I've stumbled into a few discussions about Americans, Bush and the war over the last couple of months, and there are some points I've learned from experience that it's sensible to focus on from the beginning of a discussion, because (though seemingly obvious) they seem to make people here genuinely surprised. Other topics I've learned to avoid, or at least not be the first to mention, because preconceptions people have about them are too strong to disprove without a lot of evidence at hand. One important point I feel compelled to make all the time, one that falls in the first category, is that there are many ordinary, intelligent Americans who support the war on Iraq based on intellectual reasoning. Norwegians see Bush (who we don't trust) on TV, and then we see a lot of people waving flags. It often doesn't occur to us that it's possible to have really thought this issue through, to be well-informed about the Middle East, and still support Bush. I know that it is, (as I know that it's just as possible to well-informed and disagree with Bush), because I read sensible pro-war American pundits and bloggers, (and a lot of well-informed people send me mail and write comments in my blog), but most Norwegians don't. We only see Bush, and we really, really don't trust him.

One topic that falls in the avoid-at-all-cost category - I've burned myself on this repeatedly - is censorship and media bias. I've had a colleague who claims to read that paper regularly inform me that the New York Times is practically a spokespiece for the Republican party, uncritical of Bush and the war, and that it has become so only during the last year. How do you argue with something like that? How do you disprove censorship and media conspiracies? How do you explain the difference between media consensus, (which the US has to some extent, and Norway to a larger), and media censorship?

Again a point in the first category, one that I make sure to explain, is not only that September 11 fundamentally changed how Americans view the outside world, but in what way it changed it. I understand that change of perspective very well, because I was inside the cultural blast zone when it happened, so to speak. I didn't just read about the anger, surprise and sadness, I felt it. Like many Americans, I stumbled around in shock for many days after September 11, (and then I started this blog). Norwegians felt this too - the sympathy was genuine - but much less strongly, and they often seem ignorant about the nature of the change that ocurred. As I see it, 9/11 made Americans realize two things, (as it made me realize them): 1) The Middle East is deeply rotten. 2) Their problems are now our problems. Nothing that has happened since can be understood without these two things in mind - certainly not the willingness of the American people to support a war on Iraq without court-solid evidence that Saddam is a major threat to the world.

This change of perspective also probably affects tolerance for American casualties in war. Common wisdom in Norway has it that the US is extremely sensitive to casualties, and that as soon as the reality of war dawns upon them, as soon as cracks begin to appear in their ultra-clean video game perception of the war, they will realize that they have made a tragic mistake. No doubt the US is sensitive to casualties, as all peaceful democracies are, but less so, I think, than before, and less so than other peaceful democracies. Even so, Norwegian reporting from the US ceaselessly focuses on the shift in public opinion that is expected to come about any minute now. We campaigned against this war like we campaigned against Vietnam, and as far as we know the Americans still live in Vietnam's shadow, so naturally we cover the American peace movement as the 60's peace movement in the process of being reborn. (In reality, of course, it's more like the corpse of the 60's peace movement being brought back to life. Like in Pet Sematary, it may look like the 60's peace movement, and it may sound like the 60's peace movement, but there's no life left inside.)

It might seem somewhat surreal to American readers that I seem to spend more time here in Norway trying to explain that the US really is a democracy, that it does have freedom of speech, and that the proportion of idiots to well-informed people is not significantly higher there than here, (not even among the hawks), than I do discussing the war itself, but that's the way it is. It's all in a days work for US Apologist Man!

I can tell you that Americans definately have a changed perspective about casualties. Of course, each one is individually a tragedy. My heart breaks as I read the profiles of the fallen, at the same time I feel so grateful that these brave men (and women!) sacrifice so much for their fellow Americans (and all of humanity). Each and every one of them is a volunteer - imagine, they volunteered to do this.

But....I work across the street from the WTC. I knew more people who died in the WTC than the number of allies who have died in the war to date. Having 3,018 men, women, and children killed in your cities in a single day through an act of war changes your perspective A LOT.

