“Op-ed warrior”—not a mere put-down, but a description of reality

An interesting column by Daniel Pipes. War used to be decided on the battlefield against the opposing army, with the loyal support of the citizenry assumed. But now the enemies are more shadowy, and the support of the citizenry uncertain. As a result, war is now waged and won on op-ed pages rather than the battlefield.

* * *

Paul K. writes:

I think Mr. Pipes is making a very confused argument here.

First, in making World War II the standard of conventional warfare, he is comparing a war for national survival to wars which have been fought for far less compelling reasons, thus inviting more debate. In the “lopsided” (asymmetrical) wars he discusses—Algeria, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq—the more powerful force always has the option to leave, which its opponent does not. (Obviously Israel is a different case.)

He writes that “the solidarity and consensus of old have unraveled.” Was there “solidarity and consensus” about the US entering World War I? No, that had to be developed through propaganda and media manipulation, which Pipes treats as if it were a new phenomenon. The same goes for our involvement in WW II until Pearl Harbor changed the public mind. Throughout the war propaganda was skillfully managed to maintain support for our effort through newsreels, movies, rallies, and selectively edited news stories (i.e., pictures of our fatalities not published).

Pipes suggest that national loyalty in WW II outweighed ideology. However, American leftists, who were pacifistic for the duration of the Hitler-Stalin pact, became interventionists when Hitler broke it. The same applies to the Communists in France, who actively resisted the Nazi occupation of France only after the Nazi invasion of the USSR.

There was certainly a strong sense of national purpose after the 9/11 attacks, but Bush chose to fritter it away it on his idée fixe of invading Iraq and making it a democracy. That support for this unfeasible plan has steadily eroded is understandable and not due to the failure of the oped campaign. It’s hard to make a case for failure.

Pipes writes, “If united, Europeans and Americans will likely dissuade Iranians from going ahead with nuclear weapons.” We will dissuade them how?

Pipes writes, “Do Iranians accept the consequences of nuclear weapons?” What difference would it make if Iranian citizens didn’t? Would that change the leadership’s intentions? What difference does it make that most Americans do not support Bush’s policy in Iraq? He has stated that he will not change it even when Laura and Barney (his dog) are his last supporters.

Pipes asks, “Do Americans see Islamism presenting a lethal danger?” Why should they when our government is not presenting Islam as the danger, but rather, cautions us against stigmatizing it and continues to welcome Muslims into our society?

Also, Pipes writes that in asymmetrical warfare “the side enjoying a vast superiority in power operates under a dense array of constraints.” Was that the problem for the Soviet Union in its occupation of Afghanistan?

Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 18, 2006 09:14 AM | Send