Is there really such a thing as a "popular war?"

[Boost]

I was going to bring this up in TP's other post, "Iraq, game over we lost" but figured I would stay on topic there and bring this up in a new thread.

Media and other posters love to throw around the term "unpopular war," referring of course to Iraq war. But really, is there ever such a thing as a popular one? The American people are finicky, and loose interest in anything that last longer then a few months. War is ugly and brutal, that is just the nature of the beast. But with the ability of the media to bring the gruesome images of war right into our living rooms every night, I doubt any war past, present, or future will be "popular" with the American people.

[socalheart]

A "popular war" is a war that is won. Way back when, The Crusades were popular, because it received excellent "press". (o.O) Who in their right mind would doubt God? heh. These days, the press can be a glaring truth of one side. The things that make the news these days (including back to the 60s) is the horrors of violence that people do to each other. It's just "popular" to show an "unpopular war". How often on CNN (or any other regular news) do y'all hear about the numerous clinics set up in war zones to immunize and care for the local civilians? I've only ever seen it on military news channels. They tend to be biased toward the positive side of the military, because the public press is so unobjective. Truth, much like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

[Asshat]

"Popular war" is a very poor moniker and has nothing to do with the war itself, only the politics surrounding it. Perhaps it represents the votes by our legislators? No war is popular by those having to fight it because politicians can't play nicely, nor of families who paste stars in their windows.

There is no such thing and is just another "buzz word" used by the press to stipulate the political environment surrounding the war.

[TheNoNamedOne]

"Popular" or "unpopular" as it is used with war is not the same as meaning one likes something, such as "Kariyushi shirts are popular in Okinawa (i.e. people in Okinawa like Kariyushi wear)." Like Uminchu said, no one likes war.

All that is involved here is semantics. The real meaning behind these chosen words used by media is to describe "support" or "nonsupport." In that sense WW2 was a popular war in that it was generally supported by the population. The Iraq war, as was the Vietnam War is not popular because they were, and are not, in general, supported by the population. That support was (in the case of Vietnam) and has been eroding little by little over time -- losing support -- and thus was, and is now, as the media describes it as "unpopular."

Yes, they are semantical buzz words.

[dk]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ea/WarOriginalLineup_01.jpg
A popular war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_(band))

On-topic: I think it's funny that the Iraq "war" has suddenly become classified as "Unpopular" by the media. In the days right before the invasion everyone and their mother except for a few of us was all for the invasion.

Iraq wasn't even a part of 9-11.

And we still don't know where Bin Ladin is.

[TheNoNamedOne]

[IMAGE]On-topic:

sigh...whatever.

I think it's funny that the Iraq "war" has suddenly become classified as "Unpopular" by the media. In the days right before the invasion everyone and their mother except for a few of us was all for the invasion.

Suddenly? Why do you think it has suddenly been referred to as "unpopular" by the media. I have been hearing it dubbed such for more than a short while as so.

Whether it was popular at one time or not in no way should lock the media onto keeping that description. When the pulse of the public changes, the media should reflect it as such (and I am not saying you have suggested otherwise).

But there is nothing funny about it (and I know you were using sarcasm).

[dk]

Oh come on. Even my image was completely on-topic. /jab.

I may have simply not been paying as much attention to the news as you but there seemed to be a "sudden" change in attitude regarding the war. Which is why I used the term. Not suddenly as of five minutes ago. Suddenly as in a sudden change in popular opinion regarding the "war". I must have missed the transition in my busyness.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Oh come on. Even my image was completely on-topic. /jab.

lol. Your pleading fails to convince me. Seeing a picture is worth a thousand words, "my keyboard is now bleeding with sarcasm. Knock it..." /wink

I may have simply not been paying as much attention to the news as you but there seemed to be a "sudden" change in attitude regarding the war.

Well, there is always a tipping point. But the trend was steady -- not sudden.

[Boost]

When the pulse of the public changes, the media should reflect it as such

I tend to think it is the other way around. The media portrayal of the war is what has shifted the opinion of many. Was the media coverage in WWII comparable to what it is today? Did they only report every single occurrence during the war that negatively affected the Allies cause? Or did they take steps to report the positively as well?

I know, more questions then answers but that is where my thought process is when it comes to our wonderful media reporters these days.

[socalheart]

I just remembered something from grade school history class about "The Glorious Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_revolution)", a war that was very popular and "bloodless". This war had great press. heh...

[TheNoNamedOne]

Was the media coverage in WWII comparable to what it is today? Did they only report every single occurrence during the war that negatively affected the Allies cause? Or did they take steps to report the positively as well? [/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]

Good point, Boost, and I welcome counter examples such as that. They are integral to debate.

No! The media coverage of WW2 is not comparable to what it is today, and we are the much better for it. WW2 free media coverage was sparse at best and most of the newreals coming back playing in theatres was mostly from military sources. Reporters did not have that "damn it, I am going to the front lines on my own" kind of mentality.

Are you saying that our media of the war now should revert back to iron clad control that was pretty much exercised over war coverage in WW2. Perhaps we should only allow Stars&Stripes and AFN cover the war. <not sarcastic> I am wondering would that give us all the true facts and much better coverage? I tend to think not.

