The Public's View On The American Civil War

 

These charts are from a YouGov Poll -- done between June 15th and 23rd of a nationwide sample of 1,000 adults, with a 4 point margin of error.

MAGA Threatens Civil War (But It Won't Happen)

 Political Cartoon is by Adam Zyglis in The Buffalo News.

Donald Trump has called for his supporters to show up in Miami when he turns himself in and makes his plea. Some of his supporters are evenly openly calling for Civil War in the wake of his indictments. That is unlikely though. Here's how Robert Reich sees it:

The former president of the United States, now running for reelection, assails “the ‘Thugs’ from the Department of Injustice,” calls Special Counsel Jack Smith a “deranged lunatic,” and casts his prosecutions and his bid for the White House as parts of a “final battle” for America.

In a Saturday speech to the Georgia GOP, Trump characterized the entire American justice system as deployed to prevent him from winning the 2024 election. “These people don’t stop and they’re bad and we have to get rid of them. These criminals cannot be rewarded. They must be defeated.”

Trump is demanding once again that Americans choose sides. But in his deranged mind, this “final battle” is not just against his normal cast of ill-defined villains — Democrats, communists, socialists, Marxists, the “Deep State,” the FBI, and any Republican politician who dares cross him. 

It is between those who glorify him and those who detest him. 

It will be a final battle over … himself. 

“SEE YOU IN MIAMI ON TUESDAY!!!” he told his followers Friday night in a Truth Social post, referring to his Tuesday arraignment. 

It was a chilling reminder of his December 19, 2020, tweet, “Be there, will be wild!” — which inspired extremist groups to disrupt the January 6 electoral vote certification. Calls are already circulating online for a gathering outside the federal courthouse in downtown Miami.

At the Georgia Republican Party convention on Friday night, Arizona Republican Kari Lake — who will go to Miami to “support” Trump — suggested violence. “If you want to get to President Trump, you’re going to have to go through me and you’re going to have to go through 75 million Americans just like me,” Lake exclaimed to roaring cheers and a standing ovation. “Most of us are card-carrying members of the NRA,” the National Rifle Association gun lobby. “That’s not a threat, that’s a public service announcement.”

Most Republicans in Congress are again siding with Trump rather than standing for the rule of law. A few are openly fomenting violence. Louisiana Rep. Clay Higgins tweeted, “This is a perimeter probe from the oppressors. Hold. rPOTUS [a reference to the real president of the United States] has this. Buckle up. 1/50K know your bridges. Rock steady calm. That is all,” suggesting guerilla warfare. 

Most other prominent Republicans — even those seeking the Republican presidential nomination — are criticizing President Biden, Merrick Garland, and Special Counsel Jack Smith for “weaponizing” the Justice Department. 

All this advances Trump’s goal of forcing Americans to choose sides over him.

Violence is possible, but there will be no civil war. 

Nations don’t go to war over whether they like or hate specific leaders. They go to war over the ideologies, religions, racism, social classes, and/or economic policies these leaders represent. 

But Trump represents nothing other than his own grievance with a system that refused him a second term and is now beginning to hold him accountable for violating the law. 

In addition, the guardrails that protected American democracy after the 2020 election — the courts, state election officials, military, and Justice Department — are stronger than before Trump tested them the first time. 

Many of those who stormed the Capitol have been tried and convicted. Election-denying candidates were largely defeated in the 2022 midterms. The courts have adamantly backed federal prosecutors. 

Third, Trump’s advocates are having difficulty defending the charges in the unsealed indictment — that Trump threatened America’s security by illegally holding (and in some cases sharing) documents concerning “United States nuclear programs; potential vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies to military attack; and plans for possible retaliation in response to a foreign attack,” as well as sharing a “plan of attack” against Iran.

Many Republicans consider national security the highest and most sacred goal of the Republic. A large number have served in the armed forces. 

Bill Barr, Trump’s own former attorney general, said on “Fox News Sunday”: “I was shocked by the degree of sensitivity of these documents and how many there were, frankly … If even half of it is true, then he’s toast. I mean, it’s a very detailed indictment, and it’s very, very damning. And this idea of presenting Trump as a victim here, a victim of a witch hunt, is ridiculous.”

None of this is cause for complacency. Trump is as dangerous as ever. He has inspired violence before, and he could do it again.

 

But I believe that many who supported him in 2020 are catching on to his lunacy. 

Trump wants Americans to engage in a “final battle” over his own narcissistic cravings. Instead, he is likely to get a squalid and humiliating last act.

43% of Adults (53% of Trump Voters) Say Civil War Likely

The chart above reflects the results of the recent Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between August 20th and 23rd of a nationwide sample of 1,500 adults (including 1,318 registered voters). The margin of error for adults is 2.8 points, and for registered voters is 2.9 points.

It shows that 43% of adults and 41% of registered voters say a civil war is likely in the United States in the next 10 years. The percentage is higher for right-wingers -- 51% of Republicans and 53% of Trump voters.
 

