The American people will only support their President if they think he's in it to win

Just before the Iraq war began, The Times commissioned the great American speechwriter and author Peggy Noonan to answer this question:

How much will America be willing to suffer? What kind of losses will America accept and absorb, if it comes to that?

The piece she wrote in March 2003 is very much worth re-reading today, following George Bush's announcement that he is sending fresh troops to Iraq.

Peggy had this to say:

My own hunch is that Americans are more patient, persevering and accepting of pain than we know. We found that out on 9/11, and we may be about to find it out again. But Americans are practical. They all know how to do a cost-benefit analysis. They will be patient, persevering and willing to absorb pain as long as they feel they can win and are winning. They will accept bodybags as part of the price of victory, but not for a second will they accept them if they start to see evidence of defeat.

She argued that once America began negotiating a withdrawal in Vietnam the deaths quickly became intolerable. The split in the leadership of the country over whether to continue was also important in eroding support.

If Noonan's hunch is correct (and I think she got it right) then it is clear that the much touted Baker middle way was not really an option for the President. Beginning a slow withdrawal from Iraq, combined with international negotiations would have made every American death seem utterly pointless, a wasted life on the way to certain defeat.

So he really had to choose between rapid and complete defeat or one more attempt at victory. That is why he has sent the fresh troops. For it is only so long as the American people believe that their political leadership is committed to victory that they will tolerate being in Iraq at all.

Comments

[Debbie]

Excellent article and I believe Ms. Noonan, and you Mr. Finkelstein, are correct. Victory is what the majority of American people want.

A reader at Right Truth asked, "How do you define victory?" Another reader suggested that victory would be an Iraq with a democratic government, who can defend herself, be an ally to the U.S., and a free country in the region.

That's a tall order, but that is the goal. Right now I see al-Maliki and his government as weak. If he can meet the demands we have now placed on him, Iraq has a chance. America can't do it on her own, the Iraqi people/government have to hold up their end of the bargain.

[Doug Forbes]

What Bush and Blair can not say about recent events in Iraq is this. The Sunni Arab minority has been chastened by the sectarian violence. They have gotten the worst of it. Since the Sunni are the main base of support for the insurgency, this is bad for the insurgents. The Sunni now want law and order. That is all good. Now Bush moves to inflict a little payback on the Syrians and Iranians for their interference. Our side has benefited from the sectarian violence and to some extent Iranian interference, but, of course, we can not rejoice in it and we always knew we would have to put a stop to it by clobbering Shia militias and humiliating Iran.

[Lawrence Pines]

Clearly Mr Finkelstein has misjudged the American public. 'Spin doctors', such as Ms Noonan, are neither representative of our wishes nor cognizant of our intentions.

When presented with the real FACTS, rather than the opinionated ‘news speak’ of the US corporate media, the average Joe on the street and farm knows what is happening and why. The problem is pinning down just WHO is behind it all. They can plainly see Bush Jr is merely a patsy, or ‘fall guy’ meant to focus a hateful public’s attention away from the actual ‘men behind the curtain’ – the men who orchestrated THIS conflict (and many more) to maximize their own profit at the expense of millions of innocent lives. Most WILL support Bush but only out of fear – not of ‘insurgents’ but of those here in-power. They realise, due to the administration’s revocation of their ‘constitutional rights and protections’ no one is impervious to retribution. How else could a small town country barber been put to death in federal prison for merely insulting a judge while billions in contracts were let to the vice-president’s business partners (without contest) while renewable energy research funding was cut? Never have the words “Follow the money” been more obvious a signpost along the trail of world events.

Ya know, when the common citizen charges ‘conspiracy’ he’s made out to be a fool but when the administration claims such - billions are expended in making it ‘truth’. Orwell, how could we have been so blind?

[Lawrence Pines]

Clearly Mr Finkelstein has misjudged the American public. 'Spin doctors', such as Ms Noonan, are neither representative of our wishes nor cognizant of our intentions.

When presented with the real FACTS, rather than the opinionated ‘news speak’ of the US corporate media, the average Joe on the street and farm knows what is happening and why. The problem is pinning down just WHO is behind it all. They can plainly see Bush Jr is merely a patsy, or ‘fall guy’ meant to focus a hateful public’s attention away from the actual ‘men behind the curtain’ – the men who orchestrated THIS conflict (and many more) to maximize their own profit at the expense of millions of innocent lives. Most WILL support Bush but only out of fear – not of ‘insurgents’ but of those here in-power. They realise, due to the administration’s revocation of their ‘constitutional rights and protections’ no one is impervious to retribution. How else could a small town country barber been put to death in federal prison for merely insulting a judge while billions in contracts were let to the vice-president’s business partners (without contest) while renewable energy research funding was cut? Never have the words “Follow the money” been more obvious a signpost along the trail of world events.

Ya know, when the common citizen charges ‘conspiracy’ he’s made out to be a fool but when the administration claims such - billions are expended in making it ‘truth’. Orwell, how could we have been so blind?

[James]

I see several possible results of continued U. S. involvement in Iraq, nearly all of them unpleasant for those involved. It's possible that a collapse of the current government in the next few years will result in very little that is destructive to the region or the world; it will simply be the domination of one faction (most like Iranian-influenced Shites) over others, with the possible exception of the Kurds, who will have their hands full dealing with a worried Turkey. Saudi Arabia could try to extend influence into western Iraq, where Sunnis are dominant. In other words, order may well be created by those in the neighborhood who have the means to impose order. In any case, Iran is likely to emerge from the mess much strengthened and brimming with resolve. But it is possible that the view of the world propounded by Samuel Huntington and others is right: Perhaps we are witnessing a monumental clash of civilizations, a clash that goes back 1400 years and that has taken on new intensity as Western culture has spread into every corner of the world. Perhaps a resurgent and militant Islam, after suffering for a few centuries defeat and humilation and intense anger, will emerge from an Iraqi collapse feeling victorious and with surging morale and certitude. If that is the case, the countries on the fringe of the Islamic world and countries with large and increasingly militant Islamic populations are in for rough sledding for years and years. Those who glow with white fury against real or imagined evils of the West, especially western culture, will take their crusade deep into the heartland of the West, a struggle that will be political, cultural, economic, and (where possible) violent. If this occurs, we would do well to google "dhimmi" and understand all that that term has meant over centuries and will mean. Just some thoughts.

[C-Cuz]

As Peggy Noonan reiterated, Americans will accept sacrifice if they think it is essential to the nations security and a noble cause. Unfortunately, most Americans are now realizing that a sectarian civil war is no place to send in "more" troops. The quotations are there to remind readers that the troops are actually veterans about to be re-deployed and other units, still in Iraq, that will have a delayed return home. I believe as the casualty rate leaps, so too will the political speaches, anti-war blogging and something not seen on a grand scale since Vietnam, the peace march. America has a long history of rallying around a President in times of war, but this is a different age. More information from more sources are pouring out of the war zone each day. Soldiers are able to connect with the gerneral public very easily, through the media and cell phones. And as one soldier about to be re-deployed from Fort Lewis, just South of Seattle put it, "This is about to become a meat grinder!"