Here’s some evidence.
Let’s see whether General Trainor’s speech is an above-the-fold headline in the New York Times front page tomorrow and whether it gets reported on network national news, the way Scowcroft’s opposition was. I’m kidding. We all know that it won’t be.
Oh come on. General Trainor is practically unknown; he hardly ranks in the category of Scowcroft or even Zinni (whose own criticisms were not given much publicity btw)
Here is a navy guy who calls for inspections first in direct contradiction to the Bush policy. He was largely ignored by the national media too for the simple reason that he is not well-known outside military circles.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A10749-2002Jul27
BTW I found the WaPo article I had mentioned earlier:
The money sentence:
“Despite President Bush’s repeated bellicose statements about Iraq, many senior U.S. military officers contend that President Saddam Hussein poses no immediate threat and that the United States should continue its policy of containment rather than invade Iraq to force a change of leadership in Baghdad.”
What’s the possibility that this is all a large-scale game of good-cop bad-cop?
Nobody disagrees with the position that Saddam is a bastard and a thug and that the Iraqi people, not to mention the whole Mideast region, would be better off without him. Until he’s removed from power, his teeth need to be pulled; this is the principle of containment. Last time around, weapons inspectors crippled – but did not eliminate – his NBC programs. That would obviously be the preferred solution again, but Saddam’s having none of it.
So the Bush administration sits down with the leaders of Germany, Jordan, and whoever else will listen, and says, “Okay, we’re going to start rattling the saber. You guys should oppose us in public, but behind the scenes, go talk to Iraq’s people and give them the old, ‘Yeah, we don’t want the U.S. to invade, but we’re not sure how long we can hold them back’ routine. ‘Reconsider your opposition to inspectors, and soon, because the rabid dogs in America aren’t really listening to us.’”
It’s a win-win for everybody. Leaders in Europe and the Mideast get to talk smack about America’s loose cannons, but simultaneously use that as leverage to get Saddam to do what everybody wants. Of course, it looks like Saddam isn’t going to budge, and is calling the bluff.
Is the Bush team smart enough to try something like this? Would our allies cooperate in such a scheme?
Excellent find, CyberPundit It seems to support your thesis that the military opposes war, whereas Bush’s civilian advisors support war. However, you have pushed me into carefully reading the article, for which I thank you. It does not say that a majority of military officers oppose the war; it merely says that “some” or “many” of them do. Let’s look through the article at the guantities or numbers that it refers to[ul][]Some Top Military Brass Favor Status Quo (headline) SOME[]…many senior U.S. military officers contend that …Hussein poses no immediate threat MANY[] The cautious approach – held by some top generals and admirals SOME[]The senior officers’ position – that… it would be unwise [NO QUANTIFIER][]The uniformed military’s skepticism…[THEY DROPPED “SOME” AND IMPLY THAT SKEPTICISM IS BROADLY HELD[]But the military leadership’s insistence on airing its concerns [AGAIN, “SOME” IS MISSING][]By making their views known, the top brass…[SOUNDS LIKE THE ENTIRE TOP BRASS][] The military’s objections [NOW IT SOUNDS LIKE THE ENTIRE MILITARY][]over the last decade, the military grew more comfortable [AGAIN, THE ENTIRE MILITARY][]Senior officers believe the policy has been more effective [WHICH SENIOR OFFICERS? HOW MANY OF THEM?][]Active-duty members of the military have not publicly questioned … but in private some are very doubtful about it [BACK TO ONLY SOME][]More than one officer interviewed questioned the president’s motivation MORE THAN ONEthe military’s view that there is no evidence of an Iraqi intent to work with terrorists to attack the United States [BACK TO THE ENTIRE MILITARY][/ul]The writing is imprecise, so we cannot tell if the number of military officers who oppose the war is 10 or 100,000 or whether the percent is 5% or 95%.
When we do not have all the proofs at our hands, let’s think!
How long do You think that this kind of war will last?
Answer:
So in fact the “war” will never end, or if it will end, it will end in a total war on earth. And the only problem solved on earth, is the over-population problem.
I hope I am wrong.
Have a nice day.
It is true that we can’t tell if strictly speaking a majority are opposed or not. However the article stresses the skepticism among soldiers and doesn’t mention any signifcant enthusiasm for war. So it definitely seems that the soldiers are more skeptical than not. I think it is significant that the article does try to get the hawks’ view at the end and it quotes Pearle trying to minimize the importance of professional military opinion in the decision to go to war. If there was significant support among professionals for his position, Pearle would have probably not done that.
In any case even if we can’t be sure that a majority of military pros are skeptical is almost certainly the case that a significant number of them are skeptical based on the article.