The GOP Is Still In Danger Of Splitting Apart

In Donald Trump's waning days in office, he was afraid that he might be losing his grip on the Republican Party. He was losing all of his court cases, and he couldn't get Republican election officials to overturn the results of the 2020 election (giving him another term in office).

He began to consider starting his own political party, and he even had a name for that party -- the Patriot Party. He figured he could take a significant chunk of voters away from the Republican Party, and polls showed that was probably true. They reported that about one-third of the GOP base would follow Trump to his new party. If Trump couldn't destroy the Republican Party, he could certainly do it some serious damage.

But as many GOP officials began to stick up for Trump (themselves afraid of the base), and make excuses for his criminal conduct, Trump put the plans for the new party on the shelf. It became obvious that those GOP officials were going to fall in line.

But that doesn't mean the GOP civil war is over. It's not. There are a significant number of people that are leaving the Republican Party because they cannot support Trump, and other moderates and decent conservatives that are still in the party but also find it problematic to accept Trump as the party leader.

These people are now considering their own efforts to start a new political party (and names has been suggested -- The Integrity Party or The Center-Right Party). Here is how Tim Reid described this new effort at Reuters.com:

Dozens of former Republican officials, who view the party as unwilling to stand up to former President Donald Trump and his attempts to undermine U.S. democracy, are in talks to form a center-right breakaway party, four people involved in the discussions told Reuters.

The early stage discussions include former elected Republicans, former officials in the Republican administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Trump, ex-Republican ambassadors and Republican strategists, the people involved say.

More than 120 of them held a Zoom call last Friday to discuss the breakaway group, which would run on a platform of “principled conservatism,” including adherence to the Constitution and the rule of law - ideas those involved say have been trashed by Trump.

The plan would be to run candidates in some races but also to endorse center-right candidates in others, be they Republicans, independents or Democrats, the people say. . . .

The talks highlight the wide intraparty rift over Trump’s false claims of election fraud and the deadly Jan. 6 storming of the U.S. Capitol. Most Republicans remain fiercely loyal to the former president, but others seek a new direction for the party.

Is The United States On The Verge Of A Second Civil War?

 The top chart shows the lack of cohesion in a country. The second show the build-up of stress factors causing the first Civil War -- and the current build-up of those same stress factors.

Will our democracy be saved and unity restored if Joe Biden and a Democratic Congress is elected? That is the hope of many of us, but it may not be true. There are stress factors in our country that may cause the opposite to happen -- maybe even a second Civil War.

The following is a small part of a thought-provoking article at BussFeedNews.com:

Many Americans are clinging to the idea that if Joe Biden wins the presidential election, calm can return to a nation riven by protests and rattled by President Donald Trump’s authoritarian rhetoric.

Not so fast, caution two academics who claim they have devised a measure of political instability that shows that the nation will still be a powder keg that is waiting to blow, even if a Biden landslide means that Trump has little choice but to step aside.

“The tendency is to blame Trump, but I don’t really agree with that,” Peter Turchin, an evolutionary anthropologist at the University of Connecticut who studies the forces that drive political instability, told BuzzFeed News. “Trump is really not the deep structural cause.”

The most dangerous element in the mix, argue Turchin and George Mason University sociologist Jack Goldstone, is the corrosive effect of inequality on society. They believe they have a model that explains how inequality escalates and leads to political instability: Worsened by elites who monopolize economic gains, narrow the path to social mobility, and resist taxation, inequality ends up undermining state institutions while fomenting distrust and resentment.

Building on Goldstone’s work showing that revolutions tend to follow periods of population growth and urbanization, Turchin has developed a statistic called the political stress indicator, or PSI. It incorporates measures of wage stagnation, national debt, competition between elites, distrust in government, urbanization, and the age structure of the population.

Turchin raised warning signs of a coming storm a decade ago, predicting that instability would peak in the years around 2020. “In the United States, we have stagnating or declining real wages, a growing gap between rich and poor, overproduction of young graduates with advanced degrees, and exploding public debt,” he wrote, in a letter to the journal Nature. “Historically, such developments have served as leading indicators of looming political instability.”

Today, with the nation in turmoil, Turchin’s prediction seems remarkably prescient. We live in a pandemic hellscape that has disproportionately harmed Black and brown Americans and those living in poverty. We have widespread civil unrest over racial injustice. And we are hurtling toward an election in which Trump is stoking unfounded fears of voter fraud and refusing to commit to a peaceful transition of power.

In August, Turchin gave himself a pat on the back for his predictive ability with an analysis showing a significant rise in political demonstrations and violent riots over the last 10 years. But he and Goldstone fear that much worse is to come.

When Goldstone talks about America’s darkest days in the 1860s, he provocatively calls it the “First Civil War.” He fears that we may be on the way to a second one, with the 2020 election serving as a potential “fire-starter” event. . . .

Turchin said people who rule out the possibility of serious political violence in the US based on “the strength of American institutions” are being “unduly optimistic.”

