Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

Peace Takes Courage

via Steve O of Bring it On

This new turn in the PR offensive is finally generating some attention. Check out Michael Signer’s excellent post on Democracy Arsenal here. You can also read my earlier post on Krauthammer’s column.

Yesterday on CNN, according to script, Hugh Hewitt was out chastising the media for misleading the public about the war in Iraq. He was up against Nic Robertson of CNN and Michael Ware of TIME magazine. You can read CNN’s complete transcript here. Here’s the exchange:

HUGH HEWITT, CONSERVATIVE RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Anderson, I think the coverage of the Iraq invasion right from the start, all of the way through to the present day, has been abysmal in the mainstream media.

I think that it goes back even further than that. In April of 2003, Eason Jordan, executive with this network, admitted that CNN had for years covered up atrocities that Saddam had committed because they were afraid for their reporters.

That history of bad coverage in Iraq began in the invasion when it was declared a quagmire on the third day because of the sandstorm and through all the three elections of last year.

A lot of new media that goes to Iraq, whether it’s Michael Totten, whether it is Michael Yon, Bill Rosio (ph), whether it’s Victor Davis Hanson or Laura Ingraham or especially Robert Kaplan, whose book "Imperial Grunts," is a must reading on this, report back enormous progress being made in the country. The sort of report that we simply never get because good reporters like the two I’m sharing this time with, do have to cover what Candy Crowley called, "The Boom." But just covering "The Boom," does not represent what is going on in that war. 

COOPER: Nic Robertson, what do you think?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, I do think that we’re able to get to some of the good stories, if you will, power plants being built, water plants being refurbished — covered those last week.

If you look at our coverage, Wednesday, the new parliament being formed, by everybody’s assessment, political step forward. Good news by most people’s assessment, yes.

We would have been derelict in our duty if we didn’t report that there’s still a lot of — a long way to go before they actually form a government. That is a big issue.

The day after Operation Swarmer, touted as being a great shining example of how the new Iraqi army were performing. Covered that big time. I think we do get to the so-called good stories. But also there are the so-called bad stories that are a very important part of what’s happening to this country. And we wouldn’t be doing our job and we would be failing our audiences if we didn’t — if we didn’t bring to them the stories that are relevant to how this is going to play out in the future.

I look back to the summer and fall of 2003 when we were covering stories about an insurgency. The military spokesman here at that time, was saying no, no, there isn’t an insurgency. This is bad news. It proved we were proven correct.

COOPER: Michael Ware, you’ve spent probably more time with insurgents and insurgent groups than anyone I know. What do you think? Do you cover "The Boom" too much?

MICHAEL WARE, "TIME MAGAZINE": Well, I think it’s a matter, Anderson, of trying to reflect the reality on the ground. That all of these critics who are saying that we’re not telling the good news stories, I’d like to know just how many of them have spent any time here on the ground. Or any of these people who are reporting the good news from within the belly of the U.S. military, how much time have they spent on the Iraqi street? I mean, what do you think ordinary Iraqis are talking about? Do you think they’re talking about the unfurling of the flag of democracy or that they’re grateful that the Americans have unveiled a new electricity plant, when they have not had electricity in their house for four days. When they have to queue (ph) at a gas station for two days. When the marketplace is blowing up with car bombs. When their cousins are showing up dead in the morning as a result of sectarian death squads through the night. What do you think is the refining experience for an Iraqi family?

COOPER: Hugh Hewitt, what about that?

HEWITT: Well, I asked Michael Yon about that today. I tried to contact Mr. Ware in Baghdad from my radio show. We spent three hours on this. And Michael Yon simply disagrees with Mr. Ware. He’s also spent a lot of time in the war zone, often with the military, sometimes without. Michael Totten’s done the same, so as Robert Kaplan. So I think there are many, many people with on the ground experience, who simply reject what Mr. Ware is saying.

COOPER: Hugh, can I..

HEWITT: Important thing I think, though…

COOPER: OK.

