A new term has been used in this article you may not believe: "the Iraq syndrome."

[Judi Lynn]

U.S. Toll in Iraq Lower Than Past Wars

By JEFF DONN
The Associated Press
Monday, January 1, 2007; 4:12 AM

~snip~
Americans may question this war for many reasons, but their doubts often find voice in the count of U.S. war deaths. An overwhelming majority _ 84 percent _ worry that the war is causing too many casualties, according to a September poll by the nonpartisan research group Public Agenda.

The country largely kept the faith during World War II, even as about 400,000 U.S. forces died _ 20,000 just in the monthlong Battle of the Bulge. Before turning against the wars in Korea and Vietnam, Americans tolerated thousands more deaths than in Iraq.

Has something changed? Do Americans somehow place higher value on the lives of their soldiers now? Do they expect success at lower cost? Or do most simply dismiss this particular war as the wrong one _ hard to understand and harder to win _ and so not worth the losses?
(snip)

John Mueller, a political scientist at Ohio State University, calls this casualty sensitivity "the Iraq syndrome." He described it in an influential journal article last year: "Casualty for casualty, support has declined far more quickly than it did during either the Korean War or the Vietnam War."
(snip/...)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/01/AR2007010100130.html

[ClintonTyree]

1. The answer......

right here. "Or do most simply dismiss this particular war as the wrong one _ hard to understand and harder to win _ and so not worth the losses"?

Bush's war was based on lies and is helping no one but his defense industry and oil buddies. It was a mistake from the word, go. The American people do not want a stupid cretin like Bush manufacturing wars for no good reason. We have NOT lost our resolve. If there were to be an attack on the country or one of our allies we'd fight to the last for our freedoms, but a war of choice to enrich a few in the military industrial complex is NOT something Americans are willing to undertake.

[POAS]

9. The American people differentiate

between Afghanistan and Iraq, fully supporting the former and that, in part, accounts for the declining support for the Iraq effort. We see that the President abandoned the search for Bin Laden to go after Saddam. The President LOST HIS RESOLVE IN AFGHANISTAN, the American people have not!

[CJCRANE]

10. Afghanistan was just a sideshow

to placate realists like Richard Clarke, Colin Powell and Tony Blair.

Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld did the bare minimum necessary on that campaign in order to concentrate on Iraq.

[POAS]

13. Point well taken

unfortunately for them the American people didn't see it as a sideshow.

[zoeb]

2. I guess "Bush is an idiot for getting us into this war" was to

long. :shrug:

[magellan]

3. It's not "Iraq Syndrome". It's a simple aversion to LIES.

All these historians and researches scratching for an explanation to the sharp drop-off of support, and not one mentions the obvious: Americans are realizing the whole foundation for invading Iraq was a LIE, and as they witness their courageous leader engaging in more LIES to cover up the initial LIES, and the daily loss of more of our troops for those LIES, their disillusionment and anger is growing.

[H2O Man]

14. Right.

Those in the administration who claimed that Saddam had huge WMD programs -- and that they knew where these programs had stockpiles of terrible weapons -- raised the bar. The public believed them. But there were no WMD programs. No stockpiles. When the US public found out they had been lied to, they withdrew support for the war.

[Skittles]

4. there is nothing f***ing hard to understand

the initial invasion was planned based on lies, the mission is now undefined, the enemy unknown and the "leadership" of the president is nonexistent.

[CJCRANE]

5. "What's wrong with you guys?

You didn't mind dying in your 1000's before? What's changed?"

On edit: The answer would probably be "We're smarter now". (Although it still took a while to figure it out).

[Selatius]

6. Many people believed US involvement in Viêtnam was based on a good reason.

That reason was to prevent the spread of Soviet-style communism. What people did not want anymore was the high casualty rates, especially after so many years of war with no progress in an area of the world that bore little relation to the US.

The reason underlying US involvement in Iraq was even more cynical. There were no WMD, and people soon found out they were sold down the river on that one. Nevermind flashbacks of Viêtnam, but the fact is people woke up and felt the war was largely built on an illusion at best, an outright lie at worst.

[MonkeyFunk]

7. I think Americans

would accept a very high death rate if they fought a real threat.

Alas, America hasn't faced a real threat since 1945, and after Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq and countless minor wars along the way, we're sort of sick of this shit.

If Bush weren't a moron, he could've been a real war-leader - against Afghanistan. Instead, we spent billions and lost hundreds of lives in order to control downtown Kabul.

[cap]

8. iraq went to hell faster than all the above wars

also information flow is much faster these days than before. Too many people learned too quickly that what the administration has been saying is false.

[VOX]

11. Cripes. How about a "No More Deaths in a Bogus War Syndrome?"

Vietnam was a total fabrication, from the "Domino Theory" to the "Commie Menace" to the Gulf of Tonkin Incident.

At least some people learn from mistakes. :grr:

Oh, and the guys who keep making these wars are doing so deliberately -- to keep their profits up. Now there's something really worth dying for. :sarcasm:

[moggie]

12. I think this misrepresents the poll

That first quoted paragraph refers (without name) to the "Confidence in US Foreign Policy Index, Fall 2006" poll conducted by Public Agenda (PDF
here). The question referred to is on page 22, which shows that 55% of the respondents "worry a lot" that "the war in Iraq is leading to too many casualties", while 29% "worry somewhat". Note that the question doesn't ask about US casualties. It's perfectly possible that a sizeable proportion of the respondents were more worried about the large number of Iraqi civilian casualties.

I'm not disputing the premise of the AP article, just pointing out a problem with the way they use the Public Agenda poll.