“The social system that we live in is extremely fragile,” Turchin said.

Other social scientists consulted by BuzzFeed News were skeptical that the US is on the brink of a civil war. But they were concerned about the trends highlighted by Goldstone and Turchin, and worried about the potential for violence around the coming election — especially from right-wing militia groups if Trump loses and contests the result.

Only 57% Believe Slavery Was Main Cause Of Civil War

It is beyond any doubt that slavery was the driving cause of the Civil War. Any doubt about that can be erased by reading the Confederate Constitution (and the constitutions of the 13 states forming that confederacy). All of them make it clear that they seceded because of a belief in the supremacy of Whites and the desire to continue slavery in those states. That was not doubted at that time by citizens of either the North or the South.

But the residual racism that still exists in this country has many people trying to rewrite history to justify their own perverse beliefs. They would tell us that the Civil War was fought over states' rights (ignoring the fact that the only state right in question was the right to own slaves). And sadly, too many Americans are eager to accept this rewriting of our history -- about 29% say slavery was not the cause of the Civil War, and another 14% say they are unsure.

That means only 57% (less than 6 out of 10 people) is willing to accept historical fact. I guess I should be grateful that a majority of Americans understand our history, but I'm not. It's troubling that 43% are not willing to accept that. And it shows that this country still has a serious race problem -- with too many still wanting to justify slavery (i.e., racism).

Note especially that half (50%) of Trump voters say slavery was not the cause of the Civil War, while only 43% were willing to admit it was. That makes clear what many of us have claimed -- that racists flocked to support Trump (who they considered to be one of their own).

These charts reflect the results of a new Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between November 5th and 7th of a random national sample of 1,500 adults, with a 3.2 point margin of error.

There Will Be A Divisive GOP Party War After The Election

The 47 Republican elected officials above have all disavowed the candidacy of Donald Trump. I doubt that will be the total list, especially if further lewd stories about Trump are released in the coming days (as is expected). These officials know they don't just depend on Republicans to be elected, but need Independent votes also -- and they see Trump as driving those voters away. They see Trump as damaging their careers, and the Republican Party.

The thinking is that once Trump loses, they can reclaim their party (and hopefully a large part of the general electorate). But that is a rather rosy picture, and probably bears little resemblance to reality.

They are overlooking the substantial part of their party composed of teabaggers. The teabaggers aren't a majority of Republicans, but they are a large enough part to nominate a presidential candidate (Trump) in a large field of candidates. And the Republicans cannot win anything without those teabaggers.

Who are those teabaggers going to blame if Donald Trump loses this election? They aren't going to blame Trump -- he is their super hero. And they aren't going to blame Clinton, because they believe she is beatable. They are going to blame the RNC and the elected officials who refused to enthusiastically back Donald Trump. They will be convinced that if those officials had gotten behind Trump they could have won. It's not true, but logic and reason have never been a part of the teabagger movement.

The Republican Party is between a rock and a hard place right now, and this will become obvious after the election. If the teabaggers retain control of the party, they will continue to lose national and most state elections. And if the establishment Republicans wrest control back from the teabaggers, there is a chance those teabaggers will break away and start their own political party.

I have not given that idea much credence in the past, but if the teabaggers blame establishment Republicans for Trump losing (and they will), I think there is a good chance that they just might do that.

There aren't enough of them to seize power nationally, but there are enough to ruin the Republican Party by leaving.

The Republicans are facing a political civil war, and the first shots in that war will happen fairly soon after the election.

Putin Withdraws Troops From Middle East - U.S. Should Too

(This photo of Russian troops in Syria is from hanoivoi.com.vn.)

Vladimir Putin shocked the world yesterday. Russian media is reporting that Putin is going to withdraw Russian Troops from Syria -- only a few months after sending them to that war-torn country. It is unclear whether the withdrawal is only for the ground troops, or for all Russian military personnel, including the air forces.

Why is Russia doing this? Some cite the enormous cost of the Russian military presence in that area, but I think the Russians have come to the conclusion that they have gotten themselves into another Afghanistan-like quagmire. They have realized that it would take hundreds of thousands more troops to win the war in Syria -- and even then it is unlikely that would quell the violence (or assure Assad stays in office -- their only ally in the Middle East).

Why can't American politicians realize this? The conflict in Syria/Iraq is not a political battle between supporters of the East or West -- and anyone who thinks that is just wrong. It is a battle between shia and sunni extremists elements -- a religious battle for both land and societal dominance for their particular versions of the muslim region. And neither Russia nor the United States has any real friends in the conflict. The groups fighting may play the U.S. and Russia to get arms and military help, but they are not friends -- and would turn on both in a minute.

Russia and the United States (or Great Britain, France, etc.) cannot win this war. All they can do is create more enemies for themselves. This religious conflict, as stupid as it is, must be settled by those countries in the Middle East. It is time for both Russia and the United States (and their allies) to realize this -- and withdraw all their troops from both Syria and Iraq.

