Iraq in an age of 24/7 news coverage; do the hourly updates weaken America's resolve?
preg_replace('/<\/?p( [^>]*)?>[ ]*/', ' ', preg_replace('/
[ ]*/', ' ', 'From: Phillip Winn @ Center-Right')) Let's talk about Iraq.…
To: Eric Berlin @ Center-Left
Subject: Iraq as a "Media War"
Article comments
26 - Temple Stark
Contuing the conversation so readily in the comments seems odd, but I did enjoy this conversation.
It was abourt media coverage so I was interested - and as you are direct consumers of "media coverage" your thoughts were more relevant - to me, I guess - then in the other ITM's.
I get to be squishy and not offer my opinion as a member of "da media." "Get" is the wrong word as it is often quite draining not to offer opinions.
Thanks for this one.
27 - Eric Berlin
G Oren -- You continue to bring in super solid thoughts, very very well said. As a center-left Democrat, I can't find a single thing with which I disagree in your last set of comments.
I would have supported an invasion of Iraq if the inspections had been given the time to fully take place, if we were still convinved there were WMDs, and most importantly, if we could have developed both the coalition of allies and post-war plan to do the job right.
Lest we forget! The timing of this war was based on the pure political whims of Bush and his neocon supporters. There was not even the hint of a need to rush!
Finally, I couldn't agree more, G Oren, that Bush of the 2000 campaign is nothing like the Bush of today.
This is really a presidency that has been neither compassionate nor conservative.
28 - G. Oren
Eric, you mentioned patriotism in responding to my first post. We all remember how scalded we felt on 9/11, the outrage and palpable feeling that whoever committed this atrocity needed to be dealt with firmly and quickly with the best application of force, even including nuclear weapons. I remember telling my brother that night that we should nuke the whole middle east with neutron bombs - kill the people, save the infrastructure - then move in and pump all the oil ourselves, run it like a colony. In my darker moods that option still seems attractive, wonder if the pentagon planners - nah, can't go there.
We remember the pain and the resulting pride in being Americans. Elmer Fudd could have been our President on 9/11 and would have enjoyed the support of the country (I might be overstating that just a little bit). In such a circumstance, the doctrinaire left didn't stand a chance. Middle-America hasn't forgotten that what passes for the left today was born in the anti-war (anti-American?) movement of the 60's. That hangover from vietnam always rears its head when war becomes an issue - John Kerry couldn't overcome it, and he could legitimately claim to be a warrior and a peacenick (I digress). The point is, patriotism means more than grabbing the flag and boosterism, it requires sober thought and speech from our politicians and a realization that the American people (in their hips) will ultimately judge the wisdom of War. Supporting our troops is a duty we owe those who serve our country. Debating the policies that put them in harms way is also a duty, the alternative is blind faith and trust; and we're too independent for that.
29 - Eric Berlin
In the dazed and confused days post-9/11, I think many are realizing that there was not enough sober thought. You're right in saying that everyone was behind the President -- he had latitude and political strength in those months that most politicians can only dream of. If, how, and why it was squandered (as I believe it was) will be talked about for generations.
I can't agree with you more, too, about initial wishes of blind revenge. As a native New Yorker and Long Islander, I had many a cathartic laugh from Howard Stern (as brave a voice as one could find on 9/11 and 9/12 -- I challenge anyone to say different) and his calls to bomb the Middle East back to the stone age.
But cathartic jokes and sound public policy are worlds apart.
30 - Dave Nalle
>>I would have supported an invasion of Iraq if the inspections had been given the time to fully take place, <<
Ten years of inspections with ongoing uncooperative behavior and threats wasn't enough time for the inspections? Come again.
Dave
31 - Eric Berlin
The stepped up inspections, coupled with threats, were clearly working. Iraq and Saddam were well contained. There was no clear and present danger to our national security. There was no rush. It was an elective invasion.
