A rchive Date
[ 05-03-2005 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ U.S ]
|
[http://www.msnbc.com/news/651154.asp?cp1=1
When the reality of war comes home
Americans have changed: They are far less likely to be stoic
By Caryl Rivers
MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR
BOSTON, Nov. 1 - As the United States places more ground troops in Afghanistan and braces for the inevitable, questions are being raised about whether Americans have grown soft because of a general reluctance to see large numbers of casualties coming home in body bags. This isn’t new. Last year, at the United Nations Millennium Summit, Secretary General Kofi Anan complained to then-President Clinton that Americans were, in fact, too reluctant to lose lives in pursuit of strategic goals. That same criticism has been also been voiced in Asian and European capitals.
THE TERROR ATTACKS on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11 certainly aroused the ire of nearly all Americans, and the desire for vengeance undoubtedly dimmed the public’s anxiety about the casualties we will surely incur. But once the immediate crisis recedes, the public ambivalence about the human cost of war will most likely return. This isn’t because we, as a nation, are wimpier than our ancestors, or because we are more moral, but rather because of significant changes in our society over the past half-century. Demographic and cultural trends and new social realities fuel the American concern over casualties:
 Low fertility rates
The American birth rate has leveled off. We have become a nation of one- and two-child families, and this trend will almost certainly continue. Modern medicine and reliable contraception, combined with the high cost of raising and educating children, have changed the demographics of our republic. In the past, couples needed large families to have enough surviving children to work on farms or in small businesses, and to support them in old age. In the pre-modern era, huge numbers of children died at birth, in infancy or early childhood.
And while deaths in war were always painful for parents, large families meant that sons could more easily be spared for battle without the danger of wiping out their parents’ genetic heritage. The U.S. military recognized this dilemma during World War II, when the five Sullivan Brothers were lost on the same Navy ship. The plot of the film “Saving Private Ryan,” in which Tom Hanks is sent to find a soldier whose brother has been killed in battle, illustrated the policy that resulted from the Sullivan tragedy. If a family had only one surviving son, he would not be sent into combat.
Today, with smaller families - and with both their sons and daughters possibly at risk - Americans want to be sure that their children go into harm’s way for reasons that are never frivolous. The drive to assure the survival of one’s genes is a basic human instinct, and objection to war gets larger as families get smaller.
 The downsizing of death
In past eras, death was the constant companion of most human beings. Children died young, women perished in childbirth, plagues wiped out whole villages nearly overnight, killing even strong and healthy young people. Most people had witnessed death and dying, from a very young age. A death in war, though tragic, did not seem so much out of line with normal human fate. Today, we expect that young people will survive for many years, and in fact, most of them do. So a death in combat seems much more alien than in the past. And thus much less acceptable.
 The rise of fatherhood
More men are spending more time in the day-to-day care of children, and are thus more heavily invested in their children’s lives than in the past. The National Study on the Changing Workforce finds that for the first time, men are spending more hours with their children than on their own personal activities. In national surveys, young men report that having time for their families is more important to them than career advancement, a change from older generations.
Fathers with primary responsibility for young children are among the fastest-growing segments of the workforce. With men’s incomes stagnant or declining over the past 15 years and with instability and layoffs a permanent part of the new economic landscape, men can’t count on always getting both financial rewards and self-esteem from their jobs. They are finding more personal rewards from their kids. Fathers who are strongly bonded to their children may be less willing to risk those lives in warfare than in the past - especially in warfare that is not seen as essential. We know there is a link between fatherhood and levels of war. One cross-cultural study of 80 societies showed that where fathering behavior is high, warfare is low.
 The influence of the women’s movement
For centuries, women have been seen as less eager for war than males. The ancient Greek play “Lysistrata” centers on a group of women who withhold sexual favors from men to keep them from going to war.
But until fairly recently, women’s voices were simply not heard in public councils where decisions of war or peace were taken. That situation has changed, and not only are more women serving in Congress and in the cabinet, but they are also writing and speaking on public topics.
That’s not to say all women are doves. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice does not flinch from the idea of war and Women legislators certainly will vote to send troops when the national interest is involved. But a study by the Eagleton Institute of Politics found that across the political spectrum, female lawmakers are less likely than males to vote to authorize troops be sent into battle. (In fact, the only dissenting vote in Congress on a resolution to give the president authority to use military force against anyone involved in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States was by California Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee. The vote was 98-0 in the Senate, 420-1 in the House.)
 The new visibility of death
The horrors of war could often be kept from civilian populations in the past, when battlefields were remote. During World War II, for example, while combat photographers took many pictures of American bodies on the beaches at Normandy or Guadalcanal, Americans never saw those pictures during the war. In Vietnam, however, TV viewers saw American casualties on the evening news every night, and those images helped to turn public opinion again the war. More recently, pictures of dead American airmen being dragged through the streets of Somalia caused a similar outcry. Thanks to communications technology, we can experience war in real time, creating a revulsion against its brutality.
The Will To Fight
None of this means that Americans will refuse to accept casualties. In Desert Storm, a number of women were killed in combat operations, and despite the novelty of this situation, there was little outcry.
But it’s clear that all the factors cited above mean that political leaders will have a hard time sending American troops into battle riding a crest of jingoistic fervor. They will have to offer the American people a coherent policy for the use of combat troops. Americans will permit their loved ones to be sent into harm’s way, but it had better be for a good reason.
It hasn’t always been. Americans rallied behind the war cry of “Remember the Maine” that set off the Spanish-American War, but the Navy later determined that it was probably a faulty boiler that blew up the ship in Havana bay, not enemy agents. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution that allowed President Lyndon B. Johnson to widen the Vietnam war was based on descriptions of an attack on American warships that were reportedly overblown.
Given the many times in the past when precious human lives were wasted defending empty slogans, the interests of rapacious economic powers or the myopic goals of politicians or religious zealots, it is probably not a bad thing that when we go into battle, it’s for a good cause and with careful planning. The reasons for going to war should be explained in an honest and coherent way to the public. The government should have a sound idea of its objectives, those objectives should be reasonable, and there should be a plan for getting in and getting out with the least possible loss of life.
Calling Americans “wimps” or questioning their bravery when they voice reservations about the conduct of a war is beside the point. The days when citizens could be rallied by slogans or deception are long gone, especially in a 24-hour media culture where it’s hard to hide much of anything. Both civilian and military leaders will succeed only if they take the new realities of American society into account.
Caryl Rivers is a journalist who teaches at Boston University. She is a regular contributor to MSNBC.com
 World Fact Book (CIA))]
|