Saudi Arabia / Iran Make The Middle East War Clearer For us

In the last couple of days, Iran and Saudi Arabia have increased tensions in the Middle East. Iranian demonstrators created to the execution of a Shiite cleric by torching the Saudi embassy in their country. The Saudis reacted by cutting diplomatic ties with Iran.

Political pundits on cable news programs are saying this complicates things in that area of the world. Maybe so, but what it should do is make it clearer to Americans just what is happening there. Our politicians (in both parties) are trying to frame the Middle East conflict as terrorism against freedom. That would be laughable, if it weren't so serious (costing many thousands of lives and displacing millions of refugees).

The truth is that what is happening is a religious civil war that continues to widen. It is a war of Sunnis against Shiites (both being branches of Islam). Involving ourselves in this religious civil war is creating enemies from both the Shiites and the Sunnis. That is because we are trying to straddle the fence between the two muslim branches, with a muddled and confusing policy that supports and opposes both branches.

We support the Sunnis in Saudi Arabia and oppose them in Iraq (ISIS). We support the Shiites in Iraq and oppose them in Iran. And in Syria, we oppose both the Shiite government and the Sunni rebels (ISIS) -- pinning our hopes on a tiny faction of rebels fighting both. Our government will claim we are not taking the side of either religious branch of Islam, but you simply cannot involve yourself in a religious conflict without taking sides -- and our effort to stay neutral just means we support and oppose both sides (creating enemies of both sides).

It is not President Obama's fault that this is happening. It was the unnecessary invasion of Iraq by his predecessor that created the environment in which this violent religious civil war could happen. But it is President Obama's fault for continuing the confusing policy in that area -- a policy that has no chance of a happy outcome for the United States (and the Western world).

Predominantly christian nations have no dog in this fight, and their involvement in it is viewed by Shiite and Sunni muslims as christians trying to force a solution on them through military power (a modern crusade).

I don't know how the muslims will resolve this conflict -- whether one branch will prevail as dominant, or whether the two will finally learn to co-exist (as happened in the West after centuries of Catholic/Protestant violence). But I do know this is a problem the muslims must settle for themselves, and our confusing policy only makes things worse (and creates enemies for us among both Shiites and Sunnis).

The United States needs to get out of the Middle East altogether. The best course is just to help the refugees from the religious violence as best we can -- and once the conflict is resolved, make peaceful diplomatic overtures to the countries there.

NOTE -- I'll bet most Americans couldn't even tell you which of the flags pictured above belong to Saudi Arabia and Iran. We are too ignorant of all the countries in the Middle East to be involved in their religious conflict.

Americans Think We Are Losing The "War On Terror"

This chart was made from a recent Rasmussen Poll -- done on August 11th and 12th of a random national sample of 1,000 likely voters, and has a margin of error of about 3 points.

It shows that 42% of Americans think the United States and its allies are losing the "war on terror", while only 25% now think we are winning it -- a 17 point gap. I don't agree, especially if it's muslim terrorists that you are talking about (and sadly, that's what most Americans think of when you talk about terrorists). I think we could do a little better job of watching right-wing "christian" terrorists in this country, but in general, our law enforcement has done a very good job of stopping terrorism in this country. The only exception would be the unplanned "lone wolf" shooters -- something it is nearly impossible to stop, even in a police state.

I think this attitude that we are losing the war against terrorism comes from most people misunderstanding just what the war on terrorism is. That combine the effort to stop terrorists and the religious civil war in the Mideast (particularly in Syria and Iraq), treating the two as if they were the same thing. They are not.

The war against ISIS in the Mideast is not a war on terror. It is a religious civil war between radical sunni muslims and shiite muslims -- with most muslims stuck in the middle, just wanting it to stop. We shouldn't even be participating in it. It should be decided (and fought) by the nations in the Middle East. And it really doesn't matter who wins it, as far as terrorism is concerned. Do you really think if ISIS (and al-Queda and others) are defeated in that war that terrorism will cease?

Of course it won't. The terrorists didn't need a country of their own to attack this country on 9-11, and if they fail to create a country of their own, that won't stop them from planning terrorist attacks on this country (and the West in general). The only way to stop real terrorism is through capable diplomacy, good intelligence, and a concerted effort by law enforcement.

We are winning the war against terrorists. What we are not winning is our involvement in the nasty religious civil war in the Middle East -- and that is a war we cannot win, and shouldn't even be involved in. All we can do there is create more terrorists with our "collateral damage" (killing of innocent civilians). And we shouldn't forget that most muslims in that part of the world see our involvement there as another crusade of christians against muslims.

Are We Really Losing The "War On Terror" ?

The chart above was made from a new Rasmussen Poll -- done on June 10th and 11th of a random national sample of 966 likely voters, with a 3 point margin of error.

Respondents were asked who is winning the "war on terror". As you can see, a record high number of Americans (44%) now say the terrorists are winning, while only 27% say the United States and its allies are winning. This is a bit puzzling, since there have been few incidents of terrorism in the United States, and only slightly more among our European allies.

