Another Iraq War Fib Debunked
President Bush, of course, is fond of comparing his folly in Iraq with World War II and it is oft commented by his supporters that had there been polls during that war they would have showed the support of a fickle public ebbing and flowing with every battle won and lost.
But Josh Marshall notes at Talking Points Memo that there was actually fairly extensive polling of public opinion during the Big One:
“The key point is that many polls were taken during the war. And approval of the president’s conduct of the war, understanding and belief in the goals of the war and other similar measurements all remained constant at very high levels or in some cases actually went up. One key data point you can see on the chart is the number of Americans will to make peace with Hitler — that is, an negotiated end to the war rather than the unconditional surrender which was a key allied war demand. The number was under 10 percent for most of 1942 and 1943. Then it briefly surged up to just over 20 percent in early 1944 (roughly the time of the invasion of Italy) before falling back down to about 15 percent for duration of the war in Europe.”
The bravery of the men and women in Iraq has never been an issue, but to compare the global pushback against fascism with Iraq dishonors World War II veterans and their families, friends and fellow citizens on the homefront who never wavered in their support for this just cause.
Click here for a larger image of the chart.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
8 Responses to “Another Iraq War Fib Debunked”
[...] Shaun Mullen over at The Moderate Voice takes offense to President Bush comparing Iraq to World War …: The bravery of the men and women in Iraq has never been an issue, but to compare the global pushback against fascism with Iraq dishonors World War II veterans and their families, friends and fellow citizens on the homefront who never wavered in their support for this just cause. [...]
[...] Clark Link to Article george w bush Another Iraq War Fib Debunked » Posted at The Moderate Voice » [...]
The way the media interacted with the government and covered the war was also much different in the pre-Vietnam/Watergate era. Video reels of Tokyo on fire, live footage of D-Day, or up close action in Italy may have soured many people on the idea of continuing the war.
I mean times are different. To simply look at poll numbers on war ignores the fact that the way news is covered has changed.
Rugger:
You make a very big point.
The advent of videotape and the ability of the networks to beam “fresh” footage from the battlefield in Vietnam did help shape public opinion and ultimately sour it on that war.
It is difficult to overlay today’s 24/7 saturation coverage with newspaper, radio and newsreel reports during WW2, but I suspect that the poll numbers might not have been quite as steady.
Rugger – You are just repeating the meme debunked by the poll. The US didn’t sour on WWII after major losses, (Dunkirk, North Africe and the Phillipines). Maybe a comparison to Vietnam and false reports would be appropriate. WWII saw progress after major defeats, were is the “Groundhogday” examples of the “surge”, Operation Together Forward and Operation Sinbad? How may “operation” have weheard about after “Mission Acomplished”?
A nice find Shaun, thanks.
Shaun, the next time you wanna make WW2 analogies, especially in Europe, remember that the barbarians of the Third Reich were beaten by the barbarians of the Soviet Union. The contributions of the US and Europe were negligible, at least in this theater. All the US did was prevent the Soviets from marching all the way to the Atlantic. The defeat of Hitler was pretty much uncle Joe’s victory. So next time you wanna talk about your
“just” war/cause nonsense, remember who it was that made possible your “just” victory.
Also, the US and European publics, for the most part, cared far less about “winning hearts and minds”, civilian casualties, torture or collateral damage. All they cared about was victory, which is certainly NOT the case today.
Rudi- Reading a statistic and seeing the destruction in live color is a very different thing.
phin- it would have been very difficult for either side to win on their own in Europe. Hitler was his biggest enemy, not sealing Dunkirk, going into the USSR before finishing off the British, not targeting radar and airfields during the Battle of Britain. Also don’t discount the fact that the Japanese did not invade Russia while Hitler was attacking from the west, and made no moves to make Stalin think they were… thus Stalin was able to move forces and focus solely on Germany– because Japan was focused on preparing for America.
Also Germany was forced to fight a 2 front war, not a 1 front war. People who say the Soviets won the war alone are just as wrong as those who say the US won it alone.