The soldiers we send out there are trained, armed, and ready for the enemy. Civilians in passenger planes and office buildings are not.

Michelle

-BTW - based on conversation with co-workers, the disgusting images of executed POWs over the weekend hardened resolve here. Even people who on Friday were uneasy are angry.

If they really want to get a bead on America, send them over to The Professor and tell them to surf away.

A major contributor to opinions in the US is the way TV news is covering the war here-- not so much in content as in style. The graphics, theme music, etc. tend to come across as jingoistic, simply because even the non-Fox networks tend to regard war as exciting.

Contrary to popular world opinion, the effect of this isn't just to turn Americans into brainwashed zombies. Rather, it has a polarizing effect. Some people who are already favorably disposed toward the war perhaps take comfort in it. People who are already unfavorably disposed toward the war and toward Bush, and are very wary of propaganda, just take this as evidence that the news is full of lies and that dissent is being officially suppressed. It hardens opinions.

I think that I'd probably be ferociously anti-war if I got all my news from TV, just as an overreaction to the tone. While your friend was talking about a newspaper (one usually regarded as anti-war), I think that people who currently complain about pro-war bias in the US "media", and about the absence of an intelligent dialogue on the war, are mostly talking about TV news broadcasts-- and, again, more about the style of the broadcasts than what is actually said in them.

Michelle: I concur with you on the effect of showing off the POWs - it has hardened the determination for the war. I've noticed that all of a sudden some people who were still wavering are hunkering down emotionally - maybe even fatalistically, - for the long haul.

As an American, I wish I could agree with you about the role of reason in this debate. Maybe among a few pundits there has been a conversation resembling a Socratic dialogue, but few people I encounter really know why we are in this war. The number of people in the U.S. who believe that "some" or "many" of the 9-11 hijackers were Iraqi is nearly 50%. (Most of the others think "one" was or "don't know.") The President, with an organized and purposeful campaign, supported by the U.S. news media (with either complicity or complacence), has convinced the country that 9-11 and Iraq are one in the same problem.

The most common retort given to peace demonstrators here: "Don't you remember 9-11?"

I have devoted my blog, now called L.A. War Blog, to trying to understand what is happening to my country. On the night of the Academy Awards, I was two blocks from the Kodak Theater, hanging out with pro-war demonstrators.

I created a photo essay documenting the experience. It best expresses, I think, the level of debate in certain parts of the country.

http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/archives/000052.html

Brian Flemming, I live in the U.S. and everything you've written here is garbage. The dominant mainstream media has done nothing BUT propagandize AGAINST action in Iraq. Most Americans watch the network news and they have been 'French' from beginning to end. Of the cable news networks only Fox gives that 'comfort' you mention, yet they are also most in tune with the vast majority of Americans regarding support for the war. CNN 'tries' to be 'Fox-like' (their conintuous effort and agony to try and get needed ratings AND eat their left-wing propaganda cake as well) , yet they just can't really control themselves and the audience doesn't buy it (hence Fox's high ratings). The New York Times (which feeds alot of smaller newpapers and still sets the tone and agenda for the rest of mainstream media to a great extent) has been more anti-war than England's worst left-wing rags. Your statements that Americans who support this war do so out of ignorance is off-the-mark. Look at the blogosphere. It reflects (let's say instapundit) my own views regarding this war. Is the blogosphere ignorant of the issues? The blogosphere may be more tuned in to all the information and issues, but they basically also just simply represent the intuition and instincts on this issue of the average American (the 75%, or whatever the latest poll says). Americans know this war is about exerting some control in a part of the world that needs some control. Americans know that there are too many dangerous weapons available to have a wealthy region of the world like the middle-east go unsupervised. The enemy is not Islam, the enemy is radicalized Islam. The main advantage the world has against this phenomenon is the fact that Islam when not organized through dictatorial power or terrorist networks spends its energy fighting among its own tribes and leaves the rest of the world alone. The west just needs to fight and control the terror networks with world reach and the more out-of-control state regimes supporting terror or that can potentially support terror. Americans also know that action and change is good when the goal is freedom. Just watch how Iranian citizens deal with their own terror-masters in the near future...