When you add to the fact that there is a fair amount of skepticism in the State Department,CIA, Democratic Party, moderate Republicans (Scowcroft,Baker etc.) , Arab countries and European countries that’s an awful lot of skepticism for such a big and risky war.
For such a big operation you really want solid support both internationally and domestically. What you have is a situation where the Bush administration itself is divided and most of the rest of the country and world is skeptical. Not a good basis for war.
Uh, you do realize that a majority of Americans support Bush on this, right? Here’s the latest Gallup Poll on the subject.
That’s from the 23rd. A new NewsWeek poll out today shows 62% of the people support a war against Iraq. That is an extraordinarily high level of support for military action.
Actually if you question is phrased as do you support war if there will be significant casualties support drops to just 41% with about 50% against.(according to the ABC poll IIRC) Also it’s interesting that support with no allies is just 20% and with some allies it’s still only 47%.
This is less than overwhelming.
It would be interesting to see how much support there would be for a ground war if Iraq agrees to inspections. I suspect even smaller. Not to mention other nasty possibilities not mentioned in these polls like a chemical/biological attack by Iraq triggered by war or a prolonged American occupation and nation-building effort in Iraq.
A pundit on FNC pointed out that in 1991, Bush 41 considered various steps leading to war, such as stationing troops, etc. Each time, public opinion was split before the President took the action. E.g., the Senate approved the attack by only 5 votes. However, as soon as the President actually took the step, he got massive support.
At this moment, Bush 43 has not taken a position on attacking Iraq. If he makes a definite decision to attack chances are his public support will go way up.
Here is the Newsweek poll.
62% support is for use of military force, support for a big ground war is only 49%, again less than overwhelming. Interestingly 58% say that building support from European allies is very important and a further 28% say it’s somewhat important making a total of 86%. Considering that the Europeans ,even the Brits, seem to be moving further and further away from the American hawks, I would say that’s bad news for the war-camp.
<cynic>
The nation usualy rallies around its leaders during times of military conflict Expect attacks right around the time of midterm elections.
</cynic>
A countdown-to-invasion clock along with a wealth of relevant info can be seen at http://globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq.htm
Tony Blair has just held a press conference reaffirming the idea that Hussein is intending to obtain WMDs and must be “dealt with”. He has claimed that a dossier on Iraq’s activities will be published in the UK in the next few weeks.
It sounds suspiciously like Blair is ‘warming up the crowd’ in the UK, but the opposition within his own party is certainly on the increase. His own constituency agent and members of his local constituency party have gone on record to express concerns; the former Labour defence minister has said that any action could split the government; the former deputy leader of the party, Lord Healey, has claimed that action could bring about the downfall of the government and the end of Blair’s position.
It certainly feels that way here in the UK.
As stated above Blair has been increasingly hawkish recently, and the armed services have been asked to take any outstanding leave by October 15th.
End of Novemeber would be my guess. It is going to happen.
Blair can manage his own party as there is no strong anti-war leader to rally around. Claire Short would probably be the highest profile dissident. Throw in the Tories and he’s got a comfortable majority.
He’d certainly secure a majority for the start of a war, but any high-profile failures, high casualty rates or lack of WMD evidence after the fact would severely undermine his position. It may be that his greatest enemies within the party will stay silent until the middle or end of any conflict. Gordon Brown may yet oppose him.
<cynic> The nation usualy rallies around its leaders during times of military conflict Expect attacks right around the time of midterm elections.
</cynic>
One problem with this scenario. Bush isn’t running.
But his party is. I’m sure they could use a boost.
The ducks are certainly lining up now.
Kuwait announced on the weekend that it fully supported an invasion, and said that as far as it was concerned the war had never ended and the U.S. needed no further justification. That’s a SIGNIFICANT statement from a Muslim country.
France has been backing off its anti-war stance.
As mentioned, Tony Blair is really turning up the heat in the U.K.
The administration ‘first string’ of Powell and Cheney are on the road making the case.
In a really surprising move, U.N. Secretary General Khoffi Anon made a very harsh statement saying that if Iraq accepted inspections, it would have to be “without condition whatsoever”, and that it must happen very promptly. Terms that he has to know will not be accepted by Iraq.
In a possibly related move, a senior administration official just left on a diplomatic trip to China, which analysts think is a road trip to confirm cooperation of the Security Council.
That’s an awful lot of activity for the last week, and it’s all tilting in one direction.
As long as it is not just the US involved with this, i will sleep much better. Is he a tyrant who needs to answer for his crimes before the world and God/Allah? Yes. Is there going to be major upheaval if the US goes in alone? Yes. Still, expect to see riots in the streets in other islamic countries over an invasion.