U.S. aversion to military casualties ebbs

The attacks galvanize the public and the military for war - even if there are losses.

Washington Bureau Chief FRITZ E-mail: Click here Archive

By SARA FRITZ

© St. Petersburg Times,
published September 20, 2001

WASHINGTON -- After a defeated U.S. military withdrew from Vietnam more than a quarter century ago, Pentagon officials adopted a strict credo:

"Before the U.S. commits combat forces abroad, there must be some reasonable assurance we will have the support of the American people and their elected representatives in Congress."

That statement, first written in 1983 by then-Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, became so popular among American military leaders that others have since tried to share credit for it. Secretary of State Colin Powell, for example, has been known to refer to it as the Powell Doctrine.

Thus many analysts were surprised this week when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other Pentagon officials readily embraced President Bush's declaration that the U.S. military would be launching a worldwide war on terrorism.

Military officials never were as willing to get involved in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, even though it turned out to be more successful than some had expected. Nor were they the least bit happy when Bush's predecessors sent troops into Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Haiti and Bosnia.

As pollster John Zogby sees it, the loss of more than 5,000 lives on American soil last week has galvanized the public and the military establishment for combat more than any event since World War II.

"It appears we may finally be exiting the post-Vietnam era in terms of public opinion," said Zogby, whose latest poll shows 71 percent of Americans would support an all-out war against terrorism, even if it means many U.S. casualties.

Analysts were not particularly surprised that an overwhelming number of Americans have rallied around the president in support of retaliation. It seems the scenes of death and destruction broadcast on television were enough to anger even the staunchest pacifist.

According to the Gallup/CNN/USA Today poll completed Saturday, 88 percent of the American public supports military retaliation. Two ABC/Washington Post polls set it closer to 94 percent.

Members of Congress agree their constituents are outraged.

"There's very strong support for us to take a firm retaliatory step," said Rep. Jim Davis, D-Tampa. "And that is because they see terrorism as a major threat to our way of life."

The most unexpected recent development in public opinion, pollsters say, is that a majority of Americans are not bothered nearly as much as they have been in the past by the prospect that American forces could sustain massive casualties in the process.

The ABC/Washington Post poll found 69 percent would still favor retaliation under those circumstances and 60 percent of the respondents to a CBS/New York Times poll said they would continue to support military action, even if it costs many thousands of American lives.

John Mueller, an Ohio State political science professor who has written two books on war and public opinion, notes that while Bush's father was able to generate sufficient public support to conduct the Gulf War in 1991, a majority of Americans were opposed to any operation that would sustain heavy casualties.

Americans are willing to suffer casualties this time, according to Mueller, because they think that, without retaliation, U.S. citizens will be vulnerable to random attack. He notes that during the Gulf War, there was no plausible homeland threat.

Of course, the early response to the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington still pales in comparison to the way Americans answered the call in December 1941 after the surprise Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

While military recruiters report there has been a slight increase in the number of young men and women who are volunteering for military service, it does not measure up to the overwhelming response that came after Pearl Harbor.

Furthermore, Mueller cautions that current polls do not suggest that Bush can launch a broad-based war effort without being second-guessed by the public. As they did during Vietnam, he said, Americans will begin to withdraw their support if they see the war being waged without clear military objectives or an expectation of victory.

Mueller said the president may have made a tactical mistake in describing the operation he is planning as "war" because that word suggests that victory will be forthcoming after the military has accomplished certain, defined goals.

"The whole war metaphor is so strained," Mueller said. "It implies that we can do battle with terrorism and win. But fighting terrorism is more like fighting organized crime or fighting drugs. You don't have decisive battles. It's never clear when you've won."

In addition, Mueller said, Bush may be making a mistake by portraying Osama bin Laden as the primary focus of this war effort.

"If you get bin Laden, what have you accomplished?" he asked. "If you kill him, he'll become a martyr. If you capture him, he'll have a platform."

Zogby thinks the public will give Bush wide latitude to make some mistakes in his preparations.

"We've never been here before, and there's an understanding that the president does get some slack on this," he said.

Yet he, too, cautioned Bush never to forget the lessons of Vietnam.

"It can't be an open-ended war with no clear objective," Zogby said. "He will lose his support if he gets this country involved in another quagmire."

In Bush's public statements over the past week, he clearly has been trying to warn Americans that more lives will be sacrificed in the war on terrorism than in any other conflict since Vietnam.

"There will be costs," he said Monday.

And while Rumsfeld has indicated the military is prepared for such a sacrifice, some of Bush's top advisers still seem to have their doubts.

White House officials said that Powell, a Vietnam veteran who served as chairman of the Joint Chiefs during the Gulf War, has been advising Bush to accomplish as much as he can by diplomacy before unleashing American troops.

Even in this new era, the Powell-Weinberger Doctrine has not been entirely forgotten.

Deaths in recent U.S. military engagements

Deaths suffered by the United States in military engagements since Vietnam:

Iran hostage rescue mission, April 25, 1980: Eight noncombat.

Lebanon peacekeeping mission, August 1982-February 1984: 256 in combat, nine others.

Grenada, 1983: Eighteen in combat, one noncombat.

Libya bombing raid, April 15, 1986: Two, when F-111 bomber was lost.

Panama, 1989: Twenty-three in combat.

Persian Gulf War, 1990-1991: 148 combat, 235 noncombat.

Somalia, 1992-1994: 29 combat, 14 noncombat.

Haiti, 1994-1995: Four noncombat.

Bosnia airstrikes in 1995, Kosovo peacekeeping: No combat deaths.

- Sources: Department of Defense Statistical Information Analysis Division and Associated Press reports.

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • Tampa Bay Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright