Doug H. wrote:
> Marvin Gandall wrote:
>
> >If this poll showing strong opposition to the so-called Bush Doctrine is
an
> >accurate reflection of public opinion - and anecdotal evidence suggests
it
> >is - it is of greater significance for American foreign policy than
whether
> >Bush or Kerry is elected.
>
> Most Americans have long wanted to avoid "foreign entaglements." Some
> exception was made for the cold war, but elites have obsessed for
> decades about how to get the masses to go along with their imperial
> plans. And most of the time, the elites get their way.
----------------
That's a useful reminder. But, still, I suspect the Vietnam syndrome and now
the Iraq syndrome cramps US foreign policy more than the traditional
isolationism did. Americans could finally be persuaded to sacrifice in two
world wars against enemy nation-states with well-equipped conventional
armies who could easily be portrayed to them as the aggressors. Korea
superficially appeared to be a similar conflict. But it's proving to be a
tougher sell to get young American men (and increasingly women) to die for
their country where the US, as in Iraq and Vietnam, is increasingly
perceived as the aggressor in an assymetrical conflict against popular
resistance movements composed of poor peasants fighting a foreign
occupation. Not all Americans would see it that way, of course, and usually
not most at the outset, but majorities do seem to form around this
perception if these insurgencies grind on long enough. Which isn't
surprising; you'd naturally expect elites in liberal democracies to find it
more difficult to mobilize their people for imperialist wars rather than for
international (or, if you like, interimperialist) conflicts. I don't think,
for example, the most forceful propaganda could today persuade Americans to
draft additional ground forces for new wars of aggression against Iran and
North Korea. Also, of course, because the elite -- as the CCFR poll
showed -- is itself very divided,
Marv Gandall