Why would Americans think that? It's because the Republicans (and too many Democrats) have lumped the fighting in the Middle East in with terrorism -- and talk about them like they are the same thing. But they are not.

The fighting in the Middle East has little or nothing to do with terrorism. It is a religious civil war, and even if ISIS and its allies are defeated in that war (or the Taliban and al-Queda in Afghanistan), it will do nothing to stop terrorist acts -- because terrorists don't need to occupy a country to carry out terrorist acts. They can always find a hiding place somewhere to plan their nefarious deeds.

The truth is that we are winning the war on terrorism. But we are losing the land war in the Middle East. If anything, we are just creating more enemies there by killing indiscriminately and including innocent civilians. We should not be in that land war. Neither side is truly our friend.

We should let the religious nuts in that part of the world fight their own battle, and bring ALL of our troops back home. Then put all our effort into fighting terrorists the proper way -- with good intelligence and law enforcement, backed up by our courts.

Obama Will Raise Troop Level In Iraq To 3,000

(This image of U.S. soldiers patrolling near the Baghdad airport is from LJWorld.com.)

"Mission creep" continues to grow in Iraq. When things got hot again in Iraq (with the Sunni vs. Shiite religious civil war growing), President Obama promised Americans that he would not put American "boots on the ground" in that country. He almost immediately violated his promise by sending 300 soldiers to Iraq (saying they were just to advise the Iraqi troops). Then he upped the total, saying that troops were needed to guard the embassy and the Baghdad airport. Now there are around 1400 to 1500 American soldiers in Iraq.

Now the president seems to be completely abandoning his promise. He has authorized the sending of another 1500 troops to Iraq, which will double the number of U.S. soldiers in that country (and be 10 times the number he originally sent). It is now just a sick joke to say there won't be "troops on the ground" -- and the only question left is how many more troops will be sent there (5,000?, 10,000?, 50,000?, more?).

The truth is that we shouldn't have any American soldiers in Iraq. Both parties in Congress, and the president, are trying to paint the Sunni insurgents as posing a threat to the United States. That is a fallacy. They pose no military threat to this country -- and if there is a terrorist threat, this is the wrong way to handle it. Terrorism is a law enforcement, intelligence, and diplomatic problem -- not a military problem.

The situation in Iraq is a religious civil war -- fought by Sunnis and Shiites, both of whom want to control that country, and neither of which is an ally of the United States. Sending American troops to take sides in that religious war may seem smart to U.S. politicians, but it just looks like another christian "crusade" against muslims to those who live in the Middle East -- and it just creates more enemies for this country (and embroils our soldiers in a conflict they cannot win).

Re-engaging in Iraq is an insane policy. We should be bringing the troops there back home -- not doubling their number.

American Public's Views On ISIS In Iraq

Chart was made from a Rasmussen Poll done of 1,000 likely voters on August 22nd and 23rd, with a 3 point margin of error.

Chart was made from a Rasmussen Poll done of 1,000 likely voters on September 3rd and 4th, with a margin of error of 3 points.

Chart was made from a Rasmussen Poll done of 1,000 likely voters on August 30th and 31st, with a margin of error of 3 points.

If the rebels known as ISIS thought they could intimidate the United States and its citizens by beheading American citizens, then they made a serious mistake. All they have done is anger a whole lot of people in this country. About 61% say they should be hunted down and brought to justice (executed), and I would agree with this. I would like to see them captured and although I generally oppose the death penalty, I doubt I'd lose any sleep if they were put to death.

And since these criminals seem to be out of our reach right now, a whopping 75% is in favor of the president continuing his unilateral bombing campaign against them. I have written before of my opposition to the bombing campaign, and I still think it is a bad idea. We have no friends on either side of this religious civil war -- and the bombing just make it look like christians attacking muslims (which is sure to make more enemies for us as innocent civilians are killed).

If we want to do something about ISIS, then we need a coalition of countries to take the action -- and that coalition must contain most of the major muslim countries in that part of the world (countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, U.A.E., Jordan, etc.). ISIS poses a danger to all of those countries, and if they are not willing to defend themselves by fighting in Iraq, then neither should we. It's really their fight.

Thankfully, most Americans still oppose sending troops into Iraq to fight ISIS -- even most Republicans. I agree. A muslim coalition should do the work, possibly with some help from this country. It is simply not the U.S.'s place to interfere on the side of either faction in this religious war.

Second Poll Verifies Public Support For The Iraq Bombing

A few days ago, I presented a survey showing a majority of the American approves of the U.S. bombing campaign in Iraq. Now that has been verified by a second poll. This time it's the ABC News / Washington Post Poll -- conducted between August 13th and 17th of a random national sample of 1,025 adults, with a 3.6 point margin of error. The survey shows 54% of Americans support the bombing of the Sunni insurgents.

