The War and Public Opinion

I have encountered two interesting articles on where public opinion in the West (the United States, Great Britain, and Israel in particular) is going on the matter of the war.

In the first, Arnold Kling sees the public rejecting what might loosely be termed the "conventional wisdom" of multiculturalism and diplomacy (i.e., of pretending that there remains any constructive basis for "negotiating" with an enemy for whom negotiation is plainly a military tactic) and moving towards what he sees as one of two centers of gravity.

And what notions is the public rejecting?

• The world's Muslims share our desire for peace and democracy.
• Equal-opportunity passenger screening at airports is a better policy than profiling. [As witness the recent "passenger mutiny" on an airplane he starts off with. --ed]
  
• The United Nations is the world's conscience and policeman.
• The "international community" will deal with Iran's quest for nuclear weapons.
• It is possible for the United States to bring about a constructive transformation of Middle East politics, either through diplomatic or military initiatives.

And, further, where is public opinion heading?

1. The Middle East is a hopeless cauldron of hatred. We should focus on homeland security, stay out of the Middle East, and have as little interaction with the Muslim world as possible; or
2. A major war is inevitable, so that we need to get ready for it. Nothing else will stop Iranian aggression, and nothing else will stifle the funding, sponsoring, and glorification of terrorists.

Kling sees the second position as more natural for Britain and Israel, for whom the option of retreat is far less plausible.

This position becomes more interesting for Britain in light of the second piece, by Thomas Lifson of The American Thinker, who cites several interesting results from recent opinion-polling there.

• Almost three quarters of the British public are now convinced that we are fighting a new world war against extremist Islamic terrorists....
• [T]he public is convinced that the key to winning this new global war against terrorists lies in a much more aggressive foreign policy, as well as in severe reductions in civil liberties in Britain.
• When offered the choice of maintaining the close relationship with the US, switching to closer links with Europe or an unspecified third course of action (which could be an independent foreign policy), the public turned en masse against America. [bullets added]

What to make of the two apparently contradictory "poles" from the first article and the mixed bag from the second?

Recall that I have repeatedly complained about the foot-dragging by the Bush administration in this war. We are not seeing either an energetic prosecution of this war or a decisive victory, both of which the West can achieve. The public wants both, but is being confused by the war effort so far since, such as it is, it is seen by many as the "alternative" to withdrawal. Those who understand that Bush is not fighting effectively -- or whose backs are closer to the wall -- will see that a fiercer fight is in order. Those who think that fighting has been tried and failed -- or who do not yet realize that our meddlesome enemy is not going to go away simply because we withdraw -- will want to pull out. (And, probably along with the heavy influence of the anti-American left in Britain, Bush's indecisiveness likely helps explain Britain's turning away from America.)

Ironically, more decisive action by Bush would have either helped make (1) more apparent by now or made (2) more realistic by now. Instead, the public vacillates and may yet have to learn the hard way that (1) must be adopted.

In this sense, some of the arguments of the "anti-Bush Objectivists" seem vindicated, particularly this one, by Craig Biddle:

Here, in essence, is what Bush has done. By packaging a permission-seeking, capitulating, restrained, dovish foreign policy with lip service to an independent, firm, do-what-needs-to-be-done, hawkish one -- he has removed the concept of the latter from the foreign policy debate. Kerry, unwittingly, would put it back on the table; this is why I will vote for him.

"Fortunately", we have an enemy of obdurate-enough implacability that he will make sure we eventually understand that we must render him unable to act against us sooner or later.

Interestingly, it not just Bush's foot-dragging in this war that is obscuring issues of vital importance. There is also the fact that civil liberty concerns -- which are quite valid -- are apparently increasingly falling on deaf ears in Britain and (perhaps to a lesser extent) in America. This is a direct result of years of subversion of civil liberties by the left to the cause of attacking our civilization, whether it be by freeing criminals on technicalities, whining about allegations over whether Korans are being "abused" in a detention facility, or ignoring common sense in choosing whom to scrutinize most carefully at airports.

In the one case, war is being made to look like diplomacy-cum-welfare. In the other, civil liberties are made to took like coddling the enemy. In both cases, the public desperately needs a clearer understanding of the proper role of government -- the protection of individual rights.

Only then can we see that "alternatives" (1) and (2) are two pieces of the correct answer: that we must decimate our enemy for the sake of our own welfare and that we do not owe any help to him in recovering from his own folly. Yes. We must do whatever is necessary to render the Middle East impotent as a threat and the region is hopeless and (with few exceptions) will have to be isolated and allowed to wither away after it is rendered harmless.

And only with an understanding of the purpose of government can the public see that if we allow ourselves to lose sight of our individual rights during this war, we will have won a meaningless victory.

-- CAV