HOME
DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE LETTERS SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
The Iraq Trap
Watch
Out What You Ask For
by
Norman Solomon
Dissident
Voice
November 6, 2003
Media
outlets are filled with bad news about Iraq. A theme is emerging: This
administration doesn’t know how to run an occupation!
Those
who oppose President Bush may welcome the recent shift in the media climate.
But when war-makers get frustrated, they’re inclined to heighten the violence.
And some critics of the occupation’s management are reinforcing assumptions
that lead to more bloodshed.
The
New York Times Magazine started off November with a long essay by David Rieff
lamenting that “the United States is playing catch-up in Iraq.” Rieff declared
“the mess that is postwar Iraq is a failure of planning and implementation.”
His piece epitomizes what’s wrong with so much of the media’s criticism of the
occupation.
Rieff
mainly blamed “the mess” on a half-dozen factors – mostly tactical and
bureaucratic -- such as “getting in too deep” with Iraqi exile Ahmed Chalabi,
“shutting out” the State Department, “ignoring the Shiites” and “too little
planning, too late.”
But
the razor blade in Rieff’s polished apple came with the heading “The Troops:
Too Few, Too Constricted.”
When
the efficacy of the occupation becomes the issue, the door swings open for the
kind of escalation being propounded by some members of Congress -- more troops.
If 130,000 American soldiers won’t do the trick, how about 200,000 or a
quarter-million or 300,000? If an iron fist won’t do, how about two?
Although
they might seem to be simmering in the same pot, there’s a big difference
between a critique that challenges the legitimacy of the occupation and a
critique that condemns how the occupation is being run.
Faulting
the president for a lack of military effectiveness in Iraq sets a media tone
that could be partly stilled, at least temporarily, by any number of military
maneuvers. A U.S. missile attack on Iran or Syria, on the pretext that
“terrorists” are entering Iraq from across the borders, could provide a new
round of red-white-and-blue euphoria.
The
U.S. news media usually love missile strikes. No American casualties. Lots of
TV imagery displaying the Pentagon’s technological prowess.
Those
who goad and taunt the Bush gang for failure to subdue Iraqi resistance often
seem to be accepting the legitimacy of the occupation itself. Yet some key
questions must be asked and re-asked.
How
could a legitimate occupation come from an illegitimate war, which U.N.
Secretary General Kofi Annan described as a violation of the U.N. Charter?
Shouldn’t the U.S. government turn on-the-ground responsibilities over to the
United Nations and no longer try to manipulate the U.N.’s role in Iraq?
Unlike
the “major” Democratic presidential candidates receiving high-profile media
coverage, Rep. Dennis Kucinich is asking such questions -- and providing
forthright answers. For several weeks now, he has been promoting “a plan to
bring our troops home and turn control of the transition over to the Unite
Nations.”
Kucinich
points out that “sons and daughters of the U.S. are dying in increasing numbers
for the benefit of war profiteers with close ties to the Bush administration.
There was no basis for a war in Iraq. It was wrong to go in, and it’s wrong to
stay in.”
Those
who respond that Kucinich has no chance of winning the 2004 presidential
nomination are missing the point. Truths must be spoken. Political discourse
must be widened. And much of the public is open to illumination of underlying
issues.
The
results of a nationwide survey -- conducted in the summer and fall by the Pew
Research Center -- indicate that “the bitter debate over war in Iraq has
expanded the already wide partisan gap over national security. ... Nothing
illustrates this growing divide more clearly than attitudes toward the
Reagan-era concept that the best way to ensure peace is through military
strength: 69 percent of Republicans agree, compared with just 44 percent of
Democrats.”
Released
on Nov. 5, the Pew report notes: “That 25-point gap is the largest in the 16
years the Pew Center has asked this question. And independents are increasingly
in sync with Democrats in their national security views.”
The
occupation of Iraq must be challenged not merely because the Bush administration
miscalculated or because it’s inept, but – much more importantly -- because
militarism and empire are reprehensible. Instead of ceding the media ground to
those who demand a better occupation, we should widen the debate by giving
voice to a very different vision.
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
Other
Recent Articles by Norman Solomon
* War,
Social Justice, Media and Democracy
* The Steady
Theft of Our Time
* Cracking
the Media Walls
* The
Politics of Media Filtration
* Brand
Loyalty and the Absence of Remorse
* Media
Tips for the Next Recall
* Unmasking
the Ugly “Anti-American”
* California's
Populist Revival
*
“Wesley
& Me”: A Real-Life Docudrama
* The
Get-Rich Con: Are Media Values Better Now?
* Triumph
of the Media Mill
* The
Political Capital of 9/11
* The
Quagmire of Denouncing a “Quagmire”
* 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
* The
Politics of Impeachment