What level of casualties does the White House think the American public will tolerate

[subgenius]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/27/international/worldspecial/27CASU.html?ex=1049346000&en=b4841657b50da30e&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Even if you're for the action we're taking, it is a question we must answer as a nation.

[Pyrrho]

The public will tolerate as many deaths as the White House tells it to tolerate. It's not as if public opinion is going to magically bring the troops home.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by pyrrho2000
The public will tolerate as many deaths as the White House tells it to tolerate. It's not as if public opinion is going to magically bring the troops home.
No, the current war is not going to stop. But after the war, how big will the backlash be? Will the administration be able to do what they want to North Korea, Iran, Syria, ...? Will it cost Bush the next election?

[LTC8K6]

More than it would have now that Iraq has shown the world how it treats POW's.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by pyrrho2000
The public will tolerate as many deaths as the White House tells it to tolerate. It's not as if public opinion is going to magically bring the troops home.
Well the administration also wants to stay in power at least as much as it wants to prosecute this war. So even they have their limits.

[ShowMe]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
Will it cost Bush the next election?


I do not believe that there has ever been a US President that was re-elected when there was a war during his tenure.

As I am currently too lazy to do a web search to confirm this I will wait for some history buff to metaphorically head-slap me if this isn't the case.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by ShowMe

I do not believe that there has ever been a US President that was re-elected when there was a war during his tenure.

As I am currently too lazy to do a web search to confirm this I will wait for some history buff to metaphorically head-slap me if this isn't the case.
How about Lincoln and FDR?
Disproved,
discard.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by ShowMe



I do not believe that there has ever been a US President that was re-elected when there was a war during his tenure.

As I am currently too lazy to do a web search to confirm this I will wait for some history buff to metaphorically head-slap me if this isn't the case.
The taller candidate always won until the last (s)election.
The Dems should scout the NBA for the next round.;)

[patnray]

This is a complex question. Public opinion did not turn against the war in Viet Nam until casualties were around 20,000...

Depends on if the loss of live is seen as unavoidable and blamed on Iraq, or a tragic waste of lives persuing a misguided policy (or poor planning)...

Too early to tell. Failure to find significant amounts of WMDs would raise some questions, but Bush's team are experts at spin control, so even that may not matter as long as the military campaign procedes without serious setbacks...

[subgenius]

Must remember Poppy went down the tubes even though he got out relatively quickly and cleanly.
The projected quagmire of our post-war involvement ain't gonna play in Dubya's favor.

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

How about Lincoln and FDR?
Disproved,
discard.

Nixon, too. By the largest margin ever up to that point.

Originally posted by subgenius
Must remember Poppy went down the tubes even though he got out relatively quickly and cleanly.
The projected quagmire of our post-war involvement ain't gonna play in Dubya's favor.

Quagmire. There's a subtle catch-word from the Viet Nam era the media is bantying about these days. Only eight days into the war.

[ShowMe]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

How about Lincoln and FDR?
Disproved,
discard.

FDR and Lincoln were both re-elected, but the wars began in their second term. So they WERE re-elected, but not after the war started.

Maybe that shold be rephrased to "No American President has served a term after a war started in the term they were serving".

Edited to add:

Luke T: With Nixon, the Vietnam war had already begun before he took office.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by subgenius

The taller candidate always won until the last (s)election.
The Dems should scout the NBA for the next round.;)

They already did! Has everyone already forgotten Bill Bradley?

Originally posted by ShowMe


FDR and Lincoln were both re-elected, but the wars began in their second term. So they WERE re-elected, but not after the war started.

Maybe that shold be rephrased to "No American President has served a term after a war started in the term they were serving".

Boy, it just gets worse. The Civil War started as Lincoln was arriving in Washington to serve his first term!

[Jocko]

Originally posted by ShowMe


FDR and Lincoln were both re-elected, but the wars began in their second term. So they WERE re-elected, but not after the war started.

Maybe that shold be rephrased to "No American President has served a term after a war started in the term they were serving".

Both died in office, so any answer is speculation. I expect both would have been re-elected had they survived.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Will it cost Bush the next election?

I think this war will cost Bush the next election regardless of happy Iraqis or the uncovering of the WMDs. It seems that people had very high expectations for this war and they have not come true (why people thought the war would be over in a week is a mystery).

[subgenius]

Originally posted by LukeT


Quagmire. There's a subtle catch-word from the Viet Nam era the media is bantying about these days. Only eight days into the war.
Let me edit it out. I didn't mean any Viet Nam reference. I think everyone agrees that we intend on post-war presence. I was referring to post war, not the conflict itself. Better?

James Madison started the War of 1812. He defeated his opponent soundly in the next election. So badly, in fact, that Federalism disappeared as a national party.

