There was never any question of America losing the war militarily, the real risk was whether we would lose politically.
Several pundits were quick out of the box to declare the war lost, including NPR’s senior news analyst Daniel Schorr, top Democrat Howard Dean, and NY Time’s Frank Rich. Most critically, the American media went on an all out offensive against the war by highlighting every American casualty and deliberately avoiding any positive news.
They were largely successful; most Americans still incorrectly believe the war was a mistake and that they were somehow tricked into initially supporting it. Democrats used public unhappiness with the war to regain control of Congress and demonize their Republican opponents as lying war-mongerers. Despite their short-term gains, they failed in attaining their long-term goal. America has won the Iraq war, defeated Al-Qaeda in Iraq and struck a (hopefully fatal) blow against the ideological source of the 9-11 attacks. More importantly, democracy has been planted in Arabia and America has won a war after Vietnam. What changed? Why we were able to hold back the left’s political attacks long enough to win the war? The Vietnam vets themselves played a large role, as did military realities and demographics.
Vietnam vets fired the first shot in the political war at home. Justifiably angered by their undeserved treatment at home, they resolved the same would not happen to a second generation of returning troops. When I returned from Iraq I was greeted at the airport by cheering crowds, as were scores of my fellow vets. Groups like Gathering of Eagles, composed largely of Vietnam era vets, held counter-protests and demonstrations in support of the war.
Not only did this improve soldier’s morale, as well as recruiting and retention efforts, it made it much more difficult for war protestors. They had to walk a fine line between attacking the war while appearing to support the troops, a line many of them could not maintain. The ‘Support the Troops’ effort actively hindered the war opposition, giving the soldiers on the ground more time to build democracy in Iraq.
The second key factor was the low casualty rate in the Iraq war. In part due to improved technology and easier terrain, the casualty rate in Iraq was a fraction of Vietnam. The graph below shows the comparison of the two.
Looking at this gives me additional respect for Vietnam vets, many of whom saw as many incoming mortars in one day as I saw my entire year deployed. Although war opponents publicized military deaths as much as possible, most Americans never felt that casualty rates demanded a retreat.
The final and most important reason we did not suffer a political defeat in the Iraq war was demographics. In part due to the political left’s lower birth rates, the American public has shifted to the right over the past three decades. The graph below [to be added] from a UCLA study shows political bias relative to the average current American voter, with 100 being perfectly ‘left-wing’ and 0 perfectly ‘right-wing’.
The circled area shows how the average American has shifted 5 points to the right since the end of the Vietnam war. This demographic shift, ironically largely due to higher abortion rates among progressives, was responsible for President Bush winning the 2004 election and hindering Congressional Democrat’s efforts to withdraw prematurely from Iraq. Had the balance been the same as in 1973 it is unlikely we would have been given the time required to succeed in Iraq.