I admit, there is much about the Dishfunctional Effect that eludes me. Perhaps more clarity on your part, a bit more definition? For instance, you tacitly admit that the overwhelming support of the Japanese people did not have any noticeable effect on their military success, but wave that away because such support was not gained by the correct means, as it was imposed from above.
All right then, what about the French? Surely the vast majority of the French people whole-heartedly supported their troops as the panzergruppen ground towards Paris. (Indeed, that support continued unabated, since close to 95% of the French politicians who lived during those years were active members of the Resistance…) Can you give us a rough estimate of the tanks disabled by said popular support? I think not. But I await instruction on this seemingly marvelous…nay, *magical * principle that has eluded historians and scholars until your arrival.
And there apparently is some threshold effect here. You point out that popular support in America was not unanimous, the scoundrels Byrd and Kerry displayed something less than full-throated ardor. (Mr. Kerry might, perhaps, be forgiven, as he had some experience in the matter not accessible to The Leader, despite his glorious record of protecting the skies above Amarillo from Viet Cong aircraft…)
What degree of support is necessary before the Dish Effect takes hold? Unanimous support simply isn’t possible, now is it? Are we unpatriotic dissenters requied to voice enthusiasm for this asinine debacle, or would it be sufficient if we simply shut up? Or might we be permitted to grumble under our breath without endangering the magic of the Dish Effect? Are we permitted some doubt in our secret heart of hearts, or must we see five fingers if the Party says so?
And isn’t it rather plainly obvious that a scoundrel, shielded by the glamour of the Dish Effect, can have his way with us by the simple expedient of declaring some military emergency? Even dinky little pissant conflicts, such as Grenada? What level of public support, do you think, is required before the greatest military force in human history could crush a battallion of Cuban bulldozer drivers. (Granted, an elite force of crack commando bulldozer drivers, but still…) If 90% of the American public had thought the war utter bullshit (which, I suggest, it was…) might we have lost? Our massive military force rendered impotent by our failure to support?
I think not, but await further instruction. This Dish Effect, is it in any way related to the force?
Why do you believe that? What major strategic difference would it have made to the conduct and outcome of the war if every American had said they supported it? In what way would that have improved the quality of our pre-war intelligence, or the policies of the Coalition Provisional Authority, or the mood of angry Iraqi ex-soldiers who had nothing left but their guns? How, exactly, do you suggest that unanimous public support in the US would have changed any of that?
I don’t think you can find an instance in human history of a war of aggression that was supported by everyone in the aggressor country. A war that requires that much support in order to succeed is the wrong war to fight in the first place.
This belief of yours sounds to me like just a fantasy for deflecting the guilt away from the people who were responsible for the war and onto the people who criticized their poor judgement. The trademark excuse of a poor leader, or an apologist for a poor leader, is that he’d be doing great if he could only have had better support from his team.
Heh… I wish. I could use a little extra-terrestrial help around here. You guys are brutal!
Look, it pains me to take leave like this, right in the middle of such a lively exchange, but I must. My work requires my presence at an annex in the desert where I’ll have only dial-up and a laptop. I’ll do my best, but I suspect that the infrastructure-related frustration will far outweigh any I may have confronted here to date.
Before I bail, however, and since time restraints prevent me from responding adequately to an increasing number of confrontational comments, let me at least reply to elucidator as the door hits me in the ass:
Well, it’s a little bit more than that, and I’ll admit right up front that the entire idea of full support was pie-in-the-sky. Actually, I would have settled for grudging support - anything but the partisan backstabbing we and the rest of the world saw from the Democrat Party during a time of war, both here at home and most disturbingly, abroad. What that did for the morale of our enemies and their accomplices is immeasurable, and history will record it as the disgrace that it was, and I can’t blame those who crafted this unprecedented low-light in American political history for not wanting to take credit today for the consequences. Had we, as a unified nation, acknowledged our political differences but set them aside in some negotiated temporary stalemate, and in a direct and cohesive response to the threat from this new and nationless enemy, threw aside ineffective, outdated convention and in defense of the WORLD, stood up to the French, the Germans, the Russians, and everyone else at the UN who had their hands in the till, I don’t care how many indignant and high-sounding excuses anyone can come up with for withholding that critical support, the outcome would have been different – inarguably and decidedly so. We are the United States of America, and when we speak as one, EF Hutton listens. THAT’S the difference between us, the Japanese and your Vichy French, Luc, whose leadership, by the way, sold them out. It was not the honorable opposition, as is the case here today.
