Earlier today, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld delivered a speech at The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies. He starts off by citing the following Pew research center poll regarding the prospects for building democracy in Iraq:
- 63% of people in the news media thought the enterprise would fail;
- So did 71% of people in the foreign affairs establishment; and
- 71% in academic settings or think tanks.
“Interestingly,” he goes on to say, “opinion leaders from the U.S. military are optimistic about Iraq by a margin of 64 to 32 percent. And so is the American public, by a margin of 56 to 37 percent. And the Iraqi people are also optimistic. I’ve seen this demonstrated repeatedly -- in public opinion polls, in the turnout for the elections, and that tips to authorities from ordinary Iraqis have grown from 483 to 4,700 tips in a month.”
- He continues: “First, should we be optimistic or pessimistic about Iraq’s future?
The answer may depend on one’s perspective. Indeed, one of the reasons that views of Iraq are so divergent is that we may be looking at Iraq through different prisms of experience and expectation.”
This is probably the single most intelligent and honest thing I have ever heard Rumsfeld utter. Indeed, this statement is extremely accurate. It is perhaps no surprise that polls indicate that almost everything about the conflict in Iraq boils down to partisan affiliation. I believe that this is because Bush and the Republican leadership has chosen to conduct the conflict in a partisan manner, all the while aggressively pushing through a far-right platform in Congress. Then again, this opinion is undoubtedly shaped by my own political and ideological perspective. If more members of the administration were to “sell” this conflict with the above statement in mind, I believe they would be far more persuasive than simply dismissing all other viewpoints as either ignorant or treasonous.
- “By contrast, the Iraqi people see things somewhat differently: they can compare as it is Iraq today, to what it was three years ago -- a brutal dictatorship where the Secret Police would murder or mutilate a family member sometimes in front of their children, and where hundreds of thousands disappeared into Saddam’s mass graves. From that perspective, Iraq today is on a vastly different, and a greatly improved path.”
I do not disagree with Rumsfeld on this point but it should be noted that based on the polling that I have seen, there is really not enough evidence to support this conclusively. Any polling done in Iraq is almost guaranteed to lack scientific or methodological rigor and accuracy due to the security situation, and there were certainly none during the Saddam regime that can be relied on. Of course I want the Iraqi people to be hopefull because that hope is vitally necessary to maintain public confidence in the years ahead, but thus far I have not seen any evidence that this is the case, particularly when the people most likely to respond to a poll are almost by definition the least concerned about danger to themselves and their families.
- Rumsfeld then goes on to note that a full understanding of the conflict requires “an understanding of both the good and the bad, and the context for each,” and he then lists some problems (such as the violence, casualties, and lack of help from Iran and Syria) and some positive developments (such as an emerging media in Iraq, and a developing political process).
“To be responsible, one needs to stop defining success in Iraq as the absence of terrorist attacks.”
There are really two points to be made about this statement:
1- It is a straw man argument: no one that I am familiar with has ever claimed that success means no more terrorist attacks. Nevertheless, that being said, last month witnessed over 23 successful suicide attacks and that was the LOWEST in 7 months. That the number of attacks declined is great news, of course, but the situation in the country is still precarious and when terrorist attack continue to slaughter dozens of people (mostly civilians) every day, that is not reason to celebrate. Indeed, according to Kevin Sites and his mini-documentaries, "Iraq remains one of the most violent and dangerous places in the world."
2- I find it interesting that the Secretary of Defense should make this claim while so many of his fellow conservatives argue the exact same point as he laments: that success SHOULD be defined as an absence of terrorist attacks, at least in America. This, after all, is the argument many have made about the fact that we have not been attacked since 9/11, is it not? Bush is doing a great job protecting this country and as proof, we have not been hit again, right? I don’t buy it, and for the same reasons Rumsfeld apparently doesn’t.
- “The terrorists’ method of attack, simply put, is slaughter. They behead. They bomb children. They attack funerals and wedding receptions.
