Topic: Public perception of and engagement in American military actions
Timeframe: 1940s (WWII) to present day
Those affected:
- American public
- elected officials
- Military servicemen and servicewomen
- Countries we have come into conflict with
Characterize the ideology or worldview before:
- Engaging in warfare was a country-wide effort where everyone was to make sacrifices to support the military
- Not many anti-war movements
- meant less usage for political gain
- Economic, social, and political views to backseat to ideals
Characterize the ideology after:
- Military engagements are rarely thought of now if you don’t have a personal connection
- almost second-hand thought
- Military engagement not necessarily a unifying object
- Ideological differences are acceptable
What markers can you point to as evidence of the shift?:
- New terms
- Military operations
- advisory troops
- drone strike
- special operations unit
- Rise of subcultures
- Less coverage and attention paid to military actions
- Military and veterans as political pawns
What resistance is evident? Who is resisting the new ideology?:
- Certain journalists, military and political leaders
- Those who take an active interest both history and current events
What is the shift a response to? A discovery? New knowledge? Injustice? A sudden event?:
- It was a gradual change due to changing social and technological factors. In World War II, there was a collective burden shared by the entire population, whereas now this is not felt. There is no longer the social norm of inherently supporting military involvement, as well as the fact that we don’t call them wars anymore.
Who or what was key in moving the shift forward?:
- Hippie subculture
- Vietnam and restriction of presidential powers after Nixon
- Everything that made conducting war less personable to the average American
- modern technology (i.e. drones)
What conditions didn’t exist that came to exist that made the shift possible?:
- Non-conformity
- Modern military technology
- Less attention to military engagements
- War on terror- not country
- Access to information
- TV shows/movies/documentaries showing realities of war
Which of these played a more direct role in advancing the paradigm?:
- Modern form of warfare that detaches involvement of public
This is a very interesting topic to analyze. I definitely have noticed how support in American military actions from citizens are not as strong and unified as they were in the past. In earlier years, there was great effort to make citizens feel like they were all a part of the process (Uncle Sam posters, victory gardens, etc.) However now, many people do not even know why we are at war. I think you made a good point to emphasize how in the 70’s there was the beginning of people publicly speaking out against the Vietnam war instead of agreeing with it merely because it was considered patriotic to support our actions no matter what. It is important to delineate how it became acceptable for people to have differing opinions and stray from the status quo versus how people used to cling to conformity. You did a very good job making your thought process clear, it made it easier to follow as a reader. I am sure that if you stick to this clear outline when you construct your paper, it will be a very interesting read