A media construct, basically.
Kerry is not doing as well among polled women voters as Democrats typically do, leading some to hypothesize so-called “security moms” who don’t trust Kerry to keep the US safe. Whether there’s any empirical evidence of this is another story.
That war was a hell of a lot bigger, and we were coming out of a depression. The situation isn’t one bit analogous.
Why would you want women to enter the workplace when they’re already there, for crying out loud? Rationing was due to interruption of shipping via sea, which hasn’t happened, and to give first priority to soldiers, who are already pretty well supplied.
War bonds? Sure, go ahead and buy them, if you want to. They’re essentially savings bonds, and aren’t really good investments compared with some others I could name.
I named some things you can do. Why aren’t you thinking of doing them?
David,
I agree, and one of the reasons why I do not think we are “at war”. We may be in “a war”, but I get the feeling that the current administration is content in fooling many Americans into thinking that we are actually making the hard choices necessary to achieve victory. I haven’t seen anything from that group that would make me believe that they are very serious about this issue. They seem content in sacrificing a few thousand American soldiers and several tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis (and Afghanis) to score political points at home.
Is this like saying: “I love you, but I’m not **in **love with you”… 
Your missing the point - I was giving examples of how people were willing to share the burden in the past. It doesn’t mean that the same types of burdens need to be taken on today.
To use present day examples - how about an increase in federal taxes in order to provide money to help fight this war? Or how about re-instituting the draft? How about allocating the necessary funds and resources to Homeland Security in order to secure elements of our critical infrastructure?
And what makes you think I haven’t done so already? Sorry if I sound snarky, but I don’t think this “war” will resonate with many Americans unless they are directly affected in some manner. I may be willing to donate to the USO, or offer my time to the local American Legion, or write my congressman in support of increased taxes or the re-instatement of the draft, or some other activity. But what if I wasn’t willing? What if most Americans weren’t willing? What then?
More like a yo-yo.
Actually, I think that’s a good analogy. There’s a certain similarity in the intensity, scope, and purposefulness of each (being “in love” and “at war”).
Well you have to remember that for many, making any financial sacrifice in the name of national security, such as buying saving bonds, is making an investment that isn’t nearly as good as it could be. The US mindset seems to be formless dread of some unknown bogey man without any determination to alter a comfortable lifestyle in order to remove that dread.
In addition, the war in Iraq didn’t have a damned thing to do with national security and has taken away assets that could be used for diplomatic, intelligence and other counter terrorist methods. GW, Rummy and the gang that can’t shoot straight are trying to get security by borrowing $400 billion a year and using a very limited number of paid professional troops in the wrong place.
And this is the description of a “determined leader?” The last leader that I remember who was determined to cling rigidly to a wrongheaded course was another small, and small minded, man with a mustache and hair that hung down over his forehead.
If we’re going to play inane semantic games about the difference between armistices and peace treaties, one must note that Korea was a “police action”, not a war. Sorry.
Sacrifice isn’t a requirement for war. How much sacrifice did Americans make during the war against Mexico or the war against Spain? How about Viet-Nam, Korea, or the Gulf War? Sacrifice can certainly be a requirement for the general population during a war but it is not necessarily a requirement.
Because we’re pretty darn wealthy and we can afford to wage wars without lowering our standards of living. Maybe it’d be different if we had to mobilize as many men as we did in WWII.
Marc
As my grandfather once told me. “When you’re the one getting shot at, it sure feels like a war.”
Marc
Whoa, a month ago I would have qualified. Good thing the divorce came through. But the how the hell do I qualify as a “security mom” when I have no children?!?!
–a predominantly white woman
We are so wealthy we can afford to borrow $422 billion this year and who knows how much next.
And, believe it or not, WWII actually raised the standard of living for most people in the US in spite of rationing and shortages of consumer goods.
Sacrifice isn’t a requirement, it’s a necessity. War creates dead bodies (the ultimate sacrifice). It just depends on who is willing (or able) to make the sacrifice and who isn’t. I’d rather there be a lot of people willing to take on the burdens of warfare (in varying capacities) than just a few.