32 - ss
I disagreed with the war before the erosion of support, so I can only guess why people who supported in principle are so pessimistic about it now, but I think PW may have summed it up with this statement:
'While in Iraq today we control more geography than ever before and continually make progress against insurgents (as they also become increasingly effective against us),'
What sells a war, over the alternative of diplomcy, is the (mis)perception that a war quickly and decisively settles all disputes.
People don't like stalemates when their own young men are dying, it doesn't seem to matter that much 'how many'.
When you use the military they expect to see a military victory, not a military stalemate while political victory is pursued.
The ironic thing is that whether war is averted or fought, the prospect for future peace ALWAYS hinges on the way the politics are handled AFTER thecrisis.
33 - Phillip Winn
ss (#32), I think two possibilities sell a war: the promise of immediate resolution, or a lack of alternatives. I don't think most people thought that World War II would be easy, or the Civil War.
34 - Phillip Winn
EB, yes, I agree that it was an "elective" invasion -- to a point. But again, let's consider Iraq not on its own for now, but ask yourself this:
9/11 has come and gone, and we've gone to Afghanistan and kicked out the Taliban. Elections are in-process, and things are going relatively well there.
Do we stop?
I don't think it is as simple as that. North Korea was making a ton of noise, Saudi Arabia was the source of 80% of the 9/11 hijackers, Iraq was shooting down our planes, China was squabbling with us over a downed plane, Libya was working on nuclear weapons, Gaza was seeing the daily murder of civilians by suicide bombers, and on and on it goes.
To do nothing wasn't, I think, an option. But what do we do? Drop laptops in Iraq? As much as I'd like to think something like that would work, I've studied enough economics to know that most of life is about incentives, positive and negative. Rewarding those who attack Americans with prosperity isn't a very good incentive.
Anyway, we had to do something, because our response in Afghanistan was simply the expected. More of the same, a tit-for-tat, more or less. Most Arab allies were telling us that Palestine had to be the #1 priority, so we sent people to Palestine and pushed for an agreement and a plan. Still more was needed.
We didn't, as some suggested at the time, wield our hammer and see everything has a nail. With all of the countries I've mentioned, we took different approaches. With Iraq, we were already in a state of war, and so we talked with them directly. With North Korea, we refused to be played against China, and insisted on multi-lateral talks. That, I believe, was also part of our China strategy, as we overlooked the military insult in order to pursue an economic relationship China wouldn't want to jeopardize and insisted that they step up diplomatically as well.
About Saudi Arabia, India, and Pakistan, there are many open questions which may not be answered for many years, until the White House archives are released. Were they given conditions to meet? It would seem so, and they have apparently met them, though in the case of Saudi Arabia, it seems that they must have barely met them!
Surely most of the countries on the list assumed we would act as we had in the past, and would have been quite happy with the status quo. We'd have nearly 2000 more soldiers still alive, a couple of hundred billion dollars less debt, and would probably (in my opinion) have counted the days until the next major terrorist attack killed thousands of Americans, urged on by our enemies who loudly shout that American is weak.
Frankly, I don't care what our enemies think of us, whether they think us weak or strong. They can insult us or respect us or fear us, and it shouldn't change our actions in the slightest bit. I mention the likely result of disengagement after routing the Taliban because our enemies thoughts leads to actions, about which I do care.
It comes back to incentives again. How do we demonstrate to the long list of countries that they can't just go back to the usual way of doing things?
Iraq was, in one sense, the low-hanging fruit. We were already at war with them, they were a known sponsor of terrorism (in Palestine), and they weren't likely to be able to actually wreak havoc on U.S. soil or (through oil) the U.S. economy like a few of the other countries on the list.
Are those the best reasons for going to war? Of course not!
But they're pretty good reasons for choosing Iraq as the next theater in an ongoing war (the "war on terror" -- man, I hate that name!).