[ShowMe]

Originally posted by LukeT


Boy, it just gets worse. The Civil War started as Lincoln was arriving in Washington to serve his first term!

I shold probably abandon this particular line of thinking. Maybe I should change that to "has ever FINISHED a second term..." blah blah blah


Ah, the heck with hit. Too many logical falicies, even for the originator......

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Jocko


They already did! Has everyone already forgotten Bill Bradley?
Unfortunately they didn't play him. Apparently wouldn't have made a difference last time.
(Please don't blame "everyone" for my amnesia ;) )

Originally posted by subgenius

Let me edit it out. I didn't mean any Viet Nam reference. I think everyone agrees that we intend on post-war presence. I was referring to post war, not the conflict itself. Better?

I am very concerned about post-war Iraq. I have only the slimmest straws of faith that we will follow through.

Back on topic, I think the American people will put up with no more than a couple hundred casualties. Anything over that will cause a polarization of the Left. It will make the follow-through that much more difficult.

Put this under the category "Wild Ass Guess."

[ShowMe]

Originally posted by LukeT
Back on topic, I think the American people will put up with no more than a couple hundred casualties. Anything over that will cause a polarization of the Left. It will make the follow-through that much more difficult.
Put this under the category "Wild Ass Guess."


I'll weigh in with my own WAG:

With a decisive victory in Iraq, and if chemical weapons are found, everything will be forgotten and Bush will be a hero. Americans love a winner.

A complete victory in Iraq will mean nothing if WMD are not found. The brutality of the regime over the past 2 decades won't matter, only if weapons are found.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by subgenius
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/27/international/worldspecial/27CASU.html?ex=1049346000&en=b4841657b50da30e&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Even if you're for the action we're taking, it is a question we must answer as a nation.

The big difference between Iraq and Vietnam...and also Korea is that we have political leadership dedicated to nothing less than victory.

When the troops are inspired by the political dedication to victory the US military has never failed to prevail. How many deaths before GWB says "no mas"?? I don't believe there is such a number....victory is the mission. The lives of soldiers are always valued....but the completion of the mission always comes first in wartime.

How many deaths will Americans tolerate in Iraq? This depends on how important the American public percieves the mission. If, like 'Nam we percieve no movement towards a legitimate goal then I'd say not many. If however the gov't does a good job of showing just how the defeat of Iraq will keep America safer from terrorism such as produce captured Iraqi WMD, or more solid links to Al Qaida,....and show daily progress towards military victory,... then I'd say the number becomes less and less important.

Will to win is the biggest asset in any war. This administration has displayed this will. That's gonna make all the difference!

-zilla

[subgenius]

rik:"That's gonna make all the difference!"
OK give me your number (of casualties) that you personally would tolerate. We are accepting WAGs.

[subgenius]

My WAG is 5000. But I think it will be over long before then.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by subgenius
rik:"That's gonna make all the difference!"
OK give me your number (of casualties) that you personally would tolerate. We are accepting WAGs.

Ok SG...I'll play.

When the Iraqi's are able to compel the surrender of just one of our infantry divisions I'd say to throw in the towel.

Regardless of loss of life...a division rendered combat ineffective would be enough of a hint for me to pull us out.

Don't hold your breath on that one SG! ;)

-zilla

[Michael Redman]

500 maybe. 1000 will ruin W.

WAG

[patnray]

Rikzilla is on the right track. Barring a military disaster, it isn't the number of casualties, but whether they are perceived as meaningful.

Even one death would be unacceptable if that death was for ignoble purpose, such as domestic political advantage.

But belief that the deaths serve a noble purpose will result in acceptance of high numbers of casualties. Furthermore, the more deaths there are, the stronger will become the believe in that noble purpose. And anyone questioning the truth of the noble purpose will be accused of dishonoring those who have died...

[subgenius]

Originally posted by patnray
Rikzilla is on the right track. Barring a military disaster, it isn't the number of casualties, but whether they are perceived as meaningful.

Even one death would be unacceptable if that death was for ignoble purpose, such as domestic political advantage.

But belief that the deaths serve a noble purpose will result in acceptance of high numbers of casualties. Furthermore, the more deaths there are, the stronger will become the believe in that noble purpose. And anyone questioning the truth of the noble purpose will be accused of dishonoring those who have died...
Accepting all that, what's your WAG number?

[patnray]

20,000. That's about how many it toook before people began to seriously question the reasons we were in Viet Nam. The anti-war movement got a head start this time, but no one ever claimed North Viet Nam was a direct threat to the US the way Iraq has been portrayed. And as I said, the more deaths there are, the harder it becomes to examine the reasons for being involved. Up to a point, which I'm guessing is 20,000...