Good question, and some would argue that a few of the above were not “just wars” in that only a few were asked to share the burderns of warfare rather than a much larger percentage of the population. We can leave the question aside as to which wars were just or not.
I’ll disagree - sacrifice is a necessity. The real question is 1) who is making the sacrifice 2) how many people are involved in shouldering the burden? We (the US) can engage in all kinds of wars and the average American may not be asked to make any sacrifices at all. If that’s the case, then why should I, or anyone else, care whether someone is willing to make the ultimate sacrifice?
Well, as David Simmons points out, we are currently borrowing money to propigate current military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan (not to mention money being spent on other items directly/indirectly related to the war on terror). Which raise the question as to how serious we are regarding this war.
You may feel it’s comforting to think we are wealthy enough to be able to fight wars without being inconvenienced. It’s uncomfortable to me to expect (and demand of) a few people sacrifice, comittment, and duty to a serious matter such as war without others sharing some of that burden. It may be “a war”, but not a just war and a war I would not want to be asked (alone) to make a sacrifice for.
Now, are we at war with a method of intimidation(“Terrorism”), an emotion(“Terror”) or the entire planet(“Terra”)?
Maybe he meant small, short-haired dogs(“Terriers”)?
Semantic games? An armistice is a “temporary cessation of fighting by mutual consent; a truce” — American Heritage. A peace treaty is “a treaty to cease hostilities” — Op. Cit. Just because you don’t know the difference doesn’t make it a game. “Police action” is a term made up by President Truman on July 19, 1950 to “get around the necessity of asking Congress to declare war”. — John T. Correll, Editor in Chief, Journal of the Air Force Association
Blah, blah, blah.
The Korean War ended in 1953. A war is not something that exists on paper or that is declared by legal fiat; a war is a series of actions that comprise an armed conflict. The armed conflict ended 51 years ago. If they start fighting again in Korea, it will obviously be a new war.
I think an argument could be made that evangelists in the U.S. are at war with everyone else.
If you want to play silly little word games, fine. Obviously someone has to make a sacrifice but I was under the impression that we were talking about the general population as a whole and not just a specific subgroup.
Now we’re changing the parameters of the discussion? No longer are we really talking about war in general being possible without the sacrifice of many. Now we’re discussing whether a war is determined to be “just” based on the percentage of the population that must sacrifice, what percentage by the way?
Ok, I never said sacrifice wasn’t necessary. I simply said that sacrifice on the part of the general population is not a necessity for war. It is entirely possible to wage a war with very little sacrifice on the part of the general population. Viet-Nam, Korea, the Gulf War, as well as the wars with Mexico and Spain. So yes, it seems entirely possible to wage a war without great sacrifice on the part of the general population. Whether it’s just or fair is another matter which wasn’t really addressed in the OP.
In a way it’s comforting knowing that I’m pretty secure. On the other hand it’s kind of disconcerting because it may become to easy for someone to say “what the hell, bomb 'em. It isn’t going to have any affect on me.” The righteousness of a war isn’t determined by how many people sacrifice for it. At least not to me.
Marc
Marc,
Sorry - I wasn’t attempting to change the parameters of the discussion. However, what I am trying to emphasize with respect to sacrifice is that 1) yes, it is possible to wage a war without great sacrifice on the part of the general population. In other words, the majority of the population wouldn’t be expected to make ultimate sacrifice (death) nor be expected to endure hardships (such as rationing, for example); 2) however, it times of war it has generally been the case that the majority of the population help shoulder the burden in varying capacities. The clearest example I can think of is the powers that be making the hard choice of raising taxes to pay for the war. By raising taxes, almost everyone is being asked to shoulder some of the burden.
In other words, I may not be asked to make the ultimate sacrifice; however, I am my fellow Americans, in agreeing with the seriousness of the nature of warfare, am willing (and able) to shoulder some of the burden by having the government take a little bit more in taxes to support the war effort.
You are correct that the righteousness of a war isn’t determined by how many people sacrifice for it. However, the seriousness with which the war is supported and propograted is determined by how many are willing to shoulder the burden in varying capacities - whether it be the ultimiate sacrifice or other sacrifices of various degrees (such as being inconvenienced in having to pay higher taxes in support of the war).