Times Poll: Southerners Feeling Most Impacted by War
In the new round of polls showing the U.S. public turning against the Iraq war, there was one statistic that shows progressives have a big opening for reaching Southerners about the war. For example, in drawing on the the New York Times/CBS News Poll released this past weekend, the Times wrote:
Clearly, there is a deep awareness in Southern communities about how war is hurting people's lives. I think what's been missing -- with some notable exceptions -- are clear Southern progressive voices who 1) been willing to consistently and vocally question the war, (I'm thinking here especially of the Southern Congressional delegation), and 2) do it in a way that puts front and center the pain of military families and people who make their livelihoods in the armed services.
A majority of all respondents said that the war in Iraq was having an impact on their communities - 27 percent rated the impact as major and 37 percent as minor.This is in line with the Institute's recent report (pdf) on how issues of war and foreign policy are disproportionately impacting people in the South.
Those in the South were affected more than those in other regions: 34 percent said the impact was major and 31 percent said it was minor.
Clearly, there is a deep awareness in Southern communities about how war is hurting people's lives. I think what's been missing -- with some notable exceptions -- are clear Southern progressive voices who 1) been willing to consistently and vocally question the war, (I'm thinking here especially of the Southern Congressional delegation), and 2) do it in a way that puts front and center the pain of military families and people who make their livelihoods in the armed services.
10 Comments:
There has never been a war, ever, that didn't hurt people's lives. People with even a passing interest in the military or military history understand this.
There has never been a war where young men and women didn't die or become maimed or have nightmares from it.
Do you suppose, somehow, that the pain and sacrifice is relevant to the question of the war itself?
Supposing there is some war that you consider legitimate, maybe defeating Germany in WW2, explain how that war didn't hurt communities in the US. You can't, because it did.
From the perspective of *most* people in the military, now or in the past, it's nothing but exploitation of a person against their will, when they've no longer any ability to defend themselves because they are dead. It's like hauling their corpse around so that people can gawk at it.
Take the high ground and debate the war on substance, why don't you. In the mean time, our deployed troops are making an extra effort to make sure their families know that they don't want their dead bodies to be stuffed and displayed after they are dead.
i don't have facts but most bases are located south of mason-dixon, hence most people affected by the war would be southerners. more likely though the poor always shoulder the bigger burden and the poorest states are southern.
Synova: I think it's fairly telling that you don't consider the death and destruction of war to be one of the "substantive" reasons to oppose our involvement in Iraq. This was an optional war, which makes the suffering that military families are feeling all the worse. That's the very reason why war should be viewed as a last resort.
Funk: I posted a link to the Institute for Southern Studies report, which has all the facts you're looking for, including the percentage of military personnel that are based in the South. We also have an analysis of the base closure proposals, and show that it would lead to a net INCREASE in base strength in the South.
I think it's interesting that you don't feel the least need to support the assumption that this is an "optional" war and what that means.
Given that unassailable assumption, the only possible reason for anyone to support the war is that they have decided that it is a fun jaunt without consequences. This, I suppose, explains the proposed emphasis on the human cost, since those supporting the war could not possibly support it unless they are in active and willful denial.
My point was that pro-war people are not in denial about the human cost. They disagree, rather, with the base assumption that the war is optional. *That* is the arguement of substance.
Focusing on the human cost, on the other hand, is nothing more than stuffing and displaying corpses. Liberals are supposed to be so concerned with exploitation yet, apparently, see no problem with exploiting dead soldiers and the sorrow of their families.
Synova, do you have any plans to enlist?
I was active duty during Desert Storm.
Thanks.
Oh, and approximately 15-20 US servicemembers were assassinated during that time where I was stationed. We were considered a FOB and we were getting hazardous duty pay and we were aware that we were targets.
Are you planning to enlist?
Thanks to deferments, I graduated from college in 1967, the year before the lottery was implemented. My brother and I, failing to get into the National Guard because it was full of the local dignitaries' sons, accepted what we believed was a grim fate and volunteered for the draft. I was classified 1-Y for a congenital spinal condition (after eight hours of evaluation at the intake center) and was sent home, although I let it be known that I could serve in a support capacity. My 18 months-younger brother entered service and served two tours on the ground in Vietnam; he emerged highly decorated, with a real Purple Heart. In San Francisco, he crossed paths and briefly chatted with the son of a prominent entertainer--the young man was on his way to Germany.
We are not pacifists, we just know a bad war when we see one.
The point that I expressed to you earlier is that it's a whole different ballgame now--untrod ground. For the first time, we are engaged in an extended military action with an all-volunteer force, and the current administration may not have time on its side.
Ah. :-) So we're both too old then.
I don't think that there is so much of an impending crisis in military recruitment as is often feared. (Or hoped?) But then most people interpret the world heavily in favor of their own feelings about things. People who would never, ever, enlist understandably can't imagine anyone else doing it either (at least, not if they are rational persons and haven't been railroaded or tricked) and people who would enlist if they could figure that enough people who do qualify for enlistment will have similar feelings. We expect people to be like ourselves.
Post a Comment
Return to Facing South's main page