Brian Flemming: you are using one of the tactics befuddled Europeans are using in trying to explain the inexplicable support of the vast majority of Americans for this war. The ol' they're-really-not-informed-enough-to-know (or, as the Euros would say about Americans, educated-enough-to-know) to make an informed judgement.

I've always trusted the gut instincts of the American people. After all, over 65% of them came out in support of Clinton when Congress tried to removed him in a Republican Party-orchestrated putsch. The news media had fanned the flames of that scandal, yet Americans resisted the call.

Don't be too swift to dismiss the street smarts of your average fellow Americans. Americans are, I believe, more savvy in media-skepticism than Europeans are. After all, they are bombarded with consumer choices that all seem the same, every day. Perhaps that's why it is harder for mainstream media to really exert a deciding influence on Americans, - a problem acknowledged even by Madison Avenue advertising gurus.

"I've had a colleague who claims to read that paper regularly inform me that the New York Times is practically a spokespiece for the Republican party"

Tell him he may be smoking too much crack;)

Brian: I have absolutely no doubt that there are many ignorant Americans, including ignorant pro-war Americans. There are ignorant people everywhere. But you'll have to give me more than anecdotal evidence to convince that there are _more_ ignorant people in the US than there are in any other Western democracy.

Bjørn — it is indeed strange and wonderful to see a Norwegian like yourself defending the United States. I certainly hope that some of your countrymen have discovered your BLOG. I don't see often see Norwegians commenting here on your inciteful and humorous observations. I admire a man who thinks for himself, and anyone in Norway who defends the American viewpoint has certainly got to be a very original independent thinker. Your courage in thinking your own thoughts is a testimonial, I think, to your intelligence. Good man. Carry on the fine work.

I think you're absolutely right, 9/11 has changed the mindset of Americans toward the Middle East. I think many do not yet realize the depth of our resolve. We will not tolerate further attacks. This is the message which has yet to hit home in Europe and most importantly in the Middle East. Americans favor robust action in the face of such threats. Even my grandmother, who is not a warmonger by any means, believes that a policy of law enforcement, appeasement, and diplomacy will not work to counter terrorism. She says the war coverage brings back memories of WWII in which we fought to defeat the enemy.

If I may speak for the 75% of Americans favoring this war, I think we tend to view this as a conflict in which we need to defeat the enemy, not accommodate it. I for one do not understand the apparent European view that living with, and accommodating such evil is favored. It's tantamount to surrender and in the end will not achieve the desired result. Peace is not easy and will undoubtedly cost us alot. But you get what you pay for.

If Jacques Chirac is right, this war in Iraq will bring huge resentment in the Middle East and encourage waves of suicide bombers. If so, what will result will be something like our American Civil War. In which the racist, anti-Semitic South had to be utterly defeated.

Gill: Thanks, but I can't accept your compliment. I may be right, but it's not particularly original or courageous to say something that I've got three fourths of the blogosphere behind me on.

The New York Times - mouthpiece of the Republican Party?

Takk skal du har - I really needed a laugh tonight! Send the dweeb over to Andrew Sullivan for some enlightment. Does he also believe that the BBC is really the Bush Broadcasting Corporation?

Eric, if you're here reading, you need to start surfing some more. I would like to believe that deep down inside, Americans know we're going to get hit whether or not we went into Iraq. We really just don't want to have that mindset yet. We, unfortunately, haven't been hit hard enough yet. We were outstandingly lucky that we (and the world) only lost about 3000 people.

As to the murderer Chiraq, and he does have the blood of all dead coalition members on his hands, will get his soon enough. Go read Ledeen via Instapundit and tell me you were surprised. I wasn't. This was his game all along.

