It's an interesting review of a book on a fascinating subject indeed. (The author Mary Hershberger, a historian at Capital University in Columbus, OH, has another good book on the Vietnam War, too: Traveling to Vietnam: American Peace Activists and the War, Syracuse University Press, 1998.)
No wonder the Vietnam Syndrome of the Left exists. The hyperbolic vilification of Jane Fonda, as well as the persistence of the myth of anti-war activists (usually represented as female) spitting on veterans, must have had a demonstration effect.
In other thread, a poll about troop morale was posted:
> [lbo-talk] Poll: Americans oppose Senate criticism of war - is this
> nonsense?
>
> Gar Lipow the.typo.boy at gmail.com
> Mon Nov 28 14:03:16 PST 2005
>
>
> On 11/28/05, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, googling turns up their collaboration with uber-pundit Charlie
> > Cook. But this doesn't seem to be one of those.
> >
> > To ask the question is to bias the results (assuming "morale" and
> > "troops" were in the question). If you'd asked if criticism of
> > presidential decisions was patriotic, you'd probably get mostly
> > yes's. And the sequence of the questions would matter for the
> rest of
> > the poll's answers.
> >
>
> Exact wording of the two questions:
>
> "PtP1. Thinking about the war in Iraq, when Democratic Senators
> criticize the President's policy on the war in Iraq, do you believe
> it HELPS the morale of our troops in Iraq or HURTS the morale of
> our troops in Iraq? (IF HELPS/HURTS, ASK:) And do you believe it
> (HURTS/HELPS) morale A LOT or just SOME?"
>
> "PtP2. When Democrats criticize the President's policy in Iraq, do
> you believe they
> (ROTATE)
> "Criticizing the President's policy because they believe their
> criticisms will help the United States' efforts in Iraq,
> OR, Criticizing the President's policy to gain a partisan political
> advantage?
The problem is that, if criticism of the president's policy on the Iraq War is powerful and effective (whether criticism comes from Democratic Senators or anyone else), it probably does hurt the US troops' "morale," if the troops hear about it, since the "morale" means the troops' willingness to fight. Soldiers who believe that it was right to to go to war and is still necessary to continue the war would probably get angry at any criticism of it, feeling betrayed (especially if criticism comes from Democratic Senators, since they didn't stop the president from going to war); and soldiers who are already having doubts about the war -- even their own criticisms of it -- would feel their doubts, criticisms, etc. strengthened (it's always nice to know that other people share your thoughts, even half way). For both types of soldiers, the willingness to fight must diminish at least a little. Consequently, it won't "help the United States' efforts in Iraq."
All that isn't a problem if critics of the war have already made up their minds that they aren't in the business of helping the US efforts in Iraq, but, unlike the Japanese, the Americans are not allowed to embrace defeat (to take a phrase from John Dower's book).
Yoshie Furuhashi <http://montages.blogspot.com> <http://monthlyreview.org> <http://mrzine.org>