Centerfield

In just war theory it is suggested (presumably argued for, actually, in some esoteric part of the literature) that soldiers' views of wars in which they serve should be regarded as unreliable. In the literature, soldiers are said to be afflicted with "invincible ignorance." This, e.g., is supposed to absolve them from certain types of blame. I'm not sure, but I think this is primarily because they aren't privy to all the information that their ultimate superiors use to conduct the war, but it also seems intended to indicate that a soldier who must "psych himself up" and devote himself wholly to his cause in order to do his job is simply not in an epistemic position that allows him to objectively assess the justice of that cause.

Anyway, good post. Now, how do we go about determining whether the phenomenon in question is the result of soldiers' families having more information than the rest of us, or, rather, the result of the soldiers' skewed judgments?

Opponents of the war could argue that the troops are constantly propagandized to believe in the mission, and this filters back to their friends and relatives.

And others can argue the same, even more so, about the propagandizing by opponents of the war. With better justification--it is a certainty that the troops in the field have better and more complete information.

One could argue that those for whom the war is abstract may have a more objective view than those "biased" by personal involvement.

One can argue a lot of things, but that particular argument sounds like a whole bunch of rationalizations wrapped together to me. Not just armchair quarterbacking, but armchair QB done by someone listening to the game on their radio by the pool half a world away, thinking up reasons that they actually know more about what's happening on the field and in the game than the actual players, coaches, and referees. And armchair QB by those who don't know very much about football at that.

I suggest Occam's Razor. Which hypothesis requires the fewest assumptions, and still completely fits the evidence?

Anyone know if the same was true in during the Viet Nam war?

Well, we know that Rush Limbaugh has enjoyed an unrebutted reign on Armed Forces Radio. And we know what kinds of things he makes claims about. I think one could reasonably call that propagandizing the troops. Which the infamous PIPA poll of Bush supporters seems to bear out, albeit very indirectly.

Yes, some inferences and assumptions have to be made to connect the two. But, I think one can safely assume that Bush supporters were generally supportive of the Iraq War and that Kerry supporters were generally unsupportive of it. Limbaugh would be one common thread which one could use to make inferences between the PIPA poll findings and whether troops are propagandized.

As for the corrolation between support of the war and whether one has friends or relatives over there... I don't really buy the alleged connection. My best friend from middle school on thru early adulthood is a veteran of both the Gulf War (which I strongly supported) and the Iraq War (which I strongly opposed).

That said, it needs to be pointed out once again that opposition to the Iraq War is NOT tantamount to opposition to war in general or even to the War on Terrorism. I know LOTS of people who unreservedly supported the mission in Afghanistan and who just as unreservedly disagreed with the Iraq War.

Then, of course, there's Mitt Romney.

I think it's irrelevant. The fact that soldiers support the war doesn't make it good policy. I don't agree with the idea that soldiers' views don't mean anything (John Gregory Dunne wrote a piece in the New Yorker several years ago in debunking "Saving Private Ryan" on the basis that soldiers lack the "correct" perspective on war. I thought it was one of the more ridiculous articles I have read.) On the other hand, I don't think soldiers are the ultimate source on whether the policy is correct or, for that matter, whether we are winning or losing. Even if they are correct on how the war is going, it doesn't mean that their view on the whether the policy is correct is definitive. I can oppose the war for a variety of reasons regardless of what the soldiers think and I think Myer's attempt to essentially treat war opponents as undermining the war effort is despicable.

I recognize that soldiers have a perspective on the war and on the insurgents that is different from noncombatants and their views should be considered. But they are really not in any better position to judge the viability or wisdom of the policy.

The "chickenhawk" argument is such a witless one that I urge everyone to follow it to the logical conclusion--that only the military and their families are entitled to opinions on matters military. Under the ultimate "chickenhawk" doctrine, the USMC and 82nd Airborne should be in charge of foreign policy. It is doubtful that this would have the effect the anti-war faction wishes.

Then there's the reverse argument above--that the military and their families know less about what's really going on than Joan Baez and Code Pink. Try to follow that one through to a logical conclusion that isn't utterly laughable.

I spent yesterday afternoon at a military families barbecue that included several returned Iraq vets. They referred to the second argument by a label somewhat similar to "chickenhawk," but the last four letters were different and they tacked on some additional expletives, adjectives, adverbs, and nouns.

I think that the "chickenhawk" charge is in large part a way of throwing the rightwing's fuss about Clinton having avoided military service in Vietnam back at them. In fact I don't think I'd ever heard the term "chickenhawk" used until after the rightwing went after Clinton.

Of course Clinton-haters don't like to connect those particular dots because they don't want to draw attention to their own hypocrisy.

Are you saying the "chickenhawk" argument (which has been around since at least the Civil War, BTW) is somehow justified now because elements of the wingnut right used it on Clinton? I hope not. In any case, the argument is hollow, regardless of who it's used against, as is the reverse argument. Straight ad hominem invective.

I'd be curious as to the war support polling numbers of those who actually lost a loved one in Iraq.

It's one thing to support the policy if you've got someone currently serving. It's quite another to check with those who've actually someone die, like Sheehan has.

I'm not sure, but I think this is primarily because they aren't privy to all the information that their ultimate superiors use to conduct the war

As opposed to those of us living in the US who have access to all the informations that our ultimate superiors are using to conduct the war? That argument might have some validity when compared to those who are in the loop, but how many people who's opinions are captured in these polls-- on either side-- are actually in the loop? My guess is very, very few-- and probably absolutely none.

NONE of us (save the scant few in the loop) have access to all the information or all of the relevant information or even just a smart part of the relevant information.

but it also seems intended to indicate that a soldier who must "psych himself up" and devote himself wholly to his cause in order to do his job is simply not in an epistemic position that allows him to objectively assess the justice of that cause.

I guess that makes sense theoretically, but I don't think it applies in my own personal experience. I knew a heck of a lot more about what was going on in Afghanistan-- at least in the sense of day-to-day affairs-- while I was there than I do now, but my confidence level in what's going on in that country has (if anything) increased since I left.

Not sure if I buy into that one.

When liberals say they support the troops what they really mean is they support the troops staying home in subsidized housing and food stamps. (c8

When liberals say they support the troops what they really mean is they support the troops staying home in subsidized housing and food stamps. (c8

Liberals haven't had control of the budgetary process since early in Clinton's first term. If you're unhappy with the compensation of the military..take it up with your conservative Republican representatives.

Liberals haven't had control of the budgetary process since early in Clinton's first term.

I knew it! It was those wascally Wepublicans who produced the surpluses!

I'd be careful about drawing too many conclusions from that analogy (though it presents a good question.)

Vietnam, at its height, relied heavily on conscript forces. That plays a huge factor in troop morale issues (which is basically what's being discussed). Also, the educational difference in forces plays a large role as well as the difference in the force's media disconnect. From what I can tell, many FOBs in Iraq have access to cable news networks.

Carla,

I understand your point about people's views changing if they have lost someone, but I think it's essentially irrelevant. The fact that military families or people who have lost loved ones support or don't support the war doesn't effect whether the policy is correct.

It's sort of similar in my mind to the 9/11 families. The idea developed that they had some sort of special moral authority with respect to the investigation and post-9/11 policy. I never found that argument particularly compelling and, frankly, while this may sound callous, I found them more than a bit of a pain in the ass.

From what I read (and I don't think there has been any systematic sampling), a lot of the families that have lost people support the war. Psychologically, that makes some sense to me; you wouldn't want to think that your son or daughter died for nothing.