Centerfield

Yes, Sheehan has always been a traitorous liberal deviate who hates her son--that's why she raised Casey as an altar boy and an Eagle Scout. She was doubtless hoping he would wind up as an agnostic crackhead who ODed at 14. :-]

Snarkery aside, this is another way of saying "Anti-war=Anti-W=Anti-America." A bit more elaborate, but it's the same false equation.

I notice "Splunge" doesn't bother to share his/her credentials.

Gee, I wonder why...

What credentials do any of us share? I don't put my e-mail address in when commenting on blogs any more because every time I do, I get a bunch of spam showing up (this wasn't so much the case here, but it was murderous at Prawfs and Volokh). My website right now has practically nothing on it, so not much point in sharing a URL. Neither splunge (silly name, but what can you do), nor I, nor even you, post under our full names. So I don't know that we can critisize the anomynity. ;)

I don't think the point is that being anti-war means being anti-American, and I don't think that's the point here. But as other Volokh conspirators have pointed out, there must be a reason why this woman is doing what she's doing, and I don't think it has much to do with having some 1-on-2 time with George W. It can't be because she wants answers, because as others have pointed out, she's been given answers, she just doesn't like those answers.

Even less understandable is why this in particular has been the story. As with Rovegate - isn't there anything more interesting going on?

I think the speculation on Sheehan's detailed motives is pointless. Only she knows for sure, if even she really does. In the end she's just another American citizen with a constitutional right to a public opinion. The rest is emotional blackmail and political soap opera, tactical manuevering for advantage and position,and it's coming from all corners.

Why is it such a big story? In today's 24/7 news cycle, everything's a big story if it shows up at the right time. Gotta fill all those audience-share hours with something to keep the crowds coming back, you know.

Ah yes, the ubiquitous spam.

I too have suffered their slings and arrows; usually when I get something like that (often titled "You silly socialist" or something fun like that) I answer "Dear friend, do you know some complete lunatic is hacking into your email account and sending out spam in your name?" Then I send it back.

It usually takes them a couple days to figure that one out. By that time I've added their name to my spam filter.

But the point is, Simon, that everyone in America is free to armchair psychoanalyze everyone else, just as everyone is free to question anyone else; it's just that some opinions weigh more than others. I can call my spammers lunatics all I please, but none of them are going to be locked up in Bellevue on my say so. Somehow, if S was a real psychologist, I'm sure s/he would have said so; if not, then I'm going to take S's opinion with a couple of tons of salt.

Tully's right; one reason that she's big news is that it's August, and August is a slow news month. Another reason is it's a bad year; if she had done this last year, or the year before, none of the media would have paid attention to her.

But now the approval of the Iraq war is slip sliding away, partly because of the growing number of causualties, partly because of the growing cost, but mostly because because W's lack of an exit startegy (or his refusal to explain an exit strategy). To paraphrase Jon Stewart; "Bush's failure to answer questions like an adult to adults to what is hurting his cause."

because W's lack of an exit startegy

LOL! Both, maybe. ;-)

Jon Stewart is right, and it's been my biggest complaint about this admin. Bush is lousy at "connecting" with the public, something both Reagan and Clinton excelled at.

I think it would be madness to publicly proclaim a set exit strategy. Why not just Fedex your war plans to Zarqawi? On the other hand, explaining to the public in blunt and direct terms why you won't offer an explicit exit blueprint is perfectly valid.

I think it would be madness to publicly proclaim a set exit strategy. Why not just Fedex your war plans to Zarqawi? On the other hand, explaining to the public in blunt and direct terms why you won't offer an explicit exit blueprint is perfectly valid.

Actually..I think the opposite is true. Not giving an exit strategy gives Zarqawi and his ilk exactly what they want.

These guys are using the fact that we're on "sacred soil" as an impetus to recruit, train and nurture terrorists. The fact that our government isn't articulating any kind of exit strategy is another way for them to point a finger and say, "See? The Americans aren't going to leave this place..ever. They're building bases..they're trying to co-opt the oil, etc."

We're applying western mindsets to a very nonwestern set of individuals. These guys could give a crap about our "war plans". They're going to wait us out, regardless. And they can.

