What It Takes to Wage War

Ben Stein recently made a useful point about the difference between Americans — and especially the media — during WWII and now.

A few weeks ago, I bought a book of front pages of newspapers from World War II. I have been reading it avidly ever since. The news is terrifying and uplifting, of course. But it is the sense of Western resolve against the Axis powers that is so powerful [emphasis added].

There is a purpose in the stories of the whole nations of the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Soviet Union joined to fight the Nazi and Japanese war machines. Fighting, producing, rationing, restraining, cheering, mourning, all done with a will to win.

And, you had no doubt whose side the newspapers were on.

One major difference, of course, between WWII and now is that America’s leaders back then regarded the foreign country as the enemy, not ours. Even FDR showed every sign of actually wanting to win and his economic policies only unintentionally made that harder.

Just as important, perhaps, is that Hollywood in the ’40s also wanted us to win. Now, being as generous as possible, maybe as much as 30 percent of the major players in Tinseltown wouldn’t be too upset if Afghanistan turned out as well as Iraq in two years time. (Admittedly, considering the current state of Iraq, that wouldn’t require an excess of patriotism.)

Crucial, though, is the fact Americans are just blasé at best to the whole business. A recent CNN poll showed nearly two-thirds opposed to the war in Iraq. The numbers are almost exactly the reverse for Afghanistan. Both are odd results. People may favor or oppose the effort, but only a small number have any passion for or against.

Observe your neighbors and you’ll find that most hardly even feel we are at war. It’s something far away; the attacks of 9/11/2001 are now a fading memory for most; they have pressing economic concerns and little sense that the jihadists are a serious threat. Likely, at bottom, they’re suffering from fatigue after nine years of fighting, staggering sums spent, and only modest results to show for the effort.

It doesn’t help that the campaigns have been fought, even during the best of times, with lackluster enthusiasm by those charged with leading the effort. It’s tough for the citizenry to remain fired up when both civilian and military leaders act as if nothing much really hangs on the outcome. The troops and line officers are doing heroic deeds on a daily basis, but ROE that put them in the line of fire with their hands tied can’t help but depress morale.

What’s the answer? How do you reinvigorate a people to wage a proper war?

Unfortunately, unlike the solution to a lot of the country’s problems, it starts at the top. I say “unfortunately” because it’s always problematic to regard the President — any President — as a savior come to the rescue in times of trouble. It’s a sign he has too much power. Nevertheless, where war is concerned, who is the Commander in Chief does matter. A lot.

That’s common sense and it’s borne out by history. Just to cite one well known example, the malaise of the Carter years dissipated and even reversed somewhat after Reagan was in office a couple of years. America went from being seen as a paper tiger to a country to be approached without preconceptions.

Reagan’s broad tax cuts and inflation-fighting Federal Reserve policy helped, of course. Leaders around the world know it’s very expensive to wage war and they could judge as well as anyone whether America had the capacity. His tough talk against the Soviet Union certainly helped, too, since it was evident he meant it.

More fundamental, though, was his can-do attitude. He knew we had serious problems to face and he was a realist about them. But he was at base an optimist when it came to the American people, and life in general. That attitude is infectious when it comes from the Chief Executive. It gives people hope, especially in wartime. It gives the citizenry the feeling that someone powerful, someone who can actually make a difference, is on their side.

That is the very opposite of what we see with Obama, who is clearly — occasional lip service aside — very much against not only the war effort but the majority of the American people. He obviously disapproves of them — or is, at best, aloof — unless and until they behave like community organizers. Like his Hegelian professors, deep down he appears to believe individuals only have value insofar as we are part of the State.

For all his cheery ‘hope and change’ rhetoric during the campaign, he has pretty consistently been a downer in office. He acts like a man overwhelmed — as he should, since he simply hadn’t the experience for the job and, unlike Lincoln, no personal qualities to make up for the lack.

More than that, he shows every sign — as Progressives must, since their view of human nature is wholly mistaken — of being a deeply cynical, guarded, and ultimately mistrustful person. A man who trusts his fellow citizens doesn’t fear them being free. It’s only the man who believes they’ll habitually make harmful choices who feels compelled to constrain them.

It will certainly help when there’s a sea change this November — provided people continue to hold Republicans’ feet to the fire to do the right thing. But, even so, we’re in for a tough slog until the Finger Wagger-In-Chief is gone in 2013. Unlike Clinton, no matter the makeup of Congress, Obama will never tack to the center and he’ll still be the C-In-C after the election, at least on paper.

Longer term, of course, no matter who occupies the Oval Office, more of the American people will have to regain their lust for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if they are to remain a free and prosperous people in peace or war. Luckily, there are signs that’s happening, and faster than anyone expected two years ago. Now is our chance to keep that momentum going well beyond 2010.