But while they support the bombing, a majority (51%) do not approve of President Obama's handing of the Iraqi conflict. I would have to assume that while the public doesn't mind killing Iraqis, they don't want to endanger any American soldiers while doing that. They oppose Obama's decision to put American troops back into Iraq -- more than 500 so far (supposedly to train and help with planning by Iraqi government forces, and to protect the American embassy and the airport).

The public support for the bombing has to mean that many Americans see the conflict as being between the "good" Iraqis (who must be defended) and the "bad" Iraqis (who must be killed). I think that is a rather naive view. There are no "good" or "bad" forces in Iraq -- only two religious groups that hate each other. And neither of those groups is a real ally of the United States.

Neither side is fighting for freedom or democracy. It is a religious civil war, being waged by politicized Sunnis and politicized Shiites -- and all either group wants is the ability to impose their own particular religious dogma on the country as a whole.

Most people see the Sunni insurgents as anti-American, and that is probably true. But the Shiites currently in control are no better. Their closest ally is Iran (which still consider the U.S. to be the "great Satan"), and while they make the appropriate noises to keep getting American money and arms, if push came to shove they would side with the Iranians against the U.S. -- and use the training and arms we have supplied against us.

We could not solve this religious crisis the first time we engaged in a war in Iraq (even though by invading we created the crisis), and we won't be able to solve it by re-engaging in their civil war. This can only be solved by the Iraqi people themselves. The best thing the U.S. could do is to stay out of the conflict -- and then try to establish normal relations again once it is over. Re-engaging in the religious conflict can only create more enemies for this country (on both sides).

The bottom chart shows the demographic breakdown of the public support for the bombing. Whiel the majority supports the bombing, that support is not universal. Women are split on the matter, and both young people and Hispanics show a plurality opposing the bombing.

Green Party Gives 9 Reasons To Stop The Bombing In Iraq

I have made it very clear on this blog that I am opposed to the United States re-engaging in Iraq's religious civil war -- either by putting troops back in that country (which President Obama has already done) or by bombing anyone in that country (which the president has now started). I just think this is a serious mistake that has no upside for this country, but has a huge downside (not the least of which is the creation of even more enemies due to the killing).

The Green Party also opposes our re-engagement in Iraq. And on August 13th, Green Party Shadow Cabinet member David Swanson (pictured) gave us 9 reasons to stop the bombing in Iraq. Here is what he has written:

1. It's not a rescue mission.  The U.S. personnel could be evacuated without the 500-pound bombs. The persecuted minorities could be supplied, moved, or their enemy dissuaded, or all three, without the 500-pound bombs or the hundreds of "advisors" (trained and armed to kill, and never instructed in how to give advice -- Have you ever tried taking urgent advice from 430 people?). The boy who cried rescue mission should not be allowed to get away with it after the documented deception in Libya where a fictional threat to civilians was used to launch an all-out aggressive attack that has left that nation in ruins.  Not to mention the false claims about Syrian chemical weapons and the false claim that missiles were the only option left for Syria -- the latter claims being exposed when the former weren't believed, the missiles didn't launch, and less violent but perfectly obvious alternative courses of action were recognized. If the U.S. government were driven by a desire to rescue the innocent, why would it be arming Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain?  The U.S. government destroyed the nation of Iraq between 2003 and 2011, with results including the near elimination of various minority groups.  If preventing genocide were a dominant U.S. interest, it could have halted its participation in and aggravation of that war at any time, a war in which 97% of the dead were on one side, just as in Gaza this month -- the distinction between war and genocide being one of perspective, not proportions.  Or, of course, the U.S. could have left well alone.  Ever since President Carter declared that the U.S. would kill for Iraqi oil, each of his successors has believed that course of action justified, and each has made matters significantly worse.

2. It's going to make things worse, again.  This bombing will aggravate the Sunni-Shia divide, increase support for ISIS, and create a lasting legacy of hostility and violence.  President Obama says there is no military solution, only reconciliation.  But bombs don't reconcile.  They harden hearts and breed murderers.  Numerous top U.S. officials admit that much of what the U.S. military does generates more enemies than it kills.  When you continue down a path that is counterproductive on its own terms, the honesty of those terms has to be doubted.  If this war is not for peace, is it perhaps -- like every other war we've seen the U.S. wage in the area -- for resources, profits, domination, and sadism?  The leader of ISIS learned his hatred in a U.S. prison in Iraq.  U.S. media report that fact as if it is just part of the standard portrait of a new Enemy #1, but the irony is not mere coincidence.  Violence is created. It doesn't arise out of irrational and inscrutable foreignness.  It is planted by those great gardeners in the sky: planes, drones, and helicopters.  A bombing campaign justified as protecting people actually endangers them, and those around them, and many others, including those of us living in the imperial Homeland.

