How Much Political Leverage Does the Anti-War Left Have?

This post began as a response to some of the comments on this post. The commenters there believe that the Left will oppose our war against Islamic fascism no matter what. I think that may be true, but I want to expand on it to argue that even if it is true (and I don’t think the other commenters disagree), at worst the anti-war Left will be able to delay rather than stop our war effort.

Here are some hypothetical statistics about the composition of the US population. I made them up, but I assume that the real numbers are not so much different than these as to invalidate my argument:

Group 1: People who want us to do whatever it takes to win the war: 25% of US voters

Group 2: People who will oppose the use of US military power no matter what: 25% of US voters

Group 3: People whose opinion re the use of US military power depends on the extent of the external threat that they perceive: 50% of US voters

So, assuming that our elected representatives are sensitive to voter sentiment (and I think they are), and depending on the actual percentages of voters who fall into Groups 1 and 2, some majority of the swing voters in Group 3 will decide what we do as a nation. Maybe the decisive proportion, as a fraction of all voters, is as low as 20% or as high as 40%. I doubt that it is higher.

Under current circumstances, with a lot of recent bad news, anti-war media and bureaucracies, and an administration that has made a lot of mistakes and is inept at explaining itself, there appears to be enough skepticism among undecideds about the war and/or the competence of our leaders as to preclude new initiatives (e.g., attacks on Iran).

But this current stasis is based on a situation in which most of the variables are skewed in an anti-war direction. Voter opinion could remain marginally anti-war, or become even more anti-war, in the event of, say, a Shiite revolt in Iraq. But other conceivable events — such as a major terror attack in the USA, another attack on Israel or an Iranian/proxy campaign against Allied ships near the Horn of Africa — could flip the domestic opinion balance toward the pro-war side. And anti-war sentiment at home may encourage our enemies and make additional attacks on us more likely. So it seems likely, unfortunately, that majority public sentiment in the USA will eventually swing back towards being pro-war no matter what we do. And the change could come rapidly, as only a small subgroup of voters needs to change its position. (Of course I am assuming that we really do have enemies. I think that’s a safe assumption.)

War with Iran appears increasingly likely since the recent Lebanon debacle. This war will be more destructive the longer we put it off, and especially if we cede the initiative to our enemies. The tragedy is that our big media and many Democratic politicians, for mainly domestic political purposes, have been sowing fears among voters about the wisdom of the overall US war effort, and the Bush administration has been inept in assuaging those fears. Thus we may have to suffer an inevitable second or even third Pearl Harbor (if 9/11 was the first), or something even worse, before we as a society, under Republican or Democratic leadership, regain the political will to defeat our mortal enemies.

What the Hell Happened to the Israeli Army?

On the 32nd day of the war, Hizbullah is still standing and fighting. That by itself is a stunning feat: a small guerilla organization, with a few thousand fighters, is standing up to one of the strongest armies in the world and has not been broken after a month of “pulverizing”. Since 1948, the armies of Egypt, Syria and Jordan have repeatedly been beaten in wars that were much shorter. � if a light-weight boxer is fighting a heavy-weight champion and is still standing in the 12th round, the victory is his – whatever the count of points says.

***

Clearly, Hizbullah has prepared well for this war – while the Israeli command has prepared for a quite different war. On the level of individual fighters, the Hizbullah are not inferior to our soldiers, neither in bravery nor in initiative.

***

This war casts a dark shadow on the whole upper echelon of our army. I assume that there are some talented officers, but the general picture is of a senior officers corps that is mediocre or worse, grey and unoriginal. Almost all the many officers that have appeared on TV are unimpressive, uninspiring professionals, experts on covering their behinds, repeating empty cliches like parrots.

***

� an army that has been acting for many years as a colonial police force against the Palestinian population – “terrorists”, women and children – and spending its time running after stone-throwing boys, cannot remain an efficient army. The test of results confirms this.

***

Judging from the reactions of the commanders in the field, they clearly were completely unaware of the defense system built by Hizbullah in South Lebanon. The complex infrastructure of hidden bunkers, stocked with modern equipment and stockpiles of food and weapons was a complete surprise for the army. It was not ready for these bunkers, including those built two or three kilometers from the border. They are reminiscent of the tunnels in Vietnam.

***

History teaches that defeat can be a great blessing for an army. A victorious army rests on its laurels, it has no motive for self-criticism, it degenerates, its commanders become careless and lose the next war. (see: the Six-day war leading to the Yom Kippur war). A defeated army, on the other side, knows that it must rehabilitate itself. On one condition: that it admits defeat.

The author’s conclusion, that Israel can cut a deal with Syria and Hezbollah is wrong. But the critique of the Israeli military’s performance seems to be accurate, unfortunately.

RTWT.

Incidentally, Hezbollah’s performance, including its use of underground positions, was foretold accurately by H. John Poole in his book Tactics of the Crescent Moon: Militant Muslim Combat Methods, which came out almost two years ago.

UPDATE: Jonathan tells me this author is a notorious Leftist. Not surprising, given some of the stuff in this article. Nonetheless, the criticisms he levels here seem to be legitimate. Also, the idea that the military would have done a bang-up job but the civilians wouldn’t let them does not seem right. We had the same myth about Vietnam. But in both wars it seems that the generals botched their part of the program badly. The Israelis have just handed our common enemies a major victory. There is plenty of well-deserved blame to go around.

Quote of the Day

The IDF has great combat leaders and brave soldiers. But Hezbollah’s boys proved tougher – and we can’t pretty it up. The terrorists were willing – even eager – to die for their cause. Israeli leaders dreaded friendly casualties. And IDF troops – except in elite units – lacked the will to close with the enemy and defeat him at close quarters.

***

The IDF needs pervasive reform. Still structured to defeat the conventional militaries of Syria and Egypt, it faced an enemy tailored specifically to take on the IDF. Historical reputation isn’t enough – the IDF must rebuild itself to take on post-modern threats. As one senior American general put it, “The IDF’s been living on fumes since 1967.”

Ralph Peters

RTWT.

Quotes of the Day

“Hezbollah stuffs all manner of nasty pieces of metal into their rockets so they can maximize the number of civilians they kill.”

Michael Totten

“The [UN ceasefire] resolution represents a near-total victory for Hizbullah and its state sponsors Iran and Syria, and an unprecedented defeat for Israel and its ally the United States.”

Caroline Glick.

“Can anyone tell me what the hell the Israeli government is thinking?”

Perry de Havilland

Quote of the Day

Personally, I’d far prefer the Jews to be angry, aggressive and alive than meek, mild and dead[.]

Julie Burchill (RTWT) (Via Samizdata)