No. it is well worth it. given that they did it last time, why bother doing it the same obvious way as it was perpetrated last time.
> Wouldn't such a propaganda ploy be very risky and prone to backfire?
Did anyone care last time? it was just as risky then, but it turned out very well for them.
not only did they overcome the Vietnam Syndrome but they managed to make anti-war activisits who harped on the death and destruction about to rain down on the US military look like a bunch of "The Sky is Falling" Asswipes.
>Wouldn't it easily lead to more antiwar activity,
yes for some, but they were protesting anyway. The target are the people on the brink, like my mother, who worries what protesting means to the men and women over there. My mother to this day still breaks down and cries about all the friends she lost in Vietnam. My father, a disabled vet, is the same fucking way. They lost a lot of friends and relatives. They don't want to do anything that would make them feel unsupported. (Yes, yes, I argue with them about this point frequently. :)
> a decrease in volunteers for the military,
people who are signing up for stints for the "bennies" aren't going to go anyway--whether bodybag orders are 100 or 100,000. the people that are signing up now are doing so for various reasons and those reasons would be bolstered by learning that we might be looking at a very deadly war.
the shrubs aren't planning to be there much more than 3 months, i garunteeeeeee you that.
>and dissension within the military itself?
do you know what these guys say to themselves? It's not our job to die for our country, but to make the other guy die fighting for his country. Don't get me wrong: i'm not impugning their character. They _have_ to think this way, as we all do. We all imagine that we won't be the one to buy it, but someone else would. If we really went around believing that we were risking our lives and were bound to buy it, we'd be paralyzed. I know a few people in the service who are not in favor of this war at all. even so, they aren't going to be dissenting any time soon. Do you know what it would mean for them to dissent? The _only_ thing these men and women have going for them is the service. Anything other than a dishonorable discharge would make their lives harder than they already are. [1]
Otherwise, their tactic here is working very well. With the cover of the Pope, you think it has to be more believable than without it. Americans like my mother, against the war and extremely apprehensive, will do just what kids on the playground do. Suck it up and prepare for the worst. The dominant mode of thinking I hear from folks like this is that we have to be strong for our kids over there. We shouldn't protest, no matter how much we hate it, because it will make our kids (over there) feel worse.
> More likely, Bush, Cheney and company expect significant US
> casualties and are planning for them, but want to avoid talking about the
> issue.
Nah, as Kjoo pointed out, they would never even _try_ this war unless they expected relatively few casualties.
kelley
[1] i'm not saying that dissent is impossible, just highly unlikely at this stage i the game. In order to dissent, one really has to have an active support network of people who are willing to make it worth the risk for you to act on your principles. _OUR_ job, in the unlikely event that this is long, protracted war, is, assuming we really give a shit about their dissent, to build that network. and fucking mean it.