3. Bombs kill.  Big bombs kill a lot of people.  Massive bombing campaigns slaughter huge numbers of people, including those fighting in the hell the U.S. helped to create, and including those not fighting -- men, women, children, grandparents, infants.  Defenders of the bombing know this, but ignore it, and make no effort to calculate whether more people are supposedly being saved than are being killed.  This indifference exposes the humanitarian pretensions of the operation.  If some humans are of no value to you, humanitarianism is not what's driving your decisions.  The U.S. war on Iraq '03-'11 killed a half million to a million-and-a-half Iraqis and 4,000 Americans.  A war that puts fewer Americans on the ground and uses more planes and drones is thought of as involving less death only if our concern is narrowly limited to U.S. deaths.  From the vantage point of the ground, an air war is the deadliest form of war there is. 

4. There are other options.  The choice between bombing and doing nothing is as false now as it was in September.  If you can drop food on some people, why can't you drop food on everyone? It would cost a tiny fraction of dropping bombs on them. It would confuse the hell out of them, too. The United States could talk about other matters with ISIS as well, including a ceasefire, including a unilateral commitment to cease arming the Iraqi government even while trying to organize its ouster, including an offer to provide real humanitarian aid with no nasty strings attached, but with encouragement of civil liberties and democratic decision making. It's amazing how long minority ethnic groups in Iraq survived and thrived prior to the U.S. bringing democracy, and prior to the U.S. existing. The U.S. could do some good but must first do no harm.

5. There are now enough weapons already there to practically justify one of Colin Powell's slides retroactively.  The U.S. accounts for 79% of foreign weapons transfers to Western Asia (the Middle East).  The war on Libya had identical U.S. weapons on both sides.  ISIS almost certainly has weapons supplied by the U.S. in Syria, and certainly has weapons taken from Iraq.  So, what is the U.S. doing?  It's rushing more weapons to Iraq as fast as possible.  Americans like to think of the Middle East as backward and violent, but the tools of the violence trade are manufactured in the United States.  Yes, the United States does still manufacture something, it's just not something that serves any useful purpose or about which most of us can manage to feel very proud.  Weapons making also wastes money rather than creating it, because unaccountable profits are the single biggest product manufactured. 

6. This is going to cost a fortune.  Bombing Iraq is depicted as a measure of great restraint and forbearance.  Meanwhile building schools and hospitals and green energy infrastructure in Iraq would be viewed as madness if anyone dared propose it.  But the latter would cost a lot less money -- a consideration that is usually a top priority in U.S. politics whenever killing large numbers of people is not involved.  The world spend $2 trillion and the U.S. $1 trillion (half the total) on war and war preparations every year.  Three percent of U.S. military spending could end starvation on earth.  The wonders that could be done with a fraction of military money are almost unimaginable and include actual defense against the actual danger of climate change.

7. Bombs are environmental disasters.  If someone photographs a big oil fire, some will give a thought to the environmental damage.  But a bombing campaign is, rather than an environmental accident, an intentional environmental catastrophe.  The poisoned ground and water, and the disease epidemics, will reach the United States primarily through moral regret, depression, and suicide.

8. There go our civil liberties.  Discussions of torture, imprisonment, assassination, surveillance, and denial of fair trials are severely damaged by wartime postures.  After all, war is for "freedom," and who wouldn't be willing to surrender all of their freedoms for that?

9. War is illegal. It doesn't matter if the illegitimate government that you're trying to dump invited you to bomb its country. How can anyone take that seriously, while the U.S. installed that government and has armed it for years, as it has attacked its people? War is illegal under the Kellogg Briand Pact and the United Nations Charter, and pretending otherwise endangers the world.  Domestically, under U.S. law, the president cannot launch a war. While the Senate has been silent, the U.S. House voted two weeks ago to ban any new presidential war on Iraq.  Offering Congress a slap in the face, Obama waited for it to go on break, and then attacked Iraq.

Marching Into A New War (Via Mission Creep)

(The cartoon image above is by Clay Bennett in the Chattanooga Times Free Press.)

We sort of backed into the Vietnam War. Instead of just invading that country outright, we sent some advisors, then some soldiers, then involved the Navy and Air Force, and sent more soldiers -- and woke up one day to find we were involved in a full-scale (though undeclared) war. This eventually spawned a new term for getting involved in a war a bit at a time -- mission creep.

The original invasion and occupation of Iraq was blatant (though unnecessary). There was no doubt that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney wanted that war -- and wanted it so badly they lied about weapons of mass destruction to get Congress and the American people to go along with it.

The same is not true of the new war in Iraq that we are being drawn into. The American people are weary of war, and don't want to be involved in another Iraq War. And I don't think the president really wants a new Iraq War either. But he has either been pressured into taking action by congressional hawks, or deluded into thinking that a second military action in that country can accomplish what the first full-scale invasion could not.

When the conflict in Iraq heated up again a few weeks ago, the president first told Americans that he would not send American soldiers back into Iraq. It only took him a few days to break that promise. He sent 300 American soldiers into Iraq to act as "advisors". Then he upped that number to over 500 soldiers, saying they were needed to protect our embassy and the Baghdad airport. Now the president has taken another step toward our re-engagement in Iraq. He has started bombing the Sunni insurgents in northern Iraq, and has warned Americans that this bombing could go on for months.