I am not sure if we have to worry too much about what Zarqawi thinks in the following sense: right now, he can propagandize about how Americans will never leave Iraq because all they want is oil etc., but if we leave he can say, I told you the Americans were weak, join the victorious jihad. I think a hasty withdrawal would be better propaganda material than not outlining an exit strategy. After all, if we did leave prematurely it would show that America doesn't have the stomach for long and costly wars. However, Zarqawi's first line of propaganda is primarily BS as it is the Iraqi government which mainly determines whether we stay or go. If leading government officials were demanding our immediate withdrawal, or if there were widespread protests among ordinary Iraqis demanding our withdrawal, or if Shiites united with Sunnis in trying to drive us out, then I would agree that the US really is determined to stay there and suck all the resources out of the country.

Please Carla, explain why we shouldn't allow the Iraqi goverment to determine when we leave as long as they seem to be acting in good faith. Why wouldn't they know better than anyone else whether we're helping or harming? Or that we should wait until the majority of Iraqis are calling for our immediate withdrawal? Explain what is wrong with this logic.

But contra Tully, I don't see what would be wrong with telling the American people that we will leave the country once we have x-number of well-trained troops and have had a successful election following ratification of the constitution or before then if the Iraqi government feels that they can take over the security situation. Or just something more definite. I'm not sure how Zarqawi knowing that we're tying our withdrawal to a certain number of well-trained troops or a certain political milestone would hurt us.

That's already been pretty well announced as our conditions for drawdowns, Adam. The big question is when. What the anti-war faction seems to want is a right-now bailout or time-certain real-soon withdrawal announcements. They will not get either.

As you point out, what we do is fairly irrelevant as far as the jihadi propaganda goes. No matter what we do, Zarqawi and cronies will keep beating the drums. Non-Islamic Western culture is not leaving the planet to accomodate them. The commercial entertainment satellites are not coming down, and the internet isn't going away. The jihadis still consider Spain to be "sacred soil" as well, and they want it back. How accomodationist do we wish to be? The idea that AQ and other terrorists would leave us alone if only we ran away from Iraq is pure fantasy.

Not to nitpick, but as a psychiatrist I'd point out that the actual term would be not transference here but "displacement" --anger at one person being redirected unconsciously toward a more acceptible target. Transference specifically means the process of identifying one's therapist with parental figures and the like.

We don't know Ms Sheehan. If you think about how complicated your own family and internal motivations are, and imagine strangers guessing things about you through the distance and filter of the media, I think we'd all conclude there's little chance of making intelligent statements about Ms Sheehan's psyche, or really that of any celebrity or public figure. People are too complicated. I think that rather than trying to explain her away, the high road is to let her grieve in her own ideosyncratic way and try to ignore it until this bizarre episode is over.

In answer to Adam's concern about pulling out and being called weak, I'd direct you to the excellent piece by Michael Totten on how Israel scored strategic success "withdrawing under fire" from engagement with Hezbollah. Not that we ought to pull out right away, but the mere fact that we're still under fire shouldn't be reason enough to stay.

I think Totten is right on the money - good link.

Carla, you're applying assumptions that non-westerners are primarily driven by rage at what we do.

try to ignore it until this bizarre episode is over.

That would probably be a lot easier if an increasing segment of the electorate didn't think Sheehan is speaking for "thousands, even hundreds of thousands of people."

What makes this "the summer's least-interesting non-event"?

Is this Centerfield or Lalaland?

emotional blackmail and political soap opera, tactical manuevering for advantage and position

Q.E.D.

The summer story is not about Cindy Sheehan and her motives. It is about people starting to question the validity of the war in Iraq. Protesters are no longer silent.

Neo-prog, I didn't sleep through the entire last half-decade, and there has been absolutely nothing "silent" about the anti-war protests in that time, and absolutely NO shortage of people questioning the war. Try again.

Yeah, my sense of anti-war protesters is that they have been a small and vocal group whose size has remained fairly constant so far during the Iraq war. Perhaps there has been growth, I dunno, but if there has, it does not seem to be at a rate that means many Americans are turning against the war.

