HOME
DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
The
Quagmire of Denouncing a “Quagmire”
by
Norman Solomon
September
6, 2003
When
I hear pundits warn that Iraq is becoming a “quagmire,” I wince.
“Quagmire”
is a word made famous during the Vietnam War. The current conflict in Iraq
comes out of a very different history, but there are some chilling parallels.
One of them has scarcely been mentioned: These days, the editorial positions of
major U.S. newspapers have an echo like a dirge.
Of
course, the nation’s mainstream press does not speak with a monolithic
editorial voice. At one end of the limited spectrum, the strident and influential
Wall Street Journal cannot abide any doubts. Its editorials explain,
tirelessly, that the war was Good and the occupation is Good -- and those who
doubt are fools and knaves. (LBJ called such dissenters “Nervous Nellies.”)
The
Journal editorial writers fervently promote what used to be called the domino
theory. The day after the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad blew up last month, the
paper closed its gung-ho editorial by touting a quote from Centcom commander
Gen. John Abizaid: “If we can’t be successful here, then we won’t be successful
in the global war on terror. It is going to be hard. It is going to be long and
sometimes bloody, but we just have to stick with it.”
As
the summer of 2003 nears its end, most newspaper editorials are decidedly less
complacent about the occupation of Iraq. Some lambast the Bush administration
for deceptive spin, poor planning and go-it-alone arrogance. A big worry is
that the U.S. government now faces a quagmire.
During
the late 1960s, that kind of concern grew at powerful media institutions. After
several years of assurances from the Johnson administration about the Vietnam
War, rosy scenarios for military success were in disrepute.
But
here’s a revealing fact: In early 1968, the Boston Globe conducted a survey of
39 major U.S. daily newspapers and found that not a single one had
editorialized in favor of U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam. While millions of
Americans were demanding an immediate pullout, such a concept was still viewed
as extremely unrealistic by the editorial boards of big daily papers --
including the liberal New York Times and Washington Post.
Yes,
some editorials fretted about a quagmire. But the emphasis was on developing a
winnable strategy -- not ending the war. Pull out the U.S. troops? The idea was
unthinkable.
And
so it is today. Consider the lead editorial that appeared in The New York Times
on the same day that The Wall Street Journal was giving Gen. Abizaid the last
word. “The Bush administration has to commit sufficient additional resources,
and, if necessary, additional troops,” the Times editorialized. The newspaper
went on to describe efforts in Iraq as “now the most important American foreign
policy endeavor.” In other words, the occupation that resulted from an entirely
illegitimate war should be seen as entirely legitimate.
A
week later, the Times followed up with a similar tone -- reminiscent of the can’t-back-down resolve
that propelled countless entreaties for more effective “pacification” during
the Vietnam War. Articulating what passes for dissent among elite U.S. media,
the Aug. 27 editorial cautioned that “the United States will pay a high price
in blood and treasure if the Bush administration persists in its misguided
effort to pacify and rebuild Iraq without extensive international support.”
Troops
from other nations are being imported. But that does little to make the
occupation of Iraq less of a U.S. operation. The Vietnam War had its
multilateral fig leaves too; the war was supposedly an “allied” effort because
it included participation from Filipino, Australian and South Korean troops.
When
the Bush administration was striving to use the United Nations last fall, New
York Times columnist Thomas Friedman applauded the attempt to manipulate the
world body. For a while in November, he was happy: “The Bush team discovered
that the best way to legitimize its overwhelming might -- in a war of choice --
was not by simply imposing it, but by channeling it through the U.N.”
Current
media appeals for multilateral policies rarely go beyond nostrums like giving
the handpicked Iraqi leaders more prominent roles, recruiting compliant natives
and foreigners for security functions, and getting the United Nations more
involved. But whatever the U.N. role in Iraq turns out to be, the U.S.
government still insists on remaining in charge.
Despite
the compromises, that’s the bottom line. The Bush administration is not letting
go of a country that has so many attractive features to offer -- including a
central geopolitical foothold in the Middle East, access to extensive military
bases for the Pentagon, and ... oh yes ... about 112 billion barrels of known
oil reserves under the sand.
Norman Solomon is Executive
Director of the Institute for Public Accuracy (www.accuracy.org) and a syndicated
columnist. His latest book is Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn’t Tell
You (Context Books, 2003) with Reese Erlich. For an excerpt and other
information, go to: www.contextbooks.com/new.html#target. Email: mediabeat@igc.org.
* The
Ten Commandments: Are They Fair and Balanced?
* Dean
Hopes and Green Dreams: The 2004 Presidential Race
* If
Famous Journalists Became Honest Rappers
* Schwarzenegger
Run May Trigger Tremors in GOP
* NEWS
FLASH: This is Not a "Silly Season"
* Too
Err is Human, To Truly Correct is Divine
* US Media
Are Too Soft on the White House
* Green
Party Taking the Plunge for 2004
* Media’s
War Boosters Unlikely to Voice Regret
* Summertime
. . . and the Politics of Money is Easy
* Tilting
Democrats in The Presidential Race