You know, Luc, since you’ve asked, that difference we’re talking about actually is The Force, and you can ridicule it all you want. You are certainly not the first to do so, and our pathetic response to the first crisis of the 21st century pretty much assures that there will be more, thanks again to the “anti-war” crowd. Anti-war… what a fucking joke! When some madman is holding a gun to your head, you can beg, plead, whine or protest all you want, right up until the fucking bullet explodes in your fucking brain. Or you can pull the D-ring on your Nutritium belt and vaporize the gun, the bullet and his raggedy ass all to hell. THAT’S anti-war.
But I digress… I submit that had we met this latest attack with the above-referenced unified front, the response from our “allies” would have been markedly different. Certainly they would have had to scramble to cover their crooked asses, but they would have done so in a way to save face, and they might have at least opted not to obstruct, as they felt free to do while we were in the throes of political schizophrenia. Third World countries, who look to Europe for their lead, would have followed, with a few puny, for-local-consumption-only objections, amounting to nothing. The response from Saddam probably would not have been that different - there is the perfect fool, the product of his own ignorant-ass arrogance propped up by European double-dealing and greed. No, we would have probably still had to dig him out of that spider hole, but it would have happened at least six months and several thousand deaths earlier. And probably the most significant change in response to a committed, determined, damn-the-torpedoes America would have been that of Osama bin Laden and his sycophants in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and Iran, not to mention Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. He would not have enjoyed the same sympathetic press coverage from these extremist-fearing dictatorships if they had been looking over their shoulder at one pissed off super power breathing heavily down their necks.
But hey, like I said, I’ve got to run. I will be back, but I’ll understand if the thread drops out of sight. I’m sure we’ll catch each other again in another thread – same shit, different debate. Certainly I see no signs of any minds being changed here, and I’m quite sure there are some out there who are still looking for a mind to change. (That’s a joke, at my expense… get it?) Despite our polarized points of view, I appreciate your participation, elucidator. I came here because the board was recommended as a place where I could find many differing opinions, with the intriguing promise that I, myself, might even develop new ones. You were among the first to welcome me to the forum, and you have provided exactly what I came here for: the opportunity to express my thoughts, hear those of others, and examine the cogency of each.
I’m not really a democrat but I thought this needed addressing. While I can’t speak for democrats I for one have had a ball.
Even leaving aside the obvious, do you recall that there was a time when:
There were serious attempts to argue that the Republican administration had not made a deliberated decision to violate the Geneva Conventions at Gitmo.
There were serious attempts to argue that the Republican administration had not made torture a formal part of US foreign policy.
There were serious attempts to argue that the US military would be well received in Iraq, that the cost would be low in life and treasure and would be recovered from oil revenues.
There were serious attempts to argue that the invasion would lead to the Beirut Spring, a flowering of progressive western friendly governments in the region.
There were serious attempts to argue that Osama Bin Laden would be captured and tried by the Republican administration.
There were serious attempts to argue that the Republican administration would be a low spending government.
There was a serious committment to higher eithics in government by the Republican administration.
The US was taken seriously as an honest broker of international relations.
These were the grave and solemn policy positions. Hard to imagine isn’t it? What does the GOP stand for now? “People will vote for us anyway because we own the media and they’re mostly dupes.”
Well let me tell you, there isn’t much scope to argue on that one. For the rest it’s been some fun eviscerating that right-wing self love and watching one of the US’s major political parties grind into intellectual bankruptcy. It’s a plaything to batter around at will.