There have been a few times a while back where I suggested that by being too outspoken about one’s hatred of the war and our role in it, that one might unintentionally spurring the enemy on. Logically, this would result in more conflicts for our soldiers and, subsequently, more U.S. and allied deaths. I was told that that was not the case. That it was probably the other way around: “Hey those Americans aren’t all bad, look at all those anti-war liberals laying into Bush over the war. Guess we should give them a brake after all…”
Well, it appears that all the vociferous yapping about the war from its detractors has indeed emboldened the enemy and caused more U.S. deaths. From here:
But here’s a quote some of you will no doubt cling to:
So, I’d like to congratulate my moral nemesis Der Trihs—it seems that your protestations may have indeed made your wish come true and resulted in the deaths of some U.S. soldiers. I don’t know of anyone else who would celebrate this news and the deaths caused by protestations back home, so maybe it will give some of you pause.
Before some of you fly off the handle, this does not imply that one can’t in good conscience be against the war and work to stop it. I even, at the request of a fellow poster (I forget who) wrote a letter that would make the argument that the war should be ended, but in a way that didn’t seek to obliterate Bush (who I am no fan of) and have him not listen to the arguments.
The study seems to think it was significant. And this has nothing to do with free speech. No one is suggesting that people not be allowed to say whatever they want, just that they should be aware that their protestations might be emboldening the enemy and resulting in U.S. deaths. As I mentioned, I think one can be against the war AND work toward it’s end, but maybe the cheap over-the-top Bush is Evil rhetoric not only doesn’t do any good other than provide some catharsis for the protester, but it actually hurts us. I think that people should understand the potential negative of their actions and act accordingly. If we all do, we’ll know that those who insist with their same actions will be of the Der Trihs stripe, and they will represent the fringe that they are. The fringe that most liberal Dopers insist that he is.
I think you need to be clearer about this. There is going to be a difference between mathematical significance (which I’m sure everyone will answer) and practical significance.
I’m positive the correlation is mathematically significant. Let’s just assume people are competent enough to weed statistical insignificance out.
What we really need to know is how this stacks up against all the other things that inflame public opinion. So what if a media report caused an extra 0.3 attacks, if Abu Gharib caused an extra 4,500? The fact that our troops live on Iraqi soil is inflammatory - how much more inflammatory is a media report about dissenting Americans?
Since I doubt that anyone involved knows I’m alive, I doubt it. Not that I have any sympathy for the soldiers, or regard it as anything other than a small victory for humanity when American soldiers in Iraq are killed.
I suspect the majority of our victims would celebrate. The ones that are alive, that is.
What makes you think he listens to any arguments at all ?
And since when has been being unwilling to make a scene persuaded the government to do anything ? I hear arguments like this from the Right all the time; it’s pretty obvious the real point is that they want their opponents to let them do whatever they like. You don’t get your way from being meek and mild.
Exactly. We heard the same argument as the OP back during Viet Nam, and it’s as invalid now as it was then. Do you really think the enemy gives a crap about U.S. opponents of the war? They’re already “emboldened” to the max. If you’re worried about American (and other) deaths, we need ***more ***outspoken critics, not fewer.
So if we’re averaging 400 (low point) to 1580 (high point) attacks a week, it seems that number will climb to 428 to 440 or 1690 to 1738 attacks for about a week following anti-war declarations in the U.S., then drop back down again.
So, the actual spur for the brief eruptions of additional violence (with no indication that there is any long-term effect), is just as likely to be reaction to the “stay the course” message that the administration routinely uses to attempt to counter the protests.
It seems to me that we should tell the administration to shut up the next three or four times someone protests the war to see which statements are the actual triggers.
No one is advocating for the idiocy and ugliness of an Abu Ghraib. No doubt that caused damage and additional deaths. But that doesn’t mean that a separate, subsequent act that causes increased attacks and deaths is therefore given a pass. Sheeze. Come on, now…
No, it’s outspoken supporters of the war that have caused American deaths. You’re the one who sent those Americans into a warzone and insists on keeping them there for no reason. Get American troops out of Iraq and Iraqis will stop killing them. The obstacle to this plan is the people who would prefer to see Americans keep on dying rather than admit they made a mistake.
