The remaining hardcore supporters for the Iraqi war like to note that previous wars were far more deadly. What's 3,000 dead Americans when 400,000 Americans died in World War II and 20,000 alone in the Battle of the Bulge?
Why then are Americans far less tolerant of Iraqi war deaths?
The Associated Press put that question to a bunch of smart people with big titles, concluding that:
* Fewer deaths are more keenly felt.
* Support for the war has declined far more quickly than the Korea or Vietnam wars.
* Americans are more sensitive to casualties than in past wars because they neither see vital interests at stake nor feel the "halo effect" from a clear prospect of success.
* Many people have no idea who the U.S. is fighting and what for because of the White House's changing rationales.
* "Speed-of-light" consumer conveniences like cell phones and digital cameras reinforce expectations of fast results.
More here.
The remaining hardcore supporters for the Iraqi war like to note that previous wars were far more deadly. What's 3,000 dead Americans when 400,000 Americans died in World War II and 20,000 alone in the Battle of the Bulge?
No comments:
Post a Comment