I keep hearing commentators say that Americans are “war-weary” and I keep thinking “well, no. Most Americans haven’t been directly affected by the Iraq and Afhanistan wars. Unless they have a service member in their family or on their block or in their workplace, they’ve probably been able to virtually ignore the violence being done in the Middle East and Southwest Asia for the past ten years on their behalf.”
My definition of war-weariness is a feeling of “we’ve sacrificed enough. I’m tired of rationed gas and butter. I’m tired of seeing pictures of battle on the evening news.” No Americans except those who’ve lost family members to war have had to deal with any of those things.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I suspect that most Americans don’t wake up every day thinking “we’ve still got thousands of military men and women in Afghanistan.” I know I don’t. I suggest that most Americans tuned out those two wars a long time ago. I’m pretty sure that the polls which indicate Americans’ distaste for bombing Syria reflect an attitude of “Don’t we have enough problems within our own borders that we shouldn’t take on another country’s? Sure, chemical weapons are awful, but how would a few cruise missiles stop them? Let’s not do this.”
For me, I don’t especially care about the road to saying “no” as much as the fact of it. Sick of being lied to? Finally able to see transparent rationalizations employed in the service of enriching Halliburton? I don’t care, much. Just glad it seems, if transiently, to be a majority sentiment.
I think you are right. And those that are sick of war stuff like “soldiers coming home without legs” are conflating the entirely willfully ignorant and totally duplicious Bush administration Middle East stuff with a quite different Middle East thing. For the more simple, Middle East plus Army equals its the same thing again.
Also it’s all another excuse for going against anything Obama thinks is a good idea. If some Republican was in charge, the same Democrats (who don’t have any of the same idea of loyalty to whatever Fearless Leader says) against this and all the Republicans for it and it would pass no problem with bells on.
There does seem to be a bit of the contradict Obama at any cost.
Like if Obama said bubonic plague was bad, the media and a bunch of Republicans would demand to have plague spread.
OTOH, Obama seems to be very much in league with the same people who would be enriched by more warlike activity in the Middle East. After all, this is a President who apparently would consider Larry Summers for fed chair apparently.
For myself, I feel we should stay out of Syria. One of my reasons is actually war weariness but not the foremost reason. Though I must say I’m mostly Middle-East-Weary at this point mainly. I’m tired of my country sending resources to, and adding to the violence in. the Middle East.
I do think we have enough problems at home, and I would personally consider that a reason I would give, and I think I think it’s a just reason, and there should be no shame in saying so.
But what gets me the most is — why should we go poking our nose into what Syria’s doing when we don’t poke our nose into what’s been happening in the Sudan.
But I suppose that last bit refers back to my weariness about the Middle East.