The organized Sheehan vigil seemed to have been composed of only thousands on a nationwide basis. Seems to me that a very solid majority is either more patient, more understanding or forgiving or the admin's motives, or just isn't that interested due to the perception that their personal cost is negligible. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of people having such views, that's what it feels like to me.

I'm sure I'll be corrected by the actual millitary types if I'm wrong but the type of asymetric warfare we are fighting now is more a test of wills then of power.... and as such, whoever flinches first looses.

The insurgency knows that they can't defeat our firepower on the battlefield and drive us out of the country by brute force alone. Thier hope for victory is if they can outlast us. Because we are a democracy, if they can make the war so costly and unplatable to the American public that we demand a pull out then they will consider that victory...as the believe that the Iraqi security forces cannot stand on thier own. The insurgency really does gauge thier effectiveness not by territory gained or the number of attacks conducted but by the level of opposition to the war and lack of confidence in the war effort among the American public.

This is not to paint the anti-war protesters as "anti-american" or to claim that such public debate is any way wrong... it is a neccesary and healthy part of living in the Democracy. However, make no mistake that it DOES directly assist the insurgency in it's efforts. In this kind of fight, the most commited wins....and if the insurgency percieves a lack of commitment on our part it will help keep thier forces motivated to continue fighting. Providing them with a public exit strategy that consists of anything less then the total capitulation of the insurgency will be a HUGE boon to the insurgency.

I hate to draw parralels to Vietnam, but in this one respect the comparison is apt....because that also was a test of commitment. You can read in the memoirs of NVA officers and planners just how important the anti-war effort on the American homefront was in maintaining thier resolve to continue the conflict in the face of the battlefield reverses. They listened to media reports from the American homefront on a daily basis and paid as much attention to them as to thier own casualty reports.

Whether American involvment in Iraq or Vietnam was correct or worthwhile is a legitimate matter of public debate. Whether a percieved lack of commitment to the war on the part of the American public assists the Insurgency is not....it's a given. If we aren't totaly commited then we are hamstringing our own efforts.

But cengel, what are our efforts? This has NEVER been clear.

Cengal,

Nietsche once said "Battle not with monsters, lest ye become the monster." It sounds like you're saying that the only way to defeat dictatorships is to become a dictatorship ourselves. Clarification, please?

Molly,

A democratic, freindly and stable Iraq that doesn't serve as a willing base of support for regional terrorism and isn't commited to unify the entire region under a single tyrant in the guise of Pan-Arabic Nationalism. I'm not sure what's so terribly unclear about that?

Blue Jean,

Not at all. I'm not condemning the anti-war protesters but I don't believe there should be any illusions about what effect they are having on the insurgency. An open society like ours is a double-edged sword. There are HUGE benefits and those benefits make things more then worth it...but I don't think we should pretend that there aren't costs associated with it either.
I think the folks protesting the war should be aware of those costs as well.... so they are sure they are following the right course for the right reasons.

Ultimately, I guess that I wish people had been more unified in thier commitment before we engaged ..... and that once we did engage people would put aside any previous misgivings they had and get behind the effort. That's Utopia of course.... but bottom line, if the public isn't commited enough to see this thing through...we will loose.

About the only thing I can do is to make sure that it is understood that the protesters (who get a TON of publicity) only represent a portion of the American public.

Since Dear Leader is infallible, all who criticise his policies must be behaving irrationally.

I don't believe there should be any illusions about what effect they are having on the insurgency.

Exactly. The anti-war faction is a morale booster for the insurgents, and a morale deflator for the troops. If you have any doubts at all about that, ask some of those troops. That's the real-world effect, regardless of the motivations involved. Whether or not the anti-war faction is justified, that cost remains. Denying it doesn't make it go away. It still takes a toll.

The war protestors represent a larger portion of the public than you realize, Cengel. More than half the population thinks the war was a mistake.

That would probably be a lot easier if an increasing segment of the electorate didn't think Sheehan is speaking for "thousands, even hundreds of thousands of people."

BJ, what's your reasoning behind claiming that there are an increasing number of people who think this? You've linked to a quote by ONE guy. And even that ONE guy is talking about how many people he THINKS Sheehan is speaking for, not an accounting on the number of people Sheehan IS actually speaking for.

