Marstonalia argues convincingly that while parallels between the Vietnam war and the current Iraq conflict are overdone, there is some basis for comparing the political situation surrounding it with the Korean war.
The man who challenged president Truman on the increasingly unpopular Korean war was hardly a peace activist bent on appeasement, it was national hero Ike Eisenhower. So he had to play to both those voters who wanted to end the war and withdraw, and those who thought Truman was not aggressive enough.
Recall that many of the soldiers in Korea were national guardsmen who were quietly leading private lives before the outbreak of the war; criticisms abounded that the troops were not well armed or trained, and many critics of the administration worried that the war was unwinnable and should simply be abandoned. In 1951 and 1952, "the majority of Americans . . .considered entering the war a mistake, wanted to pull American troops out of Korea as rapidly as posisble, and supported numerous proposals to achieve a negotiated peace" (from Ralph Levering's The Public and American Foreign Policy 1918 - 1978, 102, quoted in Richard Melason, "The Foundations of Eisenhower's Foreign Policy: Continuity, Community and Consensus," in R. Melanson and D. Mayers, Reevaluating Eisenhower (1987), p.41). [...]
The war was a "divisive, increasingly partisan domestic political issue" (Melanson 41). Charges of treason and "appeasement" flew from the halls of the Senate and from the press. Senator Joseph McCarthy argued that the foreign policy of the Truman administration was part of a nefarious plot "to diminish the United States in world affairs, to weaken us military, to confuse our spirit with talk of surrender in the Far East, and to impair our will to resist evil" (America's Retreat from Victory (1951), 171).
Political conflict in the midts of war is hardly new. And roles reverse quickly between America's two main political parties.
The last of the Minuteman III missiles will receive their new motors by 2008. It costs about $5.2 million to replace the rockets on each missile. The new rocket motors, which have to comply with EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) rules, will have a shorter range (which was classified, but thought to be nearly 10,000 kilometers, based on where the missiles were stationed and where likely Russian targets were.) than the original motors
So this means that when the nukes are on their way to annihilate cities and lay waste to continents, the missiles will not pollute the environment! Now isn't that cute? We wouldn't want it to damage the ozone layer or something.
Bloggers and pundits who try to paint Condi Rice' testimony for the 9/11 commission as deceptive and unsatisfactory are tooting very partisan horns, and are only preaching to the choir.
No doubt scared by the outbreak of serious unrest in Iraq, Bush dropped notably in the tracking polls last weekend, and Kerry surged correspondingly through no action of his own. However, a few days later voters forgot this, and equilibrum was restored.
Now, after Dr Rice's statements, Bush is ahead with 47 to 44.
Make no mistake about it: 50% of voters had a favourable view of Dr Rice immediately after her testimony on TV, and only 24% unfavourable. This essentially means only those who were determined to interpret the Bush adminstration's sayings and doings negatively in either case disapproved. For Dick Clarke, only 27% were favourable and 42% unfavourable. Fair or not, the Bush administration's attempt to portray him as a disgruntled ex-employee has largly succeeded.
Message from voters: Democrats harping on 9/11 errors and trying to make the hearings a partisan circus are not swaying any doubters.
A significant portion of voters are obviously still up for grabs, and with months to go before the election, the result is wide open. However, Bush is vulnerable if the Iraq situation worsens further.
BuzzMachine has a good roundup of writings by Iraqi bloggers that discusses the current unrest. Somehow it is not exactly the same picture the media has tried to paint for us. Now, who do we believe?