This is the kind of brutality and mayhem the terrorists are working to bring to our shores. And if we do not succeed in our efforts to arm and train Iraqis to help defeat these terrorists in Iraq, this is the kind of mayhem that a terrorist, emboldened by a victory, will bring to our cities again -- let there be no doubt… But, simply put, defeating extremist aspirations in Iraq is essential to protect the lives of Americans here at home.”
Although the argument here is limited, I do agree with the main point Rumsfeld is trying to make here, which is why I support continued American involvement in the rebuilding of Iraq.
From this point, the Defense Secretary starts launching into that oh-so-popular conservative pastime, media-bashing.
- “We have arrived at a strange time in this country where the worst about America and our military seems to be so quickly taken as truth by the press and reported and spread around the world -- with little or no context or scrutiny -- let alone correction or accountability -- even after the fact. Speed it appears is often the first goal, not accuracy, not context.”
I don’t disagree with anything he says here and except the idea the implication that the media are somehow against the troops or assume the worst. Remember that accusations of torture, abuse, and humiliation at Abu Ghraib were being made by human rights groups long before the media ever finally picked it up and only then because they got photographs. Similarly, if one compares what the red-cross and other organizations accuse our troops of compared to what the media report on, I think the US media has been extremely generous in what it reports.
Nevertheless, the last sentense is undoubtedly true. In fact, if the media are held in such contempt by most Americans, it is a reputation well-deserved. However, several caveats should be made here that neither Rumsfeld nor other conservatives want to address:
1- There is no such thing as “the media” in today’s technological age and to lump all news services together is tremendously useless. When I use the phrase here, I must specify exactly what I mean: When I say “media,” I am referring to my own observations of national cable news networks such as CNN and MSNBC. I refer to them only because since I get the vast majority of my news on-line from on-line newspapers and magazines and I do not watch FoxNews or other news programs at all, this is pretty much the only thing I can intelligently talk about.
2- The above being said, I find the print media to be tremendously balanced and accurate, highly detailed, and extremely fair. In the Washington Post, to offer just one small and random example (which, by the way published a full transcript of Rumsfeld’s remarks for people like me to scrutinize), a random story on Iraq, such as one I read recently, discussed how 10 Marines were recently killed in Fallujah. The following excerpt comes from the same article:
“A little more than a year ago, thousands of U.S. and Iraqi troops leveled much of Fallujah -- which had become Iraq's main insurgent stronghold -- in the largest offensive since the 2003 invasion. During two weeks of fighting, they established a strict cordon around the city, 35 miles west of Baghdad, establishing four heavily guarded entry points equipped with metal detectors and bomb-sniffing dogs.
Following the assault, according to local politicians and military commanders, Fallujah had gradually become one of the safest and most stable cities in Anbar province, which spans the vast desert west of Baghdad to the Syrian border and is considered the heartland of the country's Sunni Arab-led insurgency. In August, 14 Marines were killed by a roadside bomb that tore apart their armored personnel carrier in the Anbar city of Haditha, but Fallujah has experienced little heavy fighting and few large-scale attacks in recent months.”
3- No one in the administration seemed to object when these same outlets that currently call into question our success in Iraq were staunchly and (in my opinion) unquestionably PRO-war in virtually every way prior to the conflict. MSNBC even created a show called “Countdown Iraq” months before the start of the conflict just, it seemed, to drum up support for a war it assumed was inevitable, and justified. Reports of self-censorship and studies of pro-war bias have comfirmed this.
4- The media has always been attracted to the motto: if it bleeds, it leads. In a classic scene from the Michael Moore film Bowling for Columbine (yes, THAT Michael Moore), Moore goes to a street on LA that is frequently reported as a war zone only to find a relatively peaceful street block. How can this be, he wonders? He uses this to ponder why the media have created a culture of fear in our country with their continuing barrage of negative and frightening stories about child kidnappings (even when the actual rate of such things has continued to go down), the threat of African killer bees, shark attacks, etc., etc. This is bias and unfair but not in any way one could call "partisan." That conservatives believe actual warfare would be any different than domestic media coverage is a mystery to me.
