What happened to unity during a war?

Question

I already asked this question in a specific subset of sociology, where I hoped to get an enlightened response, but only got the typical anti-war resoponses. So, to a more average, militaristic audience, where is the unity and support for the soldiers and their mission that existed in World War 2? I'm not saying to blindly believe whatever the politicians tell us. I have issues with how the war got started and things that have happened. But, shady dealings and bad decisions will always happen and always have happened (internment of Japanese Americans in WWII, segregated units, etc.), its in human nature. By holding rallies "against the war" (ie against their mission), you provide propaganda material for the enemy and hurt the morale of the troops. Morale effects the troops more than any civilian could understand, and it can result in additional casualties or emotionally damaged soldiers who questioned their decision to join (so don't say you oppose the war and support the troops).

I'm not saying they are the same. I agree they are very different wars. I'm saying bad stuff happens no matter what, so you just have to do your best to do what's right. Since we decided to liberate Iraq, we're responsible for the people there until they can take care of themselves. We are fighting a war, and whether we agree with the reasons or not, we shouldn't be undermining the troops. Once again, I'm not saying to blindly follow the herd. Just stop the stupid rallies (they're intellectually dishonest. You could get the 5 million dumbest people to believe something, hold a rally, and it looks like there is a majority of people that believe it. Also, just because everybody believes it doesn't make it "right". Look at racial discrimination. A lot of whites believed they were superior, but that doesn't make it true or right.) Why do people feel they can undermine the mission but support the troops who are dieing on the missions?

We should support the actual war b/c its our military, our fellow citizens, that gave up the comfy life of a civillian to serve the nation, that are fighting and dieing in it. Debate what our mission in Iraq should actually be, or when the Iraqis are ready to stand on their own, but don't just say, "bring home the troops, I'm against the war!" It only undermines whatever the mission is or should be. I know about the stupid "mission accomplished" BS Bush pulled, Even back then, when I was still in high school I was screaming at the TV, "the fighting isn't over, don't say we're done yet... WHY ARE YOU DOING THAT? YOU IMBECILE!"

Answer 1

This is a leftover of Vietnam and the hippie movement. What many don't realize was the US military actually was winning the war. It was the protest movement by hippies and followed closely by the media that caused us to lose this war. I think unless normal people fully understand this they will continue to help erode our troops morale. They (the hippies, intellectuals and media) failed to learn the lesson after Vietnam. How the loss caused a massive shift in how the rest of the world to view the USA. I think unless they fully understand the consequences of their actions its just easier to be against the 'machine' (US government) and not care how it effects the future, cause its all about now, now, now.

Answer 2

WWII is actually a bad example of unity during wartime. That was one occasion where it really looked like either freedom, democracy and all things right and good were at stake against the powers of facism, megalomania and genocide. Not a tough choice but to be supportive of 'the good guys' in that one. Most, if not all, other wars that the US has been involved in haven't been that clear-cut. The revolution, War of 1812, Civil War (obviously), Spanish-American, Nicaragua, WWI, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I, Gulf War II- all these were more nuanced, to a greater or lesser degree. So to pick WWII as the benchmark for 'unity during a war' is both a bit too optimistic and ignores every other war we've been involved in where, as here, supporting our war efforts isn't such a clear and each choice for people. Holding anti-war rallies and speaking against the governments actions are some of the most important things we can do as Americans. It's easy to support the government when we agree with it, it's far more courageous to speak out when not in agreement with it (especially when others tell you you're actually harming the troops while doing the important work of ensuring our democracy continues). I think it's good and healthy that soldiers question what they're doing- I did when I was one and found myself more assured of my decision and proud of my service for having done so. Imagine if no one questioned their actions or the leaders elected to represent us- that's not a democracy, that's totalitarianism (see Soviet Empire during Cold War for how well that works out). And like [need a source here] once said, I may disagree with you, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it.

Answer 3

In the first place, there is no actual mission defined for the military in Iraq. The function of the military is to kill people and destroy property. It is the job of the civilian government to employ the military when those methods are the most effective way of achieving a desired political goal. In WW2 we wanted to eliminate the ability of Germany and Japan to wage war, and the military did that. Then it became the politicians job to build a post war peace. In Iraq there is no defined enemy, "terrorism" is an act not a person or country, and you can't kill the ability of people to act unless you kill all people everywhere. Since is there is no achievable goal, there can be no victory, and therefore no end to the current conflict. Claims about preventing further attacks ring false because no one has shown any evidence that anyone intends to attack us again. Why should they? Al' Qaeda is actually in a stronger position now than before the attack since they have demonstrated to the world they can attack us with impunity. If, after Pearl Harbor, we had left Japan completely alone during WW2 that attack would have been, for them, a complete success as well. As to morale, I am a retired 20 year Navy man who volunteered during Nam and retired after Desert Storm. I am the brother, cousin, nephew, son, grandson, great grandson, great-great grandson, father and father-in-law of U.S. service people. One of the things we fought to defend is the right of free people to speak their mind, whether we agreed or not. There was a saying back in the '60s, now largely in disrepute, "My country right or wrong, if it's right to keep it right, if it's wrong to make it right." Those rallies of which you speak are patriots doing what they believe best for their country, if you condemn them, you condemn everything our people in Iraq are there to preserve.

Answer 4

What war? I remember Baby Bush all Bedecked in a cute little naval aviator suit declaring the war was over. And there was some giant banner hanging from the island of an aircraft carrier declaring in huge letters: "mission accomplished".

Answer 5

to compare iraq with WWII is intellectually dishonest.

WWII was a life or death situation where we were fighting two of the most militarily and economically powerful nations in the world at that time.

also JAPAN ATTACKED THE USA.

they wanted to bring down the thunder - and they got it.

the iraq war has nothing to do with 9/11 and even general petreus stated that he wasn't sure it was making us safer at home.

why should anyone support a war that NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN STARTED?

Answer 6

The problem with unity in this war is that both sides of the aisle are using it to gain power.

Answer 7

come off it. There is no comparison of the Illegal occupation of Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11 and WW1 or WW2.

I need you to post additional details explaining why you don't see this.