Who's Ready For War?
Nearly three-quarters of Republicans now favor sending ground troops into combat against the Islamic State, according to a CBS News poll last week. And in Iowa and South Carolina, two early-voting states, Republicans said military action against the group was, alongside economic matters, the most important issue in the 2016 election, according to an NBC survey released last week.
This from a piece suggesting that the current roster of presidential contenders needs, “with the economy improving,” another issue “to distinguish themselves from Democrats.” So, as it stands, we will have a field of candidates looking for a new subject to talk about and an electorate that is happy to talk about at least one, that subject being war. This is not a small thing, that a significant number of Americans are already considering the w word. It’s really not that far under the surface — I was scrolling through my RSS feeds yesterday and landed on the New York Post’s page. Here is a sample of stories from the last two days alone:
Wow, Post, so thirsty! (For war.)
Maybe you understand, and talk about, how ISIS is frightening. Maybe you read about, and see, the things ISIS does and wonder what they mean and what should be done. But here is a reminder: There are millions of voting people who already believe they know what should be done, and they are ready for war. Look around! They are here. They might not be currently thinking let’s go to war. But at the suggestion of the right person, after the right news report, they would say sure, why not? LET’S HAVE ANOTHER WAR. This is their natural state.
The President has asked for authorization for his type of war, which he would suggest to us is not technically “war” but which nonetheless allows for the possibility of ground troops on top of already-occurring bombings intended to suppress ISIS, with the support of a majority of Americans. Congress is now charged with negotiating this proposal, and deciding which kind of war-not-war will be waged, how it will be described, and how it will be legally justified, which will matter much more if this war-not-war becomes an honest we’re-at-war war.
Congress returns to Washington this week after a 10-day break to confront the difficult business of how the United States should wage war against terrorist organizations such as the Islamic State.
The formal task is to write and approve an “authorization for the use of military force,” or AUMF, but the broader goal is to demonstrate to the world that there is unified, bipartisan support for U.S. military engagement against a new, more mystifying enemy than the ones the United States faced when Congress last approved similar resolutions, in 2001 and 2002.
Is this really what we’re going with, that ISIS is a “new, more mystifying enemy” and that “the ones” in “2001 and 2002” were clear and knowable? This is an odd interpretation of history! But it’s exactly the type of revisionism necessary to help quell the dissonance resulting from simultaneously ending recent wars out of mercy and fatigue and preparing to start a new one because it feels so right.