- “Recently there were claims by two Iraqis on a speaking tour that U.S. soldiers threw them in a cage with lions. Their charges were widely reported -- still without substantiation.”
Maybe it’s me but as an avid reader of the news from many different sources, I am totally unaware of this story, and thus it could not have been too “widely reported.”
- “Not too long ago, there was a false and damaging story about a Koran supposedly flushed down a toilet, and in the riots that followed people were killed.”
It is true that the story Newsweek ran about the Koran being desecrated was wrong, and retracted, and this is unfortunate. However, much like the famous forged documents that ruined Dan Rahter’s career, Newsweek may have done nothing more than frame a guilty man. As many media outlets have since reported, “American and international media have widely reported similar allegations from detainees and others of desecration of the Muslim holy book for more than two years.” Indeed, back in May, according to CNN, “The International Committee of the Red Cross gathered "credible" reports about U.S. personnel at the Guantanamo Bay naval base disrespecting the Quran and raised the issue with the Pentagon several times, a group spokesman said Thursday.”
So please, Mr. Rumsfeld, do not hold a single article as proof of bias when the article may only have been wrong in its authentication rather than its substance.
- “And a recent New York Times editorial implied America’s armed forces -- your armed forces -- use tactics reminiscent of Saddam Hussein.”
Although I cannot speak to an editorial I have not read, I do not find it impossible to believe that there have been certain instances of abuse comparable to what was experienced under Saddam. Now, I do not allege that any American officer would utilize torture and wanton brutality the way Saddam did, but “tactics reminiscent” of the former regime? Not impossible, given all of the evidence I have seen. In fact, according to Allawi, the first Prime Minister of Iraq, "'People are doing the same as [in] Saddam's time and worse. It is an appropriate comparison. People are remembering the days of Saddam. These were the precise reasons that we fought Saddam and now we are seeing the same things." He added that he now had so little faith in the rule of law that he had instructed his own bodyguards to fire on any police car that attempted to approach his headquarters without prior notice, following the implication of police units in many of the abuses. He comments were not directly aimed at US troops, but against the Ministry of Interior and also against Iraq militias, Sharia law courts, etc., but nevertheless, the charges are pretty damning.
- “Consider this: You couldn’t tell the full story of Iwo Jima simply by listing the nearly 26,000 American casualties over about 40 days; or explain the importance of Grant’s push to Virginia just by noting the savagery of the battles. So too, in Iraq, it is appropriate to note not only how many Americans have been killed -- and may God bless them and their families -- but what they died for -- or more accurately, what they lived for.”
The problem, as I see it, is that they died for a cause that was fundamentally mistaken and perhaps futile (although only time will tell us that). Consequently, there is no need to explain why the soldiers of WWII and the Civil War died: their cause was unquestionably just. In Iraq, even the best that can be said is that our intelligence was grossly incorrect and we went to war with the wrong premises. This does not, in my opinion, diminish the heroism and dedication of those brave troops who risk their lives doing their duty and serving their country, but the liberation of Western Europe from Nazi occupation and ending slavery they simply ain’t. Thus any attempt to actually take Rumsfeld's advise and give context for the conflict will only bring up questions that the administration believes are treasonous.
- “Further it is worth noting that there are 158,000 Americans in uniform who are sending e-mails back to friends and families, telling them the truth as they see it. And much of it is different than what those in the United States are seeing and reading about every day.”
I do not doubt that this is true, but if it is, then why doesn’t the government do more to publicize those accounts, good and bad? Why not create a web-site designed solely for troops on the field to publish their thoughts and observations anonymously for the world to see? I for one would be curious to read them and I am sure so would many others. However, somehow I suspect that they would not all be as glowing as the administration wants us to believe. After all, there is no shortage of military or ex-military personnel who have come out against this conflict and say the exact opposite.
No comments:
Post a Comment