Why doesn't the US remain united in wartime?

[Alexander's Horse]

You don't love freedom or liberty as much as the French - or at least you haven't shown it the way they have - their losses in WWI were equivalent to the US losing 30-40 million people.

[Theben]

B/c we're not really as dumb as we seem?

Neo-colonial/imperialistic wars run counter to the american psyche. That's why so much propaganda is needed in order for us to fall in line when the shooting starts, and why unity falls apart quickly- there's no legitimate justification in the eyes of ordinary americans.

Didn't need it for WWII. The japs attacked us. Same for 9/11.

And the Phillippine War had many similarities to Vietnam, except that it's disappeared from the collective memory of our nation.

[Mr. Harley]

Since the wars are not fought on US territory, running Free Market/Democracy/Wealth results in terrible Drone problems - two per military unit . WW1 and WW2 were exceptions, as we switched to Planned, thus dealing with the Drone problems, and letting us deploy internal police units.

[Alexander's Horse]

Why do you need a reason to be in a war? Are your armed forces professionals or not?

[:) Smiley]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Why do you need a reason to be in a war? Are your armed forces professionals or not?

-1/10

[Alexander's Horse]

see? you don't even understand the question

[Theben]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Why do you need a reason to be in a war? Are your armed forces professionals or not?

People need a reason to do anything.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Why do you need a reason to be in a war? Are your armed forces professionals or not?

We don't use foreigners and far off subjects for our wars, unlike the Brits, who can get 250,000 Oceanic subjects killed in one failed campaign and yet retain the loyalty of the decendents.

Americans aren't as deferential to their social betters as you Aussies, obviously.

[Alexander's Horse]

People need a reason to do anything.

have you stopped paying them?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
have you stopped paying them?

no, they get paid, badly, but paid.

Your orirginal question was a political one, not a military one. So what;s the point of this new line of questions? I thought your beef was with unhapiness at home, not a notion the military will split and leave.

And as for the political, Americans aren;t as subservient and xenophobic as Aussies and their European master, of course. That's the simple answer

[mrmitchell]

A majority of American want out and the US has only lost less than 2000 dead and about 10,000 wounded.

2000 or 100000 dead is second important to how just the war is.

[Edan]

Being attacked/Fighting in defense is part of it, but so is Television and mass media. In WW2 and before, there was heavy censorship (and propoganda). There wasn't as much in Vietnam (or at least it wasn't as successful) and afterwards, so after some amount of time, people back home get to see a glimpse of the "horrors of war". (The Gulf War was short enough and successful enough that it never got to that point)

[mrmitchell]

Media nothing. It all falls down to how just a cause the war is for.

The Civil War and WWII sustained high casualties without the US bailing out because it was fighting for the success of freedom and liberty, and everyone agreed on it.

Iraq is failing out with much tinier casualties than even single battles of the Civil War, and it is because we don't agree it is a just war.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The Civil War and WWII sustained high casualties without the US bailing out because it was fighting for the success of freedom and liberty, and everyone agreed on it.

The Civil War is a bit more complicated than that. A lot of the folks in the army (who were the poorer class) really didn't know what in the Hell they were fighting for after a year of war. They believed they were just there for the rich folk. Sure some Southerners believed they were fighting against Northern Oppression. And some Northerners believed they were fighting for Union (not many thought they were fighting to end slavery).

[DanS]

And yet the US is usually the first democracy to bail out...

It could be self-deception more than anything. FDR nearly lost an election during WWII and planned the end of the war with the thought in mind that the US wouldn't support continued fighting. Maybe the post-war European landscape would have been better if FDR hadn't made it clear to Stalin that the war machine would come to a halt immediately after the war.

Then you have the Korean War, which Eisenhower said in his platform that he would try to end, only a couple of years after it had begun. He did so successfully.

This perception has probably been taken too seriously by policy makers, which has had some negative consequences. For instance, Clinton pulled out of Somalia after only a very small loss of troops, which showed weakness to al Qaeda. In a perverse way, part of the deal now is that we're demonstrating that we can take casualties and maintain a policy.

On the other hand, sometimes the instinct not "to throw good money after bad" is healthy.