The WMDs, had they actually existed, might have eventually pushed Iraq onto the list of "worth invading" all on its own, maybe. Congress seemed to think so, based on what they were told. Some of which, I think, we still haven't heard. Most of which, I think, was bogus. :-)
35 - G. Oren
Phillip #33 - I think you're right about WWII, Europe went to war without enthusiasm or conviction in 1939 (except for Germany and Italy - less so), much different than 1914. The Civil War is different, the populace and most politicians of both sides felt the war would be quick and easy - thus Lincoln's call for only 75K volunteers with a short enlistment (after Sumter).
But, I think you're right about the two reasons that sell a war.
36 - ss
True, people knew those wars wouldn't be easy, PW, but in terms of resolution, as far as the people who were actually fighting at the time were concerned:
The Civil War did in fact preserve the Union.
WWII did defeat the Japanese Empire and their fascist allies.
And there was no confusion about who we were going after, it was the same people who fired the first shot.
You have touched on something with the 'ease' component. After the First Gulf War a significant portion of this country started to think of war as something you fight with near total invulnerability and win in days if not hours while suffering few casualties (and most of those from friendly fire).
People weren't ready for war to be anyhting less than quick, decisive, and almost painless (at least for us.)
Now they get a drawn out war of asymetrical tactics that is being fought for long term political goals that may or may not have any impact on the prevelance of terrorism in the world.
37 - Phillip Winn
Ah, yes G, you're right about the Civil War. I'd forgotten about the initial ramp-up.
I have friends who are historians, and read historians, but I'm not one myself. Mea culpa!
38 - Phillip Winn
Thank you, ss! You have come back to my original idea for this column: I think people's expectations about war are heavily skewed.
Which is tragic, because I think we should all be very aware of how horrible war is at all times. It's nasty, awful, deadly stuff.
Perhaps you're right, though, and Gulf War I was a primary cause as much as or more than our media culture. Maybe.
39 - Phillip Winn
By the way, ss, you're looking at those wars with hindsight. The Civil War preserved the Union, which we now assume was the "correct" result. It almost didn't, though.
Ditto World War II.
We almost lost both wars, but pressed on anyway.
It will be many years before we can clearly see the effects of this "war on terror," but it does seem that terrorism is down everywhere except Iraq, and I believe that victory in Iraq would be a major ingredient in a "tipping point" in the world view of terrorism.
40 - G. Oren
Phillip #34 - The crucial question was not "do we stop", we never finished up in Afgahnistan (we still haven't). That was going to require more troops and a long search and some deal making with the Pakistanis. So the administration says, finding Osama doesn't matter, look over here at this low hanging fruit - we get to use all our smart bombs on hard targets (not jeeps on mountain trails) and we have our quick satisfying victory that we can all feel good about and we maintain the momentum of the war on terror.
Iraq was the wrong target. Solving the Israeli-Palestinian issue first (which seems now finally to be progressing) might have been a good alternative - with Arafat alive that might have been impossible, we'll never know. Certainly, maintaining the cooperation and goodwill of all those who helped in Afghanistan was important, but we would have seen a real lull after the supression of the mountain tribes and the capture or destruction of Osama and his cohort in the mountains.
What would have come next, I don't know, but why does there need to appear to be momentum in an admittedly long and shady process of supressing terrorists. Part of Bush's appeal was generated by the administration constantly trying to remind people of a threat and drawing attention to his supposed decisiveness etc.. Create a crisis atmosphere then put forth the messianic plan.
The Chinese (or almost anyone) could have smuggled tons of nuclear bombs into this country over the past five years, inside all those cargo containers we still don't check - that's a threat. Islamic fanatics could have easily crossed over either of our North and South borders and moved into our major cities with plans to destroy major traffic systems, public administration, utility systems - you name it; that's a threat. We can't seem to perform the simplest bureacratic functions of protecting the homeland, but we know how to do nation building in Iraq - to stop the spread of terrorism? The Islamic reaction to the Iraq war has made it more likely that we will be hit by terrorists - because it has made it easier to recruit terrorists from all of Islam. Our own incompetence in protecting our homeland - where the real priority should have been - compounds that likelihood.