I know, more questions then answers but that is where my thought process is when it comes to our wonderful media reporters these days.

I don't doubt that the media may have some influence. But, the fact is there is just more bad news than good coming from Iraq. Perhaps the Pentagon Channel should take some classes in marketing to get their Neilsons ratings up so they get their message out. Is the Pentagon that derelict in their duty to understand that propoganda is important to feed to the enemy and the homefront. The government sure seemed to know that in WW2.

Perhaps a measly 1 billion dollars could launch a good Pentagon Channel to rival the networks so we can all finally get the benefit of the truth and that our opinion of the war will be one that makes it "popular" i.e. supportive of it.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Boost, the media is showing this war's popularity in the bucket. I mean, if you haven't noticed, we are on the cusp of history -- just as when Vietnam was only a few months away from finality. Look at the media. Look at even the Republican Party, Bush's high ranking previous support, and look at the Republican Presidential hopefuls.

Support has all but withered away and the Commander and Chief, the one sending men and women to their deaths and disfigurments are who are paying a price that is wholley not necessary at this stage anymore, is not smelling the coffee.

Here is the grim picture (just a snapshot) of support/popularity given to us from one of the major networks reported in one of the major news mags:

NBC Nightly News said in its lead story that "with each passing day he faces a skeptical Congress and a skeptical public," and political analyst Dick Morris, writing in The Hill, says Bush "faces a stark choice: If he doesn't begin pulling out, his party will lose the White House, lose Congress by stunning and likely filibuster-proof margins, and his tax cut and education reforms will be repealed. His footsteps will be obliterated from history. It will be as if he never served. And if Bush doesn't get it in time, there are enough sensible Republican senators to give him a wake-up call."

Check the source (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_070711.htm) of the above for a wider snap-shot of the media and support of the public. It is just all down hill.

No support gets no popular war.

[TheNoNamedOne]

But, perhaps if you listen to Rush Limbaugh then we all know the "drive-by" media is just wrong and he has it all right.

[Boost]

But, perhaps if you listen to Rush Limbaugh then we all know the "drive-by" media is just wrong and he has it all right.

Nope, don't listen to Rush or Bill for that matter.

I think the media's ability to bring the ugly of war right into our living rooms is what fuels the lack of support for war of any kind these days. War is not pretty, never has been and probably never will be. If media had been able to bring the images of WWII right onto our TV screens like they do today, I believe the support would have been lacking then as well.

[TheNoNamedOne]

And that cuts both ways as well. Dictators have a hard time of coming to power in an environment with free media, and had such free media like today been deeply entrenched within Germany in WW1 and WW2, then it is quite likely the populace would have never let themselves get so far pushed into the wars.

The Free Media and horrible scenes of reality is good for de-romanticising war.

Also, think how much sooner we may have come to the rescue of Jews if free media over there were sending out images of the government policy?

You can't just have the good. You have to take the good with the bad. The free media hasn't caused us to lose -- it has been showing us that we are losing.

[Isaak Brodsky]

A war's "popularity" or sustainability is only as good as the propaganda machine charged to "manufacture the consent" of the citizenry. WWII was essentially popular because of mass media's ability to sustain the narrative of a villian that the Allies had to oppose. It's no wonder why the then War Department enlisted Hollywood's Frank Capra to produce the films that captured Nazi and Imperial Japan aggression.

Desert Storm was fairly easy for Bush One because of CNN's tacit willingness to accept the "intelligence" about an imminent threat to Saudia Arabia.

The present campaign was at one time fairly popular. As body bags, though, continue to turn up at Dover, the popularity of the Iraq effort has seriously declined.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Well said, Ian!

And what is it that makes photographing flag draped coffins off limits to photography and media? Those are the very images we need or have a right to see. Those images drive the nail home as to the reality of war -- not just Youtube Marines whooping it up as they laser guide a missile on to a building and break into cheers and jeers with a direct hit. Celebrations of killing are not the reality that loved ones have to deal with when informed a member of their family has been killed, but somber grief is observed -- and flag draped coffins should keep reminding us of that.

[Isaak Brodsky]

I agree with your remark about the necessity to witness images of those fallen in battle so as to stir public sentiment, but I was not aware that images of flag-draped coffins are still off limits.

George Stephanopolis features a segment on his program that acknowledges the names of the fallen each Monday morn'. Sobering.

[Boost]

The present campaign was at one time fairly popular. As body bags, though, continue to turn up at Dover, the popularity of the Iraq effort has seriously declined.

I agree that this is part of the reason for the decline in popularity but I think the tide really started to turn as more and more of the reasons given for going to war were being shot down and shown as virtual falsehoods, inaccurate intelligence, and just downright lies as some would say.

I supported the war in the beginning, felt sick every time a report would show reasons as being inaccurate, and now the last bit of me holding onto support is for the Iraqi people to not be left high and dry in the midst of a civil war and a virtually wide open new terrorist training ground. It's probably ignorance on my part to continue to hold on for those reasons but I do.

[Isaak Brodsky]

Excellent point! I couldn't agree more about the sense of responsibility I now feel saddled with in light of what we've done in Iraq.