Even if true, so what? We swear to uphold the Constitution above all else, followed by the orders of those appointed over us. The right to free speech is foremost in the Bill of Rights.
The principles that we promise to uphold should be exercised by the citizens of the country we fight for. Otherwise, why bother?
Wait, isn’t it the people whom make the planes who transport them? So, it’s the Wright Brothers’ fault!!! :rolleyes: Look, this debate is not whether the war was a good move or not. It’s, while we’re there, to what degree do loud protests embolden the enemy and cause deaths of our own. And given that it does seem to be true (see study) what responsibility do protesters have to either tone down their rhetoric or accept responsibility for U.S. deaths. I’ll point out that most every additional clash that will result in these additional U.S. deaths will also likely result in additional deaths of Iraqis, both innocent and not.
It must not be toned down. It must be increased until the people that it is directed at (American policymakers, for those of you playing at home) listen to it and get our troops out of there.
That’s an outright ridiculous comment. To point out the incredibly obvious, the people who push for a particular course of action, or order it, are responsible for the results of that action. Not people who have been dead for quite a few decades, who developed a technology with occasional use in the subject at hand.
If we are discussing responsibility for the deaths involved, yes it is.
Not nearly as much as attacking them, torturing them, wrecking the country, and so on. Murderous hatred towards our troops is both justified and to be expected, under the circumstances.
And again, the primary cause of the deaths of our troops is that they are there. Protests are more likely to remove them, than being quiet while war supporters cheer the disaster on.
Ms. Chenoweth notes that the study could be improved if they tested for pro-resolve statements, to eliminate the grey area you cited. BUt she seems impressed by it.
Now let me ask you this. Way back when, it was a matter of my opinion against that of others. Now we have a study that appears that the protesters actions have had an unintended (mostly) negative effect. It seems that the burden of proof has fallen to my detractors now, which I assume you are one. Unless you are of the opinion that the study is so far useless. Is that your opinion?
And let me ask you, and others, this, as well: Let’s say that the findings are factual and that future studies will support this. If so, does that matter at all? Don’t you think that changes the equation. Most of the time we evaluate protests for the possible good they can do, assuming there is no downside. That’s what was argued here months (years?) ago. But if that premise is false, do not protesters have a moral responsibility to take the negative effects of their actions into account. Let’s assume that you are against the war. Let’s assume that you think it idiocy and want everyone home. Your reasons for this are that lives are being lost—on both sides—needlessly. You care about the Iraqis and our own soldiers and want them brought home to put an end to the killing. And you protest to those ends. But now, let’s ASSUME it is proven that your actions are causing more clashes and causing more deaths. That every time you protest and it makes the news IT DOES embolden the enemy and they increase their attacks, upping the body count across the board. IF that were shown to be the case, would you not have a moral responsibility to change your methods?
This should lead directly to another scholarly study, perhaps something like “The Incidence of Utter Retardation as a Factor in Insurgent Motivation”. It is presented to us that the prevalence of “anti-resolve” statements (overlooking that “anti-resolve” stinks of agena like week-old roadkill smells like dead…) leads directly to an emboldened enemy, which results in more attacks and a higher US casualty rate.
Well, then, it must follow that our enemies are rather severely impaired, cognitively speaking. Any one with the good sense that God gave a goose would have noticed, Shirley, by now that the opinion of the American people and the expression of that discontent have diddly squat to do with anything.
We had an election, widely understood as showing that we, the people, are sick to puke of this goddam war. What was the result? A “surge”. So why would anybody be “emboldened” by public dissent? Unless they are complete shit-for-brains.
First, that assumes it will work in the end. Second, it assumes that the body count due to these “increased” protests will be less than the total deaths otherwise.
Tell me, if this study is true, why does it not fall to those doing the protesting—and causing additional deaths—to find other means to reach their desired goal. It might even be, as I believe, that less ugly protests along with other actions would be more effective.
I just don’t understand how one can protest to “put an end to the killing” if they know that their protesting in that manner will result in deaths that would not have occurred.