Defining Success in the War on Terrorism
In pursuing its war on terrorism, the Bush administration faces daunting military and diplomatic challenges. But need it also worry about mobilizing public support? With the latest polls showing the public giving the president 90 percent approval ratings and endorsing the use of force at the same level, could the White House possibly hope for any more backing from the American people?
President Bush seems to think so. Every speech he gives appears to be primarily concerned with shoring up public opinion, warning us about the difficulties ahead and purposefully praising Americans for their "patience and resolve." The administration understands a basic truth about leading a democracy in war: Public support must never be taken for granted.
Even in allegedly "easy-to-support" wars, like World War II, political leaders have found it necessary to adjust the military tempo to boost public morale. All the more so in the current campaign, where the course is uncertain and the prospects for immediate success are bleak. Ironically, the initial wave of solidarity behind Bush actually intensifies concern, because there is no way the president can hold on to stratospheric approval ratings. As his support returns to more realistic levels, the headlines could become "Bush Approval Plummets." Implicit message: "Bush Is Losing the War."
Research has shown that public support of a military campaign is chiefly a function of the mission's perceived stakes, the prospects for victory and the anticipated costs. Since the Persian Gulf War (though the seeds can be traced as far back as Vietnam), a myth has taken root among policymakers that only the costs matter -- that the publi...
... middle of paper ...
...mas, Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations.
President Bush has repeatedly said this war will be long and we should get on with our lives. In other words, the terrorists started Cold War II, not World War III. The president must stir national vigilance well beyond the levels of post-Cold War complacency, but he can't have the entire country on a permanent high war footing.
Yet precisely because the war will be long, it is that much harder to get on with our lives without seeing something that indicates we have started to win. For that we will need to see demonstrable progress toward the three clear goals outlined above. If it looks like America is winning, the president will have all the support he needs to make the victory complete. Without evidence of progress, however, even the rock-solid support he enjoys today could erode significantly.
On October 3rd, 2002, Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone walked unto the Senate floor to give what would be one of the most momentous speeches of his career. A day prior, the Senate leadership had introduced a resolution, backed by the George W. Bush Administration, to authorize the President to attack Iraq. Wellstone, a progressive Democrat, had long been noted for his strong anti-war views. However, he was at the time struggling to win reelection, and a vote against the popular resolution could sway the election in his opponent’s favor. Yet instead of joining the bipartisan chorus for war with Iraq and abandoning his anti-war convictions, Wellstone chose to stand as a “monument of individual courage” and raise his concerns about the direction of American foreign policy (Kennedy 223).
Stanley Milgram’s experiments on obedience are the focus of Theodore Dalrymple and Ian Parker. Theodore Dalrymple is a British physician that composed his views of the Milgram experiment with “Just Do What the Pilot Tells You” in the New Statesman in July 1999 (254). He distinguishes between blind obedience and blind disobedience stating that an extreme of either is not good, and that a healthy balance between the two is needed. On the other hand, Ian Parker is a British writer who wrote “Obedience” for an issue of Granta in the fall of 2000. He discusses the location of the experiment as a major factor and how the experiment progresses to prevent more outcomes. Dalrymple uses real-life events to convey his argument while Parker exemplifies logic from professors to state his point.
Obedience is when you do something you have been asked or ordered to do by someone in authority. As little kids we are taught to follow the rules of authority, weather it is a positive or negative effect. Stanley Milgram, the author of “The perils of Obedience” writes his experiment about how people follow the direction of an authority figure, and how it could be a threat. On the other hand Diana Baumrind article “Review of Stanley Milgram’s experiments on obedience,” is about how Milgram’s experiment was inhumane and how it is not valid. While both authors address how people obey an authority figure, Milgram focuses more on how his experiment was successful while Baumrind seems more concerned more with how Milgram’s experiment was flawed and
Presently, the United States places a high value on its military power and often boasts of its strength in the news. Not only does
“Comparative public opinion data reveal that Americans are more patriotic and more willing to fight if their country goes to war than citizens of the thirty or so other countries polled” (Pg.7)
Americans and fans around the world had so many questions about him as a person as well as his sexuality and his childlike personality. Was he straight? Was he gay? Did he not know? What kind of thoughts drive an individual to appear in such a flamboyant and unique fashion. From the numerous plastic surgeries done to his face, to the endangerment of his child as he held out his son over a balcony of fans and paparazzi, he then made a comment on a british tv documentary called, Living with Michael Jackson, where he said “Why can’t you share your bed? It’s the most loving thing to share your bed with someone”, When asked a question about his close relationship with young
It was found that the reasons for obedience are not only psychological but sociological as well. Milgram provides the idea of division of labor. As long as the product comes from an assembly line, there is no one person to blame.
