Here's a really interesting article from the New York Times, talking about the Bush Administration's document and speech last week on "A Plan for Victory in Iraq."
If you look in the metadata for the document, you find that the author is Peter Feaver from Duke University. It seems that Feaver and his colleagues at Duke have challenged the conventional wisdom that American citizens will only support a war if American casualties are low. Their belief is that Americans will support a war with high casualties if they believe that the war is just and more importantly that it will be successful. After presenting their case to the Bush administration, they were hired on as advisors to the National Seucrity Council. And thus the event last week, which had one goal: to convince the American people that the war in Iraq was winnable. That's why the word "Victory" was plastered everywhere, and why Bush uttered the word "victory" 15 times in his speech. There was no new information, no change in military strategy or plan, and one person is quoted in the article as saying that the document and speech were definitely not directed at the military. This was all about getting the word "victory" as a proxy for "success" firmly associated in the minds of American citizens.
Of course, Feaver's premise is not without its detractors too. Here's their research paper on the topic; read for yourself. Also, here's a transcript of an online chat with Feaver and his colleague Chris Gelpi from just before the US invaded Iraq in 2003.
3:54:18 PM 
|