And let's not be afraid to notice that even 200,000 people would represent less than 1% of U.S. population. Face it, until weekend anti-war protests can muster a headcount at least as large as the number of people who went to see the crappiest new movie opening at the Cinemaplex, we're talking about a vocal fringe that most people are ignoring while they go about their day to day lives.

That's the math of it. On any recent given weekend, AWPs muster "thousands" of Americans nationwide. At the same time, several million go to see Deuce Bigalow or 40-year old virgin or Must Love Dogs or Dukes of Hazard or The Brothers Grimm. Is this any sort of fair comparison? Not really. But it DOES serve to highlight that the numbers of Americans who are obsessed with ending our involvement in Iraq is pretty small.

Seems to me many AWPs are trying to foster growth by claiming it's already occuring, is well under way, and is about to explode onto the streets. I just don't see it.

What Brian said.

The war protestors represent a larger portion of the public than you realize, Cengel. More than half the population thinks the war was a mistake.

How many of these 50+ % people are protestors? I thought invading was a mistake, but I support our efforts now that we're there, as long as we have the continued pragmatic tolerance of a majority of Iraqis. Where does that put me?

Duh...gee, I dunno, Brian....maybe it’s this, or this, or this.

I’d cite more, but I’m sure you get the idea. Newsflash; if you’re anti-Iraq war, you don’t need to go out into the street and wave a sign; all you have to do is go into a voting booth and pull a lever.

Oh, and here's another newsflash; General Washington was attacked for his conduct of the Revolutionary war. Madison was criticized for his conduct of the War of 1812. Lincoln was all but dragged through the mud for his conduct of the Civil War. Wilson was pilloried for his conduct of WW I. FDR was lambasted for his conduct of WW II.

And Truman? Truman got jumped on for both his conduct of WW II and the Korean War. (In fact, Ike's promise to "go to Korea." was one of the reasons he won such a landslide in 1952.)

For charity's sake, I shouldn't mention Clinton, though I will point out that the last time U.S. bombs fell on Iraq, the House Republicans were busy ramming through two impeachment resolutions. In fact, some of the busy bees thought Clinton was making up that trivial little Saddam issue in order to avoid the all important Lewinsky matter. To say Clinton was attacked for his conduct of the Iraq and Bosnian wars would be a gross understatement.

And yet, they all managed to win their wars. (O.K., the War of 1812 was more of a draw, but still...)

But that was then. Today, we hear that if so much as one voice is raised in protest now, the world's mightiest military machine will come crashing down in defeat, as though the militants were crouching in the ruins of the city, "Well, Abdullah, we might as well give up. The U.S. is too strong, and....oh wait! There's a lone housewife protesting in Texas! This changes everything! We must attack at once!"

Yeah, that's the ticket. I'm sure the terrorists are thinking just that way...:-]

Spare us the hyperbole, Jean, we get the point. We've been hearing it for quite a while. But the line of reasoning is still seriously flawed, and constitutes denial on the part of the anti-war factions.

In previous wars, there was indeed dissent and opposition. But that dissent was not omnipresent and immediately available to the operational troops in the field, on a 24/7 multi-channel satellite video news cycle basis, and was not overwhelmingly one-sided. That little "custom" budded with Vietnam, and the growth and immediacy of global media presence has exacerbated it. I'll repeat what I said above:

"The anti-war faction is a morale booster for the insurgents, and a morale deflator for the troops. If you have any doubts at all about that, ask some of those troops. That's the real-world effect, regardless of the motivations involved. Whether or not the anti-war faction is justified, that cost remains. Denying it doesn't make it go away. It still takes a toll."

That the effects are not immediately catastrophic does not mean they do not exist. That those effects are part of the price of free speech and a free society does not mean they are without cost, or that they are a price that no one pays. And frankly, those who are imposing that cost on our troops should acknowledge it, instead of denying it. If they feel that cost is justified, then let them justify it, not hide from it with platitudes about free speech and "supporting the troops but not the war." If you want to make a "greater good" argument, go right ahead--but don't pretend that the price of that free speech is zero. It's not.

Blue Jean, I can't get any of those links to work.

None of the data that I have seen suggests that discontent with the war has grown substantially in recent weeks or months.