41 - Phillip Winn
I don't think we could have made any real progress in Palestine until Arafat was dead, personally, but certainly things started moving after the invasion of Iraq. Every other Arab state was telling us to solve the Palestine/Israel problem first, but Palestine and Israel weren't playing.
Until, that is, the primary source of funding for Palestine's terrorists was removed, at which point things started happening.
All of these situations interrelate in far more complex ways than most of us (including me) can follow.
We think we're clever for following complex TV shows like Lost and Arrested Development, but life is infinitely more subtle than even those complex shows, and I think that's another area in which our media culture leaves us ill-prepared to comprehend the world around us.
As far as just sticking with Afghanistan, the "real lull" you mention would have been, I think, more catastrophic to our efforts than the real problems in Iraq.
Behind the scenes, every day, we still have some measure of cooperation from India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and others, and that is there, I believe, primarily because none of those countries want to be next on the list. I don't think we would have the same level of cooperation with any of them if we had just stayed in Afghanistan.
There's no way to know for sure, however.
And yeah, I wish we were checking more cargo containers. The cost, I think would be worth it. Even better, make the shippers pay for the cost of the inspections, and it becomes an off-the-books tariff on foreign goods, which is an interesting concept.
42 - ss
Where I guess I'd have to disagree with you, PW, is in the statemant that terrorism is up in Iraq but down everywhere else.
London, Madrid, Bali - UP
Kashmir, Isreal/Palestine - Less, but still going
Hasn't happened again here, but...
I think what the war has done, along with a flurry of unusually intense natural disasters, has been to put the limited damage terrorists can do with a single attack using their conventional methods.
That has probably also hurt war sentiment. The weaker the terrorists appear, the less people want to fight a protracted war to embarass them in their backyard.
43 - Phillip Winn
Incentives -- people forget that one shouldn't negotiate with terrorists, because it rewards terrorism and spurs further terrorism. I'm very disappointed that Spain collectively didn't understand that, and suspect that it will come back to hurt them badly unless we can win in Iraq.
Terrorist attacks in Israel/Palestine are dramatically down. They were happening nearly daily for quite a while, and now hardly ever. There was a call for a cease-fire from Hamas! From Hamas! That's incredibly good news, and should not be overlooked.
It's definitely debatable around the edges, day-to-day, whether the news is purely good. Of course it's not all good news. War never is. Overall, though, I think we're making progress, and it's certainly not as unalloyed a disaster as some believe.
44 - ss
As far as bringing improvements to the lives of Iraqis and Afghanis, yeah, I'd have to give you guys that.
I did say improvements, not freedom in the sense we would understand it, where you can be critisized or labeled for expressing an opinion, but not jailed by religous 'advisors to the court' or disappeared by angry fanatics.
But compared Saddam and the Taliban, yeah, I'd say things have gotten better for most Afghanis and Iraqis.
As far as this vital cornerstone in our great overarching plan for the war on terror...
I'm sure they tell themselves that, but come on. The bomb went off in Bali what, three weeks ago. Global terror has taken some hits to the pocketbook, but on the other hand they don't seem to be running out of devoted followers.
I think, maybe, in a fit of anger, we
did something we almost never do. We put ourselves on the line to help some poor foriegners.
45 - G. Oren
Phillip - #41
I appreciate your comment regarding complexity etc.. all we know is what we can glean from the news and publications.
I agree that it is a good thing that Egypt, Syria etc.. are willing to play ball and that Libya came clean so to speak. I think those things could have been accomplished without the Iraq war - did they need another demonstration after Gulf War I. And we have also demonstrated our limitations when it comes to supporting an army in the field - could we now make a major move against Syria or Iran?
