Over on Volokh, Cori Dauber writes:
bq. THE ECHO CHAMBER IN PLAY … Study and after study has shown that Americans accept casualties if they believe they were in support of a necessary mission. The idea, promulgated again here, that public opinion is linked causally to the number of casualties and falls in predictable algorithms based on casualties taken is a canard, based on interpretations of the data from Vietnam detached from all context.
If you actually click through that link, you’ll see three things. First, all that is being claimed is that for a given war, higher casualties result in less support, so the need for context (i.e. cross-war comparisons) is not ever so clear. Second, the evidence for this is not just from Vietnam, but also from Korea. Third, the source isn’t just the echo chamber repeating itself (like Dauber’s unsourced ‘studies after studies’) but is credited to Dr William Hammond, from the US Army’s Center for Military History. The liberal media conspiracy has really long tentacles if it’s reached into the Army’s own historical division. (Why does the US Army hate America so much?)
{ 3 comments }
Rodger 11.03.03 at 4:57 am
There is a tremendous amount of evidence that support for war declines over time — and as casualties mount. Even support for World War II declined over time, if I recall the data correctly.
The classic work was done by John Mueller, now at Ohio State. I found a recent paper of his on the internet that overviews many of his research conclusions and at least cites much of his own work.
http://psweb.sbs.ohio-state.edu/faculty/jmueller/APSA2003.PDF
This is the kind of information typically found in basic US foreign policy textbooks.
I’m genuinely mystified at Cori’s claim.
Matt Weiner 11.03.03 at 9:12 pm
Folks, correlation is not causation. All such studies show is a correlation between casualties and a drop in support–but how do you know that it is not that falling support causes the casualties, instead of the other way around? The liberal media is even more evil than we thought.
Ray 11.04.03 at 4:14 am
Huh? What does conspiracy-theory type thinking have to do with any of this? It’s no longer possible to attack an idea without accusing the promulgator of that idea of being part of a vast, hidden conspiracy?
Comments on this entry are closed.