whim, the American leadership has to convince its public opinion that the war is good. It takes time, and it doesn't always work. The lengths the American propagandists go to justify their wars would strike many authoritarian rulers as completely useless.
LOTM once said "We are a nation of reluctant warriors", which IMO is quite true. It takes time to motivate the Americans into supporting a war. And that support must be continually fed, lest the public discovers how indeed nasty the war is.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
There are so many generalizations, misconseptions, and gross exaggerations about both sides of the Atlantic. that it is hard to take your post as more than a well-veiled troll. |
There are many generalizations, true. This is why I said "many", "tend to" etc, because I know I have no figures to back these impressions up.
If you see misconceptions, please go ahead and tell me which. Most of my conceptions come from my experience of speaking with Americans here (and I know 'Poly is not a reliable sample of the US, in that it is much more liberal), and some others come from what I percieve as mass-behaviour and the way I interpret it.
I am fully aware my perceptions can be false. Now, I intended to make a serious thread, and I would have never put so much effort in a troll. So if you see misconceptions, please go ahead and tell me which ones.
Last edited by Spiffor on 01-01-2005 at 22:16
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ted Striker
|
 |
United States of America
Jan 1970
time: 21:16
|
|
I think alot of Americans are looking for an excuse to do something to recreate the "glory" of World War 2.
World War 2 is so ingrained into our heads I don't think how many people realize it.
This explains point #2 on your original post, Spiffor.
Nobody realizes that a bunch of other things have happened in the last 50 years.
Last edited by Ted Striker on 01-01-2005 at 22:24
|
|
| |
|
|
|
VetLegion
|
|
"No" is holding its ground with respectable 8,33% of all votes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
First, it was Americans first and foremost that took to the streets to protest the war in Iraq. It is Americans that first and foremost continue to do so. |
Err, the US is one of the few countries in the world where the majority of the population supported the war in Iraq. An international demonstration gathered 10 millions in one day, incl. 2 millions in Rome alone.
There are Americans who oppose the war in Iraq (and they're a very significant minority), but the American mass-behaviour is specific, compared to other countries', in that the support for the war was exceptionally high in comparison.
quote:
Its hard to distinguish when you're talking about the Administration and the American people. Often, you say that Americans did this and that when it was the self-righteous Bush team (and even the staunchest conservative knows they're self-righteous) that took action that had to be defended and justified by their supporters. |
I'm interested. Could you please be more specific about what you mean? One of my wishes with this thread is precisely to understand what is admin-specific, and what is general to Americans.
quote:
As far as being the "good guys"...everyone sees themselves as the good guys. It is a small but vocal group that thinks that we're messianic. The only times we meddle with foreign nations, get this, ISN'T to change them for right but to change them so that our interests are secured. That's not the people, that's those in power. |
We completely agree on that. However, I think the American propagandists, in order to manipulate the Public Opinion to get suport, partly played on this mass-conception of the American psyche, that the US can and should do good in the world. In every war I can think of, where the US was involved, the Propaganda always mentioned the US was making a better life for the poeple there, even in Afghanistan where no Nation-Building was ever involved.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
VetLegion
|
|
"No" is at its historical peak with 12.50%. We don't exepect it to go any higher ladies and gentlemen.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:16
|
|
I think most Americans follow the centuries-old notion that war is an acceptable extension of national geopolitics, if the proper case is made. Of course, making this case follows a particularly American track, where the correctness of the action is weighed in the public discourse as well as the benefits and costs. The correctness of the action is what is thought to sustain the morale of our soldiers in the field and the easy pursestrings of the congress.
Always remember that the US is one of the very few countries in the world that is not based on ethnicity but rather ideology. Ideology is what unites the U.S. Any potential action has to have strong backing from the underlying ideology in order to be sustained and effective.
Regarding propaganda and Gulf War 2, Bush didn't need to gain any support for toppling Saddam, but he had to forestall any potential erosion of support for the proposition that had been remarkably steady for more than a decade and was the result of our experiences leading up to Gulf War I. In addition, the British public was only marginally less supportive of Gulf War II (a little less than 50%, IIRC) than the American public (62%). Each European country had its own views on the matter.
Regarding clean wars, with great power comes great responsibility. Our military has the doctrine of bringing overwhelming force to bear to achieve its objectives. If you don't have something balancing the application of that overwhelming force, you start turning countries like Iraq into class factories. Our national "code" is such that we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars to narrowcast that overwhelming force, when possible.
Regarding "hell holes", those are to be avoided rather than attacked. However, we seem to always need to fight in such hell holes...
Last edited by DanS on 01-01-2005 at 23:35
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-01-2005 21:24
|