It’s astounding how easy it is to forget that we are at war. Just recently, the Obama administration has declared war against ISIS. During his ISIS war speech, he refers to the enemy as “barbarians, terrorists and monsters”. He also promised to defeat ISIS, without the use of ground troops (Winsor). We do not like to watch our fellow Americans deployed to dangerous oversea locations. The President bashes ISIS and promises not to get completely involved with the conflict in order to gain support for the war. Unfortunately, his tactics are ineffective. A survey conducted by CNN shows that about 57% of Americans disapprove of how Obama is conducting his war on ISIS (CNN). Additionally, about 40% of Americans don’t believe we should fight ISIS
Years earlier in 1963, Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram was conducting his own series of experiments on obedience. “Milgram’s idea for this project grew out of his desire to investigate scientifically how people could be capable of carrying out great harm to others simply because they were ordered to do so” (Hock, 2012). He hypothesized that humans have a proclivity to obey, especially to people in a position of power. Moreover, he hypothesized that people would obey authority, even at the expense of their own ethical
The fact that ther are numerous Defense policies and situations competing for a president’s attention means that it is worthwhile to organize political activity in order to affect his agenda. A president may be compelled to reconsider a problem even though he could not overtly be force to alter the prevailing policy. If presidents are convinced that the current policy is best, the likelihood of gaining sufficient force to compel a change is quiete small. The man who can build foreign policies will find presidents beating a path to his door.
On October 3rd, 2002, Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone walked unto the Senate floor to give what would be one of the most momentous speeches of his career. A day prior, a resolution authorizing the President to invade Iraq, supported by the George W. Bush Administration, had been introduced. Wellstone, a progressive Democrat noted for his strong anti-war views, opposed the resolution. At the time, however, he was struggling to win reelection, and a vote against the popular resolution could push voters to support his opponent. Yet instead of joining the bipartisan chorus for war with Iraq and abandoning his beliefs, Wellstone chose to stand as a “monument of individual conscience” and raise his concerns about military intervention (Kennedy 223).
In Milgram’s article, he discusses the basic principle of obedience and the necessity of such behavior in the structure of society and all social life. For many people, obedience is a deeply engraved behavior pattern, and very well a strong impulse overriding training in ethics, sympathy, and moral conduct (Milgram 579). Milgram set up an experiment at Yale University to see how much pain one would inflict on another simply because of being commanded to do so. Authority won more than not.
Narrative: Michael Jackson was born and grew up in a strict working family in Gary, Indiana, USA on August 29, 1958. Jackson showed an early interest in music as did most of his family. His mother sang frequently, his father Joseph Jackson played guitar in a small-time R&B band, his older brothers often sang and played with their father’s guitar. Soon the family singing group started, with Michael as the main puppet and four of his older brothers. “After all it seemed to be the simplest way to earn money to feed so many kids said Joseph Jackson”. If you can't feed your kids teach them how to feed themselves. Anyway Michael soon outgrew his brothers with his unique talent not just for singing but for dancing as well. Jackson’s father, who is a controlling supposedly abusive father. "My father beat me. It was difficult to take being beaten and then going onstage.
Milgram, Stanley. Issues in the Study of Obedience: A Reply to Baumrind. From American Psychologist. Vol. 19, pp.848-852, 1964.
First and foremost, if people can’t believe in their leader 100% of the time then all the confidence in the world won’t help them sway opinion. If the president is honest in what they present to the public and people can trust what they say then I feel they are more likely to have a larger percentage of support, even if some don’t agree with the president’s views. I don’t expect to agree with the president all of the time but if they gives me the facts, explain the options, and then present a plan of action then I am much more likely to listen and maybe even change my own opinion of the situation. If I feel that the president has been less than honest in any area then I am much less likely to trust anything they say in the future, even if it’s something that I would normally agree