I simply disagree that a lull in what our "big army" is doing means we would not be accomplishing anything against terrorism, or that it would have been catastrophic. All such efforts are incremental and require reforming and reinforcing. Certainly, the President would have suffered less politically from a lull than he has from not counting the cost of what he chose to do.
46 - Scott Butki
Great discussion. I'm printing out the posts to read so I can respond thoughtfully later.
47 - Scott Butki
I'm excited by this thoughtful discussion and the structure of it as well. I'd be interested in participating in it at some point (perhaps on a media or culture issue) when my life gets less crazy (about January.)
I was a bit disappointed that the title of the topic seems misleading as most of the talk had little, if anything, to do with the media.
But that was probably chosen before the discussion began.
I think Bush et al did a fine job of communicating and manipulating the media to get the war they wanted but I do think the public was sold a bill of goods, as Bush capitalized on people's emotions to get the U.S. entangled in a country that had nothing directly to do with 9/11 despite implications to the contrary from Cheney et al.
My only real quibble with the exchange by you two articulate guys is Phillip's assertion - both in the original exchange and in the comments section - that suicides and terrorist attacks have dropped in Isreal/Palestine.
I'd like to see some attribution or proof of that assertion because from I hear via the media (yes, there's that m word again) it seems to be as bad as ever with the violence over there.
48 - Scott Butki
Is this discussion over?
49 - Phillip Winn
No discussion on this site is ever truly over. However, some discussions grow less active with time. :-)
I'll look up the stats to support my claim, but I haven't had time to do so yet.
50 - Scott Butki
Great. Thanks.
Speaking of media wars, if you haven't seen Control Room, you should.
Actually that whole movie would be a good start for a similar or related debate about media coverage of wars
51 - Phillip Winn
By the way, the link I provided within the article above was probably missed, but I recommended reading a bit of Victor Davis Hanson to help provide "the other side of the story." As a pundit, he can sometimes have a tendencies to reduce those who disagree with him to soundbites, but not as badly as many do.
A few excellent recent articles of his include Getting the Military's Record Straight, An American Debacle?, and The Season of Our Discontent.
52 - Phillip Winn
Scott, I noticed that the bottom of a CNN story on a suicide bombing in Israel today contained the following information: "Wednesday's attack was the first in Israel since a suicide bomber wounded 21 people in the southern town of Beersheba on August 28."
Two months since the last attack! That is a dramatic reduction compared to prior to the invasion of Iraq. This is related to other recent improvements in the area:
"Israel and the Palestinian Authority agreed to a cease-fire in February.
Israel pulled its troops from Gaza on September 11 and turned control over to Palestinian Authority."
53 - Scott C.
Thanks to all those that contributed thoughts to this discussion. I was recently sent pictures of soldiers in Iraq doing 'positive' things that aren't shown in the mainstream media. I think the discussion of the role the media is an important one and is often lost because the 'media' controls it.
No agency is going to condemn their own actions in reporting the war. Especially with the level of competition and money that exists in the media today. They have to play to the extremes in order to 'win' and the easiest side are the negatives. The negatives play to our emotions and keep us interested. Just turn on the TV and you see evidence of the extremes everywhere. As said in #15 we have journalists trying everything to keep our attention. That is why we see every meteorologist risking their lives to cover the hurricanes this year (Al Roker falling down was the funniest). The competition has made the media a joke. The same goes for the stories covered in Iraq. Talking about rebuilding a school gets old real quick, but more soldiers dying is always a winner.
The media is no longer there to tell the whole story, it is there to tell the story that gets the best ratings. That is why we had problems at the New York Times, CBS (Dan Rather), etc. Why don't we ever talk about the damage the media can do to our efforts around the world?
We certainly know the media has influence. Our enemies routinely use it for their propaganda. I personally think our enemies have an advantage using our media against ourselves and they know it. Who knows if many of the stories we hear are actually part of the terrorists strategy. It may be why the Al Qaeda in Iraq continue to try new tactics. They may be seeing what actions create the most support for their organization.