This is starting to look like the very definition of "mission creep" to me. How long will it be before the government realizes that those 500 soldiers combined with the bombing campaign is not enough, and more U.S. military assets are committed to this war -- and until we wake up one day and find we are once again in a full-scale war in that country?

The government is justifying their new march to war by claiming the "good" Iraqis must be protected from the evil terrorists who have invaded that country. If that was true then the actions taken might, just might, be justified. Unfortunately, that is just an excuse, and is not reflective of what is actually happening in that country. The truth is that this is just a religious civil war -- being fought between Sunnis and Shiites for the control of that country.

We started that religious civil war by invading Iraq and overthrowing the Sunni government there, and then replacing it with an equally corrupt Shiite government. And after starting the religious war, we were unable to establish a true coalition government (which is what must be done before the fighting will cease). And our re-engagement in Iraq is not going to accomplish that either. All it means is that we have chosen sides in that religious conflict (even though neither side is really a friend of this country) -- and are busy creating new enemies for the United States.

We should have learned by now that we cannot solve the Iraqis' problems with our military power. The religious battle in Iraq is something only the Iraqi people can solve. Instead of creeping toward a new war in Iraq, we should stop the bombing and pull out all of our troops (and diplomatic personnel too).

I like President Obama -- but I think his re-engagement in the Iraqi civil war is a bad mistake.

Public Still Opposed To Syrian Intervention

Once again, the specter of a United States intervention in the Syrian civil war is being discussed. The reason is new speculation that the Syrian military has used poison gas against it's opposition. Some believe that would push that government over the famous "red line" of President Obama, requiring the U.S. to take action.

But the president has a problem. The American public still does not support a military intervention in Syria. That is what the latest Reuters Poll shows (taken on August 23rd of 784 nationwide adults -- with a 4 point margin of error). The poll shows that only 25.7% (or about 1 out of every 4 Americans) support a military intervention, while about twice as many people (49.4%) are still opposed to that. About 24.9% are unsure what to think.

And this is not a new result in this continuing poll. These same numbers have been consistent for a while now -- and the recent news that the Syrian military may well be using poison gas has done little to change that attitude. In fact, the question Reuters asked in the latest poll was -- "If Syrian military uses chemical weapons, should U.S. intervene?"

Of course, this doesn't mean the president won't intervene. There is pressure in Congress from the neocons (who never met a war they didn't like) to do so, and President Obama might give in to that pressure. But if he does, it will be without the support of most Americans.

Public Opposes Arming Syrian Rebels

A few days ago, the Obama administration announced they were going to start shipping arms to the rebels in Syria. This marks a significant change in policy. Prior to this, the only U.S. aid going to the rebels was non-lethal aid (such as medical supplies). And even this may not be enough for some of the hawks in Congress, who would like to see at least some military intervention in that country (such as the establishment of a "no-fly" zone).

But two new polls show that both the Obama administration and the congressional hawks are out-of-step with want the American public wants. The polls are from the Pew Research Center (taken between June 12th and 16th of 1,512 adults -- with a 2.9 point margin of error), and the Gallup Poll (taken on June 15th & 16th of 1,015 adults with a 4 point margin of error). Both polls show that a majority of the American public opposes supplying arms to the Syrian rebels. Here are the complete numbers from the polls, with approval being the first number given (and disapproval being the number in parentheses -- and in charts above):

PEW CENTER SURVEY
General public...............20% (70%)
Republicans...............20% (71%)
Independents...............18% (74%)
Democrats...............25% (66%)

GALLUP POLL
General public...............37% (54%)
Republicans...............29% (63%)
Independents...............33% (60%)
Democrats...............51% (42%)

Note that there is a difference between the two polls --  and that difference is primarily among Democrats. Twice as many Democrats told Gallup they supported arming the rebels as told that to Pew. Why the difference? I believe the difference lays in when the polls were taken. At least half of the Pew poll was taken before President Obama announced the change in policy, while all of the Gallup poll was taken after that announcement had been made.

It looks to me like a significant group of die-hard Democrats, after the president announced the arming of the rebels, decided they must support the president's decision (even though many of them had serious reservations). I find that rather pathetic. I supported President Obama (and worked for him) in both of the last two presidential elections. But I cannot support his involving this country even deeper into the Syrian civil war by arming the rebels. It is just one more step toward a new war for this country.

I don't believe we have any friends in the Syrian civil war -- neither the government (which is a truly brutal regime) or the rebels (who are muslim fundamentalists, and natural enemies of the U.S. and its policies). Some would say that the enemy of our enemy is our friend, but that doesn't apply in this case. No matter who wins that civil war, we are not going to see Syria become a U.S. ally.

The Obama administration has made a serious mistake in arming the Syrian rebels. I just hope now that Obama doesn't let himself get bullied by the right in Congress into involving us deeper into the conflict -- by using American military power. The last thing we need is a new war -- a war that cannot possibly benefit this country.