Bloodless Coup

Shrill? Strident? Vehement? Defiant?

Merriam-Webster defines strident as:

characterized by harsh, insistent, and discordant sound; also : commanding attention by a loud or obtrusive quality

Drudge has a link up to a Christian Science Monitor story about Kerry-supporting troops in Iraq, the title of which is "A strident minority." There are a couple of things about this story that are interesting.

First, I find the use of the word "strident" to be one of those uh-oh signals. Like when a woman is called "shrill." You know, it usually means someone wants to call her a "bitch" but she might just be vehement ((1) : deeply felt (2) : forcibly expressed) or outspoken (1 : to excel in speaking 2 : to declare openly or boldly). Strident usually connotes irrationality, extremism, or strained control.

Second, it is interesting that this story leads off with a link between Michael Moore and these attitudes, but not necessarily as a definitive causal factor in either the development of those attitudes or the supposed demoralization of the troops. Contrary to a lot of the media coverage I've read on Fahrenheit 9/11 and the military, the CSM piece looks at it as much as a symptom as a cause.

The film's prevalence is one sign of a discernible countercurrent among US troops in Iraq...

This is a bit more nuanced perception of what the relationship between media and opinion is among the troops.

Third, once you get past the title and first couple of paragraphs, an even more complicated picture emerges. There is a quote from a soldier that is representative of what one would likely call a vehement and partisan flavor:

"[For] 9 out of 10 of the people I talk to, it wouldn't matter who ran against Bush - they'd vote for them," said a US soldier in the southern city of Najaf, seeking out a reporter to make his views known. "People are so fed up with Iraq, and fed up with Bush."

However there is also information that suggests no one really has a good idea of the size of the "minority" referred to in the headline, and that the ratio could range from quite small to quite significant depending on whether the group is split into officers and enlisted personnel.

A Military Times survey last December of 933 subscribers, about 30 percent of whom had deployed for the Iraq war, found that 56 percent considered themselves Republican - about the same percentage who approved of Bush's handling of Iraq. Half of those responding were officers, who as a group tend to be more conservative than their enlisted counterparts.

Equally intriguing is the mention of a study done by a Duke University researcher: "about one third of enlisted troops are Republicans, one third Democrats, and the rest independents, with the latter group growing." As a student of a world region where rampant praetorianism had significant negative effects (to put it mildly) I am in no way suggesting that we politicize the armed forces. However, I find it very interesting that we know so little (or, that what we know gets so little coverage) about the political preferences of those in uniform. Politicians, pundits - heck, we - spend a lot of time implicitly or explicity "speaking for" people in the military (see the guard unit thread, for example), but we don't really know. I have to say, that as a social scientist, I'm really curious about this trend they cite towards independence, as well as the proportions of party membership. From looking at the papers, not to mention listening to re-election rhetoric, one could easily gather the impression that the military is much more Republican than the numbers reported in the CSM story suggest.

Fourth, there is some - and I note that these are anecdotal interviews, not studies conforming to statistical validity and reliabity - very articulate criticism coming from the pro-Kerry soldiers that does not sound like parroting of F 9/11 or campaign propaganda, but more like a good assessment of the complicated position in which servicemen and women find themselves.

"The military as a whole supports the Iraq war," Mr. Feaver says, noting a historical tendency of troops to back the commander in chief in wartime. "But you can go across the military and find pockets where they are more ambivalent," he says, especially among the National Guard and Reserve. "The war has not gone as swimmingly as they thought, and that has caused disaffection. Whether representing pockets of opposition to Bush or something bigger, soldiers and marines on Iraq's front lines can be impassioned in their criticism. One Marine officer in Ramadi who had lost several men said he was thinking about throwing his medals over the White House wall. "Nobody I know wants Bush," says an enlisted soldier in Najaf, adding, "This whole war was based on lies." Like several others interviewed, his animosity centered on a belief that the war lacked a clear purpose even as it took a tremendous toll on US troops, many of whom are in Iraq involuntarily under "stop loss" orders that keep them in the service for months beyond their scheduled exit in order to keep units together during deployments. "There's no clear definition of why we came here," says Army Spc. Nathan Swink, of Quincy, Ill. "First they said they have WMD and nuclear weapons, then it was to get Saddam Hussein out of office, and then to rebuild Iraq. I want to fight for my nation and for my family, to protect the United States against enemies foreign and domestic, not to protect Iraqi civilians or deal with Sadr's militia," he said.

and

Another marine, Sgt. Christopher Wallace of Pataskala, Ohio, agreed that the film was making an impression on troops. "Marines nowadays want to know stuff. They want to be informed, because we'll be voting out here soon," he said. " 'Fahrenheit 9/11' opened our eyes to things we hadn't seen before." But, he added after a pause, "We still have full faith and confidence in our commander-in-chief. And if John Kerry is elected, he will be our commander in chief."

That doesn't sound very strident at all.

Posted by binky at September 21, 2004 03:33 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Politics