Bjorn,

I believe you have a pretty good understanding of why the majority of Americans support taking action against Iraq.

I think Saddam also believes the US will not be able to stomach casualties and hopes he can intimidate us into leaving Iraq. You and I both know he's wrong. America's resolve has been strengthened.

I hope you will indulge me the space to educate Brain Flemming.

Your photo essay was interesting, but surely you can't believe it's representative of the 70% of Americans who support the President.

For some balance, please go to brain-terminal.com website and see the mentality of the anti-war protestors.

I assume you're aware that ANSWER, (linked on your site), is backed by the socialist party.

From the anti war website warblogging.com:

"The protests in DC and New York were organized by a group calling themselves ANSWER, which they say stands for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism. Now I obviously strongly agree with the central message of the anti-war protests, and I don't think that the message should be clouded by problems with the messenger. The problem, though, is that ANSWER is a front group for the International Action Coalition, which is a front group for the Workers World Party — a neo-Stalinist (or, at least, neo-Trotskyist) organization (See this Google search for more documentation or visit Workers.org).

So what's the problem if they're Stalinists? Well, there is the small matter of some hypocrisy. The group that's crying about an end to war and about civil liberties advocates violent revolutions to install dictatorships. The Workers World Party/Front supported the 1989 Tienanmen Square Massacre, supports the "socialist" (really Stalanist/Juche) personality cult ruling North Korea and, as I mentioned, seeks to rekindle the October Revolution not only in Russia but in the United States."

And you link to Not In Our Name. They have lovely roots too. From the New York Post:

By BYRON YORK
------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 23, 2003 -- THE antiwar group Not In Our Name has attracted a lot of attention in recent months by publishing a "statement of conscience" in newspapers across the country. The organization purchased two full pages in the Jan. 27 New York Times to run the statement, which assails the Bush administration for "unleash[ing] a spirit of revenge" after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and embarking on a course of "war abroad and repression at home."

The letter was signed by hundreds of celebrity endorsers, including the actors Ed Asner, Martin Sheen and Marisa Tomei; writers Kurt Vonnegut, Alice Walker and Barbara Kingsolver; musicians Graham Nash, Pete Seeger and Mos Def; and politicians Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. The combination of well-known names and high-profile ad placement has made Not In Our Name a leading player in the antiwar movement.

Yet, relatively little attention has been paid to Not In Our Name's financial support network. A look at that network shows that the group relies on tax-exempt foundations that in the past have been - and today still are - affiliated with a variety of radical causes, including the defense of convicted murderer Mumia Abu-Jamal, support for Fidel Castro's regime in Cuba and involvement with figures linked to Middle Eastern terrorism.

AT a Not In Our Name demonstration held on Jan. 27 outside the United Nations, one speaker declared that opposition to a war in Iraq, as exemplified by the rally, "is becoming a broad-based movement." A look behind the scenes, however, suggests that the organization itself is not broad-based at all, but is, rather, one of a small group of radical sects devoted to causes far removed from the antiwar effort. Not In Our Name is in fact two groups, which began as one.

The organization was created in March 2002 by a gathering of left-wing activists that included representatives from the Revolutionary Communist Party, the All-African Peoples Revolutionary Party, Refuse and Resist!, the International League of Peoples' Struggle and the National Lawyers Guild, among others. The organizers intended for Not In Our Name to stage protests across the country and also draft, according to the group's organizing document, a "Not In Our Name Statement of Conscience to be issued by well-known artists, intellectuals, activists and people in public life, lending their moral authority and their unified voice to the resistance movement."

AT least in the latter goal, Not In Our Name has been extraordinarily effective. But it had to split in two to succeed. There had been concern among organizers that some of those who might be inclined to sign the statement might not want to be associated with Not In Our Name's activist wing. So the group created two separate entities, one called the Not In Our Name Statement (which handles the manifesto and the collecting of celebrity signatures) and the other called the Not In Our Name Project (which handles street demonstrations and other protests).