Terrorists have to rely on two main things to survive, money and support. The money comes from their supporters, so support is number one. In order to gain new supporters, they need to market themselves. Without much money, the media becomes even more important to spread their message. Especially when terrorists are spread out around the world. It is easy for these groups to take advantage of our media b/c they know that free speech protects them and their success is driven by the extreme stories.
I think we need to find ways to better balance the stories even though they aren't as profitable to the media empires of the world. The whole story needs to be heard so that people can make their own judgements. In my opinion the media needs to examine how their actions are creating more support for terrorism and exactly how they should be accountable.
I have more thoughts, but I wanted to get back to the issue of the media for now.
54 - Scott Butki
Philip, thanks.
55 - Shark
"How much effect do you think that non-stop media coverage is having on the general American perception of Iraq?"
See "*habituation effect"
*(see also: "boredom", "death as video game", "chinese water torture", etc.)
See "mental disconnect resulting from images of war and death interspersed with commercials for breath mints"
See "remote control", "Adult ADD", etc.
See "you see what you want to see" -- ie. Dave Nalle sees cute, happy children in newly built American-financed schools -- Shark sees future terrorists reading Koran while picking the U.S. Pocketbook against a background of a civil war.
See "constant fear as a political tool" -- (eg. famous neo-con Hermann Goering's quote:
"...it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger..."
NOTE: ...he should have added: "on Television, 24/7."
See bizarre phyics phenomenon, ie. the strange quatum effect of George W. Bush's "eternally receding goalposts" in Iraq
See "the perfect anti-commercial for future military enlistment goals"
See "Gunner Palace" for ambiguities of occupation, American soldiers forced to be professional nannies in a nasty urban guerilla war, and the futility of pacifiying Iraq
See transformation of Private Jessica Lynch from Bush Administration's "hero" to skeptical turncoat who said, "They used me to symbolise all this stuff. It's wrong..."
See transformation of Pat Tillman from honorable, glorious, personal wealth-sacrificing football star/war hero to victim of friendly fire in incompetent military action
See "vehicle for vanity and ambitions of broadcast journalists hoping to score face-time and major career boost"
See "distant, impersonal, televised tragedy as great motivator for a feeling of being accutely aware of one's being/existence"
See also, "You're getting sleepy, America... sleepy, sleepy..."
[cut to faint sound of record profits arriving in oil company bank accounts, drilling in ANWAR, Halliburton executives laughing up sleeves, and really really distant sounds of over 2,000 GI's families crying...]
=========
Sorry! Gotta run! "Who's The Boss" is on!
xoxo
Shark
56 - JR
Phillip Winn: Scott, I noticed that the bottom of a CNN story on a suicide bombing in Israel today contained the following information: "Wednesday's attack was the first in Israel since a suicide bomber wounded 21 people in the southern town of Beersheba on August 28."
Two months since the last attack! That is a dramatic reduction compared to prior to the invasion of Iraq. This is related to other recent improvements in the area:
I can't find any terrorism fatalities between August 1999 and September 2000; that's over a year between attacks, prior to the invasion of Iraq. In September of 2000, there was a dramatic increase in attacks, also prior to the invasion of Iraq.
57 - Phillip Winn
Shark, all of those things are certainly possibilities, and I agree with you on a few, but I think that polls reflecting growing discontent with the war tend to demonstrate that some of your points aren't quite right.
58 - Phillip Winn
JR, the current intifada was started in September 2000, which explains both of your points.
It started in September of 2000, but while 9-11 and the expulsion of the Taliban from power in Afghanistan did nothing to slow it down, some combination of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, and the death of President Arafat did.
59 - JR
some combination of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, and the death of President Arafat...
And don't forget the flapping of a butterfly's wings in China.