RSN Fundraising Banner
Most Veterans Say America's Wars Are a Waste. No One's Listening to Them.
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51156"><span class="small">Adam Weinstein, The New Republic</span></a>   
Saturday, 13 July 2019 13:19

Weinstein writes: "In spite of his confused account of U.S. history, his partisan snipes, and his dictatorial posturing, Donald Trump's parading and speechifying in Washington on July 4 attempted to glom onto one of the last consensus issues in a broken American culture: We love to support our troops."

Soldiers. (photo: PA)
Soldiers. (photo: PA)

Most Veterans Say America's Wars Are a Waste. No One's Listening to Them.

By Adam Weinstein, The New Republic

13 July 19

There's a widening gap between Washington's bipartisan militarism and veterans' bipartisan war-skepticism.

n spite of his confused account of U.S. history, his partisan snipes, and his dictatorial posturing, Donald Trump’s parading and speechifying in Washington on July 4 attempted to glom onto one of the last consensus issues in a broken American culture: We love to support our troops. “We celebrate our history, our people, and the heroes who proudly defend our flag—the brave men and women of the United States military,” Trump told a crowd of mostly VIPs at the Lincoln Memorial.

The “Long War” that began on September 11, 2001, added to veterans’ already-outsize role in the American narrative. Worship of military service has become an indispensable cog in every politician’s and corporation’s endearment strategy. But on the actual subject of war, almost no one in mainstream politics is actually listening to “the troops.”

That’s the main takeaway from the Pew Research Center’s latest rolling poll of U.S. veterans, published Thursday, in which solid majorities of former troops said the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria were not worth fighting. The gaps between approval and disapproval were not even close to the poll’s 3.9 percent margin of error; barely a third of veterans considered any of those conflicts worthwhile:

Among veterans, 64% say the war in Iraq was not worth fighting considering the costs versus the benefits to the United States, while 33% say it was. The general public’s views are nearly identical: 62% of Americans overall say the Iraq War wasn’t worth it and 32% say it was. Similarly, majorities of both veterans (58%) and the public (59%) say the war in Afghanistan was not worth fighting. About four-in-ten or fewer say it was worth fighting.

Veterans who served in either Iraq or Afghanistan are no more supportive of those engagements than those who did not serve in these wars. And views do not differ based on rank or combat experience.

The only meaningful variation pollsters found among vets was by party identification: Republican-identifying veterans were likelier to approve of the wars. But even a majority of those GOP vets now say the wars were not worth waging.

There simply is no mainstream bloc among politicians of any party that seems interested in heeding that majority opinion. In a rare bout of consistency between 2011 and 2017, private citizen Trump beat a loud drum for withdrawal from Afghanistan—after President Barack Obama, who had campaigned on ending the Iraq war, approved an Afghanistan troop surge and laid the groundwork for U.S. involvement in Syria against ISIS. But like Obama, Trump as president has ended up deepening the U.S. commitments in Afghanistan, as well as adding troops in Syria. Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, an Iraq veteran, earned plaudits from doves and isolationists for pushing an antiwar line in last month’s Democratic presidential debates, and ended up as the debate’s most-searched candidate on Google, a possible reinforcement of the Pew results. But Gabbard has virtually no traction as a presidential candidate, owing to her own flakiness, illiberal record, and coziness with Syria’s perfidious, genocidal dictator, Bashar Al Assad.

Bernie Sanders, of course, is the most mainstream antiwar politician in the U.S., which may help explain his consistently upper-tier showing in presidential preference polls—but neither Gabbard nor Sanders are considered “mainstream” Democrats. In this posited mainstream of American thought, “the Blob”—a motley amalgam of pro-engagement, pro-military national security “experts” advising both parties’ leaders—always wins the day.

Beyond individual politicians, movements for full withdrawal from Syria and Afghanistan—as well as to revoke the 2001 congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force, a post–September 11 blank check for successive administrations to expand the war on terrorism without bound—have been dead on arrival in Congress, despite their apparent popularity among the electorate. It is almost as if politicians don’t actually care what voters want.

That’s the exact conclusion two political scientists reached in The New York Times this week. Over the past two years, Yale Professor Joshua Kalla and George Washington University Professor Ethan Porter gave U.S. legislators access to constituent polling info on a variety of issues, from mandatory minimum sentencing, gun background checks, and minimum wage to abortion and Obamacare repeal, then polled the lawmakers on what their constituents thought; what they found was that “for most politicians, voters’ views carry almost no weight at all.” This, despite the fact that 87 percent of Americans today say politics are important in their lives, and more Americans than at any time since 1990 say politics are very important to their everyday lives. There is an ever-widening disconnect between the predictable bipartisan militarism of “support the troops” politicians and the surprisingly bipartisan war-skepticism of Americans who have actually served.

That gap is a major motivation behind the recent launch of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a think tank intended to promote “ideas that move U.S. foreign policy away from endless war and toward vigorous diplomacy.” The think tank aims to “invite both progressives and anti-interventionist conservatives to consider a new, less militarized approach to policy,” said cofounder Andrew Bacevich, a former Army colonel (and TNR contributor) whose only son died serving in Iraq. But the organization became immediately controversial on its rollout this week, when it announced its major funders were two of America’s biggest political bogeymen and influencers, left-winger George Soros and right-winger Charles Koch.

It’s unclear whether vilified billionaire donors can solve anything in Washington; another well-funded panel of talking experts may not be the best way to effect a “less militarized approach” in our politically divided atmosphere. But in America’s latest stage of militarized complacency, the Quincy Institute’s bipartisan buy-in more accurately reflects the feelings of voting Americans—veterans, and everybody else—on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria than either the Republican National Committee or the Democratic National Committee. We need to radically redefine what it means to “support the troops,” and we need to start somewhere.

Email This Page your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+6 # hwmcadoo 2019-07-13 23:40
Please add my name to that veteran list.
+5 # chemtex2611 2019-07-14 00:12
No more than Viet Nam or Grenada.
+7 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2019-07-14 05:51
No one among the elite media is listening. They will support war right up to the very last minute when the last troops are lifted from the roof tops by helicopter. But I think plenty of other people are. As this article correctly points out, a substantial part of the popularity of both Obama and Trump was their expressions of desire to end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In contract, the pro-war candidates like McCain or Hillary lost votes on the war issue.

And young people are just not signing up for the military. Recruitment numbers are way below targets. The Pentagon is paying huge re-signing bonuses, often well over $100,000. The media does not report this much, but potential "troops" are voting with their feet and avoiding the military. This probably accounts for why the US has not undertaken any military occupations after Iraq. It uses mercenaries, special forces, drone bombings, economic sanctions and other means of war and killing that don't require large troop deployments.

This article is good. It shows Americans have turned away from War. Trump's speech on July 4th was played to the elite media which still loves war. But I'd guess that most people found Trump's performance obscene and pornographic with all the military exposure and ejaculations.
+8 # sirimada 2019-07-14 06:50
The fact that the US has not won a war since 1945 (Iraq 1, Greneda and Panama don't count) should prompt some discussion on finding other ways to resolve international issues!
0 # laborequalswealth 2019-07-15 07:25
Stop shifting on Gabbard. I can see the toxic hand of DNC neolib think once again spewing its pro war poison.
0 # PABLO DIABLO 2019-07-15 09:39
"It is almost as if politicians don’t actually care what voters want."?
What is your definition of "almost"???The definition of "government" is that it represents the people. There is not one government on Earth that "represents" the people.
ALMOST, what a crock of shit. WAKE UP.