Closing ranks to protect a failure


This opinion piece from Truthout is must reading. Norman Solomon documents the fact that the major media is closing ranks behind stay the course policy in Iraq. Major culprits being the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal and the front page of the New York Times, which paper seems to have learned nothing from the Judith Miller affair. The entire thing is an eerie replay of the Vietnam War experience, as Solomon points out. One major difference between the two: there were lots of people who believed, almost to the end, that we could win in Vietnam. There's no one who seriously believes we can win (however that term is defined, which is a question in its own right) in Iraq. The point appears to be that we should somehow hold off losing, in the hope that something will magically happen that will allow us to... what? Convincingly declare victory and leave? The fantasy outcome (a democratic, pluralistic, peaceful Iraq) is a chimera. The eventual outcome is uncertain, except that it will be worse than what we had with Saddam in power. This entire column is worth reading. Here are some nuggets:

The American media establishment has launched a major offensive against the option of withdrawing US troops from Iraq.

In the latest media assault, right-wing outfits like Fox News and the Wall Street Journal editorial page are secondary. The heaviest firepower is now coming from the most valuable square inches of media real estate in the USA - the front page of the New York Times.

The present situation is grimly instructive for anyone who might wonder how the Vietnam War could continue for years while opinion polls showed that most Americans were against it. Now, in the wake of midterm elections widely seen as a rebuke to the Iraq war, powerful media institutions are feverishly spinning against a pullout of US troops.
Under the headline "Get Out of Iraq Now? Not So Fast, Experts Say," the November 15 front page of the New York Times prominently featured a "Military Analysis" by Michael Gordon. ...

Reporter Gordon appeared hours later on Anderson Cooper's CNN show, fully morphing into an unabashed pundit as he declared that withdrawal is "simply not realistic."

Sounding much like a Pentagon spokesman, Gordon went on to state in no uncertain terms that he opposes a pullout.

If a New York Times military-affairs reporter went on television to advocate for withdrawal of US troops as unequivocally as Gordon advocated against any such withdrawal during his November 15 appearance on CNN, he or she would be quickly reprimanded - and probably would be taken off the beat - by the Times hierarchy. But the paper's news department eagerly fosters reporting that internalizes and promotes the basic worldviews of the country's national security state.

That's how and why the Times front page was so hospitable to the work of Judith Miller during the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. That's how and why the Times is now so hospitable to the work of Michael Gordon.

...

    These days, media coverage of US policy in Iraq often seems to be little more than a remake of how mainstream news outlets portrayed Washington's options during the war in Vietnam. Routine deference to inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom has turned many prominent journalists into co-producers of a "Groundhog Day" sequel that insists the US war effort must go on.

...
Whether in 1968 or 2006, most of the Washington press corps has been at pains to portray withdrawal of US troops as impractical and unrealistic.

Contrary to myths about media coverage of the Vietnam War, the American press lagged way behind grassroots anti-war sentiment in seriously contemplating a US pullout from Vietnam. The lag time amounted to several years - and meant the additional deaths of tens of thousands of Americans and perhaps 1 million more Vietnamese people.

...
    The standard media evasions amount to kicking the bloody can down the road. Careful statements about benchmarks and getting tough with the Baghdad government (as with the Saigon government) are markers for a national media discourse that dodges instead of enlivens debate.
 
Solomon goes on to make the point that media approved "critics" of the war are those that criticize the execution of the war, rather than the false premises on which it was begun. It never occurs to these "critics" that the initial illegitimacy of the war has in a very real way, doomed it to failure. Moreover, the idea that a plan for "success" is possible is a fantasy for a reason pointed out by Joe Lieberman. We must accept the fact that George Bush will be president for two more years. George Bush has spent a lifetime failing at everything he does. He is emotionally invested in keeping this war going on his terms, and leaving the mess behind for his successor to clean up. Even if success were theoretically possible, it is impossible with Bush in the catbird seat. And no, Daddy won't clean up for him, even if he had the ability to do so. In the end, George won't stand for that.

The failure is going to come. The question is when. From a purely political standpoint Democrats must decide whether it is best if it comes on Bush's White House watch, or on that of the next, hopefully Democratic president. It's starting to look like it might be best for the Dems to push for a quick end now. Whatever happens, the Republicans will be looking to blame Democrats. What they need is a tactician who can somehow force Bush to be complicit in the disastrous exit.

As an aside, I have to point out that the eventual defeat in Iraq is the best hope for saving our republican (small "r" by all means) form of government and preventing this country from setting itself up as a military, rather than an economic/cultural empire. The failure gives us an outside chance to reverse the steps we've taken toward military empire abroad and totalitarianism at home. It will be difficult to reverse what may be a historical inevitability, but it would have been impossible had we "won". It's just too bad that Bush had to pick the most politically explosive part of the world to prove his manhood. He should have found his own Grenada or Panama.

Addendum: After writing this last night I read some of the reaction to the Times article by its readers in the Letters section. It was overwhelmingly negative. Many of the writers made an extremely good point-that our very presence is the cause of the problems in Iraq. Increased troop levels, particularly in small increments, are as likely (if not more likely)as not to do more harm than good.
Posted: Friday - November 17, 2006 at 03:19 PM          

©