"For the statement to succeed, we thought it should be separate from any form of political actions," says Clark Kissinger, a member of the Maoist Revolutionary Communist Party who has played a major role in organizing Not In Our Name. "We wanted people to be able to sign the statement without having their names used to endorse other actions."

Today, the staffs and finances of both groups are managed independently. Still, both parts of Not In Our Name need to raise money. Rather than creating foundations to collect cash, they formed alliances with so-called "fiscal sponsors" - that is, already established foundations that could use their tax-exempt status for fundraising.

THE Not In Our Name statement that appeared in the Times included a small box asking that donations be sent to something called the Bill of Rights Foundation. Last year, the foundation agreed to serve as Not In Our Name Statement's fiscal sponsor, but a look at the group's Internal Revenue Service records shows that until recently, it has had nothing at all to do with the peace movement. Rather, almost every dollar raised by the group for several years went to the legal defense of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the convicted cop-killer whose case has become a cause célèbre among some on the Left.

In 2001, for example, the foundation spent a total of $102,152, of which $95,737 went toward Abu-Jamal's legal expenses. In the year 2000, the foundation spent $75,956, of which $57,722 was for Abu-Jamal. And in 1999, the foundation spent $155,547, of which $139,126 went to Abu-Jamal's lawyers.

At the end of 2001, Abu-Jamal changed his legal and finance team, leaving the Bill of Rights Foundation without its main cause. In 2002, it hooked up with Not In Our Name Statement. Foundation president Judith Levin sees the Abu-Jamal case and opposition to a possible war as closely linked. "They're related as a matter of principle," she explains. "The connection is the violation of civil rights of people in this country."

FOR its fund raising, the Not In Our Name Project is allied with another foundation, this one called the Interreligious Foundation for Community Organization. Founded by several New Left leaders in 1967 to "advance the struggles of oppressed people for justice and self-determination," IFCO was originally created to serve as the fundraising arm of a variety of activist organizations that lacked the resources to raise money for themselves.

In recent years, IFCO served as fiscal sponsor for an organization called the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom (their partnership ended when the coalition formed its own tax-exempt foundation). Founded in 1997 as a reaction to the 1996 Anti-Terrorism Act, the coalition says its function is to oppose the use of secret evidence in terrorism prosecutions.

Until recently, the group's president was Sami Al-Arian, a University of South Florida computer-science professor who has been suspended for alleged ties to terrorism. (He is still a member of the coalition's board.) According to a New York Times report last year, Al-Arian is accused of having sent hundreds of thousands of dollars, raised by another charity he runs, to Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The Times also reported that FBI investigators "suspected Mr. Al-Arian operated 'a fund-raising front' for the Islamic Jihad movement in Palestine from the late 1980s to 1995." Al-Arian also brought a man named Ramadan Abdullah Shallah to the University of South Florida to raise money for one of Al-Arian's foundations - a job Shallah held until he later became the head of Islamic Jihad.

TODAY, IFCO sponsors Refuse and Resist!, an antiwar group with ties to the Revolutionary Communist Party, and also devotes substantial energy to supporting the Castro regime in Cuba. Cuba is a particular favorite of IFCO's executive director, the Rev. Lucius Walker, who, addressing a "solidarity conference" in Havana in November 2000, proclaimed, "Long live the struggle of the Cuban people! Long live the creative example of the Cuban Revolution! Long live the wisdom and heartfelt concern for the poor of the world by Fidel Castro!" Both IFCO and the Bill of Rights Foundation are tax-exempt 501(c)(3) charities, which means that all contributions made to them - whether for antiwar protests, Cuban solidarity rallies, or the defense of Mumia Abu-Jamal - are fully tax-deductible.

The groups have been quite successful. The most recent IRS records available for IFCO, from the year 2000, show that the foundation took in $1,119,564 in contributions. For their part, organizers of the Not In Our Name Statement report that they have taken in more than $400,000 in recent months for the purpose of publishing their statement. It is not possible to say who is giving the money, or whether it comes from many people or just a few; federal laws do not require tax-exempt foundations to reveal their donors - or even whether donations are received from inside or outside the United States.

