Fortunately for my own peace of mind, I didn’t expect much in the way of positive developments from last night’s debate, although I have cheered and continue to cheer John Kerry’s decision to make George Bush’s incredible mismanagement of the war on Iraq and fumbling of the misnamed and misbegotten "war on terrorism" a central issue of his campaign. The trouble is that neither of the major parties is yet willing to entertain questions about more fundamental aspects of American foreign policy.
The idea that the default position should be not to intervene in foreign disputes unless the safety or core interests of the country are unequivocally at stake – which I still think (though that might reflect naiveté) resonates with most of the American people, though all too many will respond to a war-whooping propaganda campaign – is not something either major party will entertain just yet. Establishment figures might disagree on the proper way to handle, for example, Vladimir Putin’s grab for power in the wake of the recent terrorist outrage, but few are ready to suggest that while any American should be free to criticize, that is essentially Russia’s problem.
Well, I’m too old to be disillusioned by politicians any more. I decided long ago that they were unlikely to do much good, let alone usher in an age of peace and freedom. Even so, however, there are occasional glimmers of encouraging news out there – almost none of them created or encouraged by any political leader, except in a negative fashion – and now, in the midst of a generally depressing political campaign, might not be a bad time to acknowledge some of them.
Whom Do You Trust?
My first example comes from a recent Zogby poll among young males 18 to 30. It turns out that 60 percent disagree with the statement that George Bush made the right decision to go to war with Iraq. As the release puts it, "These attitudes remain firmly held when other aspects of the war are probed. For example, 63 percent disagree with the claim that Bush made the right decision even if the intelligence data were flawed. Strong opposition to the war among the nation’s young men has created a crisis of confidence in the president’s leadership: 59 percent believe President Bush misled the American people from the beginning about the need to go to war with Iraq."
Interesting, the attitudes hold fairly strongly across racial, ethnic and income groups. Some 36 percent of whites "completely agree" with Bush’s decision – a fairly low number, especially if Republicans are thinking about appealing to those who will be predominant in society in 10 years or so – while lower percentages of Hispanics (30 percent) and African-Americans (18 percent) support the decision to go to war.
When young men were asked what persons or institutions were "highly responsible" for the problems the country faces, the number one answer, at 59 percent, was the executive branch of government (followed closely by the media at 56 percent). In declining order came citizens (50 percent), special interests (48 percent), voters (46 percent) and education (43 percent). That perennial favorite, corporate America, was blamed by only 40 percent. Only 26 percent blamed religious institutions, while only 16 percent blamed labor unions.
About 55 percent of young American males say their level of trust in the U.S. government has "gone down" or "disappeared completely" when they think about the war in Iraq. When asked what people in their communities would think if they decided to join the military, a full 24 percent of America’s young men (yes, it’s a poll, and the 3.6 percent margin of error Zogby cites is probably an underestimate) think "they would think I’ve lost my mind." All told, 56 percent thought friends and neighbors would have a negative reaction or none at all if they decided to join the military, while 43 percent thought their neighbors would be proud.
So most young men are disillusioned with government, and especially with the executive branch, because of the war with Iraq. That suggests that not only will the current mission be difficult to sustain, future missions will be more difficult to undertake. Public sentiment, of course, is only one factor in the decisions made by government leaders (and sometimes hardly plays a role at all), but it eventually has an impact.
Not Joining
All this is having an effect on recruiting. Recently, the government called up members of the Individual Ready Reserve, former soldiers who are still subject to call-up, but they aren’t exactly responding with enthusiasm. According to a USA Today story, "of the 1,662 ready reservists ordered to report to Fort Jackson, S.C., by Sept. 22, only 1,038 had done so, the Army said Monday." Some have requested medical exemptions, some of which might be granted, but the Army is threatening some with punishment for desertion.
The Army decided to call ready reservists in part because it is having trouble recruiting people into the National Guard and the Army Reserve. According to an earlier USA Today story, "As of April 30, the Guard was nearly 6,000 recruits short of where it needed to be on that date to meet its Sept. 30 target of enlisting 62,000 soldiers. If the Guard can’t reverse the shortfall, it will mark the first time since 1998 that it has failed to fill its ranks."
The recruiting problems are affecting both the part-time services and the full-time services now, perhaps prompting increasing calls for a military draft. The news that young men and women are voting with their feet, or with their decisions (still possible so long as military service is still voluntary) can hardly be terrible news for those who are skeptical of war. It has to affect the government’s future decisions (although we might not like the way many government leaders respond to the situation).
Intifada Failing?
Then there was a Los Angeles Times story this week suggesting that young Palestinians who signed up for it not so long ago are becoming disillusioned with the intifada. "Among Palestinians from all walks of life," wrote Laura King from Ramallah, "there is a quiet but growing sentiment that their intifada, or uprising – which broke out four years ago today [Sept. 28] – has largely failed as an armed struggle, and lost its character as a popular resistance movement."
Many Palestinians also feel that their failure to extract anything resembling a military victory against Israel has left them in a worse bargaining position for seeking territorial and other concessions.
It is notable that this has come, for the most part, not because of the efforts of international organizations, the United States, or any other of the myriad groups and organizations that claim to have a key to resolving Israeli-Palestinian disputes. It seems to be simple war-weariness, which anybody could have predicted would settle in eventually. An increasing number of people who had been fascinated with the idea of guerrilla movements are thinking more in terms of political organizations. Disillusionment with Yasser Arafat and other official leaders is increasingly widespread.
I have always maintained that war-weariness rather than outside intervention would be the key to an eventual (though perhaps tenuous) settlement of Israeli-Palestinian disputes. Now, according to Laura King, "For some time now, influential figures in Palestinian society – intellectuals, lawmakers, analysts and well-regarded local officials – have been asserting, almost matter-of-factly, that the violent confrontation with Israeli forces has reached a dead end and their people must look to the future."
The outcome will almost certainly be short of utopian, but less violence is less violence.
Terrorists Failing?
Finally, there was a piece by the Washington Post‘s international affairs writer David Ignatius this week, built around the new book, The War for Muslim Minds, by French Arabist scholar Gilles Kepel. (I haven’t read the book yet myself, but rest assured that I will fairly soon.)
Kepel believes that while the war in Iraq was a mistake, "that doesn’t mean the jihadists are winning," Ignatius writes. "Quite the contrary, their movement has backfired. Rather than bringing Islamic regimes to power, the holy warriors are creating internal strife and discord. Their actions are killing far more Muslims than nonbelievers." Kepel even argues that the brutal tactics in Iraq – beheadings and all that – are increasingly alienating the Muslim masses.
Kepel may be wrong, and I suspect that his prescription – for the West to revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace process to mollify the "Arab street" – is unrealistic. But it’s worth considering the possibility that the escalating violence in Iraq suggests desperation more than increasing strength. If that holds in other countries, jihadist war-weariness could set in before long. Then the war on terror might be essentially over – not that we can say goodbye immediately to violence and danger – and our leaders will have to seek other dragons to slay.
