Just Who’s Spinning Information on the Iraq War?
Andre references Digby. In defending the current liberal position, Digby makes several ridiculous claims about the nature of information regarding Iraq and the true nature of war itself.
Digby says, regarding Iraq, that “Everything has been so packaged and marketed from the top that it’s very difficult to get a sense of what it’s like over there.” In a comment, Wes echoes this view, asserting that the administration “sent out” Democrats Michael O’Hanlon and Ken Pollack to write their op-ed as a “favor” to the administration.
I’m astonished that anyone could believe that information on this war is somehow limited. There has never been a war in human history with more media crawling around the battlefield, nor one where the communication of unpleasant facts was more immediate and widespread. If a reporter from the BBC or Reuters offers up a juicy nugget embarrassing the US, within an hour it can be discussed by hundreds of millions of people in America, other coalition states, and every Islamic nation in the world. If this is information-stage-managing, the director should be fired.
Digby also offers this typically sanctimonious and misguided sentiment:
Thank God Joseph Heller and James Jones and Erich Maria Remarque and countless others aren’t trying to write their books today. They’d be burned as heretics by a bunch of nasty boys and girls who have fetishized “the troops” ….
Someone should really get Digby to read some books. Like Cobra II, Assassin’s Gate, or Fiasco, the most definitive, comtemporary, insider accounts of any war ever written. I know Digby has read none of these. It’s clear from her comments, and leftist bloggers are nortoriously poorly read.
But maybe she’s at least heard of these:
Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers
The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End
Willful Blindness: The Bush Administration and Iraq
Iraq - The Sore of the Planet: Things Corporate Media Won’t Tell You
Blood Money: Wasted Billions, Lost Lives, and Corporate Greed in Iraq
But to Digby, WWI was a more open media climate. A stupider statement could hardly be concieved of.
Dave - the Infidel Sage
gurusteve
E the Wise
Andre the Defiant
pg - your humble messenger
hairybeast
thompaine
Thank God Joseph Heller and James Jones and Erich Maria Remarque and countless others aren’t trying to write their books today. They’d be burned as heretics by a bunch of nasty boys and girls who have fetishized “the troops” ….
Is there anything more mainstream in the literary community than an anti-war novel? Taking an anti-war stance is hardly brave, it’s a cliche’. This brand of lefty hysteria isn’t worth the effort of a single bong-resin clogged neuron - it’s flabby and boring.
As for the article penned by Messrs O’Hanlon and Pollack; the collective nutroot ass stings because these gentlemen are genuine Dem war critics whose chops are bolstered by publication in the New York Times, which hardly a pro-war birdcage-liner. The loonie claim that these two journoes are administration shills echo more hollowly than Darth Vader singing “I Will Survive” in the Death Star shower.
They have a well-established history of being on the side of continuing this war, have been defending Bush’s policies throughout his term, and were also championing the surge. And because they claim to be rabid opponents of the war, they have no credibility from the start.
If they weren’t trying to mislead the public, then why did they include the line “As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq”? These are NOT two vocal critics, and it seems like they just wanted their opinion to count more.
And yes, maybe not Bush, but somebody wanted this editorial, which is awfully timely given the recent stories about the Pentagon putting together media task forces and conferences with bloggers. I suppose they may have had good reason, considering the push for a timetable of withdrawal, but it still is too timely to be just a coincidence.
I do want to state again that I’m not claiming the surge isn’t working, because I don’t think we know yet, and I know I don’t know yet. Even if they’re decreasing violence (which hasn’t been reflected in the actual casualty reports, has it?), there is no guarantee it will continue. The only thing that will answer this question is time. Meanwhile, we need the Iraqi government to do its job. Bush needs to demonstrate that he has an exit strategy in place beyond “hope and wait”. And if the surge ISN’T working, we need to know he’s not going to pass the buck on this decision to someone else. Seems like he might prefer to simply force someone else to call it rather than do it himself.
But anybody claiming victory with the surge seems like they might be premature, given that Petraeus himself has said we may not see results for months yet, and victories have been claimed many many times during the course of the war, victories that never have lasted long.
Meanwhile, you’re right on the point that I need to read one or more of those books.
On the RealClearPolitics blog Dave linked to:
“And there is another difference between this war and most previous ones. Despite the great advances in telecommunications in the last 70 years, it is much harder today to actually know what is happening in Iraq — and the significance of what we do know.”
“…it is much harder today to actually know what is happening in Iraq…”
That is just not true. There are a myriad of sources out there. There are primary sources in numbers and accessibility as never before in history, exponentially more.
From “Scott Thomas” to Michael Yon there are the full breadth of opinions numbering in the hundreds. Various authors on this site have given links to quite a few of these voices. This was unheard in all previous conflicts and was not technically possible.
The “MSM” also have exponentially more reporters in Iraq than has been true for any other major conflict in our history.
Just because the information out there does not fit with a person’s world vision does not mean it is incorrect, or does it?
I’m not posting an opinion on it, just pointing out that if you consider it wrong, there’s wrongness on both sides. The best liberal voices are fairly well-educated and well-informed, the worst conservative ones are just as bad as you say liberal bloggers are.
That said, it’s interesting that they would reach the same conclusion but mean it in two very different ways. Digby means that many aspects of the war have been sanitized (not showing effects of violence, an emphasis on using propaganda as a military campaign, dead troops being brought in very quietly late at night), but Tony Blankley means it that we see statistics but don’t know exactly what is behind those statistics and what significance they have. Both are right in the points they’re trying to make, but wrong in the sense that access is and has been there.
What? You have absolutely no evidence for this. The guys that wrote the report have a history that is on the record and have routinely visited Iraq. Your conclusion is a supposition made out of whole cloth with no basis in fact. Because you state this over and over, like your General Petraeus claim, does not make it so.
Unfounded absolute declarations may appeal to the mob or those who share the same views, but they will not sway the open minded or the opposition.
Wes, in regards to your #5 statement, I want to make it clear that what I was addressing what you said #3, “…it is much harder today to actually know what is happening in Iraq…”. That is what I took issue with, not your conclusion that it is too early to judge the Surge’s effectiveness.
Ralph Peters of The New York Post casts some suppositional light on why the New York Times violated its own editorial policy and published the op-ed here: New York Times Hedges Bet on Iraq Defeat
Dems are quietly beginning to back off. Public opinion on the war is nudging up. Yesterday we had a report that July marks the lowest casualty rate in Iraq in eight months. Perhaps this is all “timely” because the Surge is working, not because of a concerted right-wing propaganda campaign. Ever consider that?
Nono, that was taken as a quote from the blog that Dave linked to here:
http://constitutionclub.wordpress.com/2007/07/31/the-hinge-of-fate-in-iraq/
That was Tony Blankley talking, not me.
I do not have any evidence for thinking it was timed, only that there are a lot of things coming about talking about Iraq in a very positive way. It is 100% possible these stories are accurate, but it is also possible that there is a media blitz happening, as has happened many times in the past. You are right that I shouldn’t say it like I’m sure of it, because I’m not. But would it really surprise you if there WAS an effort underway to sway public opinion? If there were, would that seem like a bad idea?