'WE who sign this statement call on all Americans to join together," says the Not In Our Name manifesto. To hear the group's leaders speak, one might think that is actually happening, that there really is a "broad-based movement" represented by these activists. But a look at the people and organizations involved in Not In Our Name suggests otherwise - no matter how many celebrity signatures they might collect.

Byron York is National Review's White House correspondent. From the Feb. 24 issue.

So are you a socialist, terrorist, cop killer supporter? Or are you maybe uneducated about just who you are supporting?

Dvine: You seem to be new here, so you're excused for not knowing this: I'd rather not have entire articles posted here. Leave an URL instead.

Unrelated to this - I've finally gotten around to repost the rules for commenting in this blog, at the bottom of this page. They're very simple, and I think they're necessary.

Excellent post, Bjorn. I have been enjoying your blog for some time.

Brian, I took a look at your site. I think it is well put together, and you sound as if you would like to stay neutral...and that is all well and good...or I could easily take what you write as one long snide remark on those 'odd creatures, the pro-war Americans'...IF I could be bothered to be offended anymore. I have seen so much stupidity on the side of the anti-war protestors that my anger and frustration has turned to simple contempt. MY weblog says as much as well.

Bjorn, I *wish* foreigners would remember that so many of us here in America are only a generation or two from being immigrants as well, of having left Old Europe for a better life, and I don't know of many who have chosen to return to Old Europe...not personally at any rate. Thing is, so many Europeans automatically assume we think they way they do, and when we exhibit signs otherwise, we are chalked off as being stupid or crazy or rude or any other defamatory epithet they can think of.

But then they also forget, that is the whole point of being American as well : we're used to it.

Anyway, thank you for writing what you do.

Just found your website and reading some posts. I think the perception that America will not accept casualties is misinformed/sixties peace marchers wishful thinking. If we believe in the cause we will shed blood and treasure. In the 60's anticommunism was the right cause. We can question the wisdom of viet nam for what it was, a bad mistake compounded poor political strategy. The many that were killed when the communists took over in Viet Nam and Cambodia, the boat people we took in etc, say to me that we were right but that we failed. We spent a long time in Viet Nam, taking dead and wounded. It was a scaring experience. We cut and run in Beirut becuase no one explained why we there and why it was important. Maybe the area of the world would be a better place now if we stuck it out. But craven politicians (weinberger and Powell, not wanting to see anymore body bags) not having any reason to be there (Russia was more impt). Clinto cut and run from Somalia is still inexplicable. Clinton was/is deathly afraid of unpopularity. He had no strategic vision for foreign policy. Hard decisions could always be punted forward. Bush 1 was the same way. He was reactive not proactive. Bush 2 understands the American Psyche better than anyone in a long time. Americans are pissed, not just becuase of the 3000 dead in NYC, but for all the deaths going back. We look back and now connect the dots and see what are inattention/quick fixes backing strong dictators has wrought. It would be no skin of our nose if they just killed each other, but now they have targeted us and Western liberal democracies, its time to clean out the sh*t house. We have a leader, Bush who sees this clearly that our long term interest is spending the time and money and the lives of our young, so our children will not have to live with this fear. We are making the world safe for democracy once again and we actually mean it this time. Which is why when I look at the anti war protesters, I see a bunch of children, raised on privilege who lack the ability to think, war is bad, but the alternative, to not fight, to give in to Islamic fundementalism is worse. Iraq is just the first step

Bjørn: You can make a fortune with this new US Apologist Man character. In European art films, he can be the horrible monster. In Spanish westerns, he will be the masked hero! On Czech talk shows, he will take the skirts off the girls. And in America, he will wrestle Michael Moore!

Cheers,
Ken

Ciao

Trackback URL: /cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/118