HEWITT: … is that it’s not what’s going on today alone. It’s about the context. Because five years ago, you would not have the story of kidnapped people and torture that Eason Jordan referred to.

Five years ago we did not know what the quality of life for the Iraqis was. But it was a dismal, totalitarian regime, from which escape is not possible. And So while "The Boom" matters and while those conditions are certainly desperate in many parts of the country, and Baghdad is a dangerous place, compared to what, Mr. Ware? Compared to Baghdad under Saddam? Are you arguing that Iraqis are worse off today than they were four years ago?

COOPER: Michael Ware, do you want to respond?

WARE: Yes, well, I think if you asked a lot of Iraqis, I think you’d be surprised by what the answer is. A lot of them say, what, this is democracy? The judge (ph) is, you call this liberation? And, OK, let’s look at the context, as you suggest. Let’s look at the even bigger picture? What is the bigger picture? Who is winning from this war? Who is benefiting right now?

Well, the main winners so far are al Qaeda, which is stronger than it was before the invasion. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was a nobody. Now he’s the superstar of international Jihad. And Iran, Iran essentially has a proxy government in place, a very, very friendly government. Its sphere of influence has expanded and any U.S. diplomat or seeing a military intelligence commander here, will tell you that. So that’s the big picture. Where is that being reported? 

COOPER: Nic Robertson, let me ask you, how easy is it for you to move around? I mean, in — in Baghdad. You know, obviously probably it’s easier than outside the country, but how often are you out with the military reporting stories out on patrol with U.S. soldiers?

ROBERTSON: I would just backtrack a little bit, Anderson. If I go back to my days here under Saddam Hussein, when we would sit around waiting days to go out anywhere because we wouldn’t be given permission — it’s that — if I go to right after the war when we could literally go anywhere at any time and talk to anyone and drive all over the country, that was the best time.

Now our situation now, it’s very difficult because it is not safe for us to go out and walk the streets. We can’t do that. We need to go out with security or essentially disguise ourselves to blend in with the population. We can’t drive around the country because that’s a dangerous thing to do.

If we want to get to other areas of the country, we need to embed, we need to fly with the military. Often times these days I find that very, very accommodating when we arrive, that they will give us much better access than they were ever given to doing a couple of years ago.

They certainly understand the need of our job to talk to Iraqis, and they facilitate that. But it’s not the same. And it doesn’t bring the same results as being able to go around the country freely. It is a much, much tougher environment to work in. You are far more constrained than in any other story I’ve worked on. And that does have an impact on what we produce.

I believe we still perform a very valuable job, having said all of that — Anderson.

COOPER: Hugh Hewitt, we’re almost out of time, but I want to give you the final word. And I just want to ask you, do you believe that it is an intentional misleading by reporters on the ground — not all reporters, but I guess, mainstream reporters on the ground, that they are anti-Bush and therefore intentionally only looking negative? Or do you believe that some of the negativism is just by the fact that it is more difficult to move around, you can’t just go into Iraqi family’s house because of the security situation? Do you make a distinction between it?

HEWITT: Anderson, it’s complicated because there are some fine reporters working there, and Jill Carroll’s in custody tonight. People pray for her, her safe release. And there are people who risk their lives every day to get a story, and I’ve been told by Michael Yon, for example, Michael Ware is a very, very fine reporter who goes in harm’s way to get the story. That having been said, a great deal of American mainstream media is invested in the idea that this is a disaster, that it will bring down Bush, that it was a mistake at the beginning, and disaster for the Middle East. They are pushing that agenda, quite obviously, over and over again, to the exclusion of important stories like the book by Georges Sada, Saddam’s general, like the Philippine — the documents released today, covered in "The Weekly Standard," about the Kuwaiti hostages denied by Iraq having even been there, but now revealed today to have been used as human shields by the matazahadr (ph) sons of Saddam.

There’s quite a lot not being covered because to cover it and to cover it extensively, will not only support the Bush administration decision to go to war here, but make it appear as though one of the wisest he has made. And indeed, investment in the failure of this operation is what is bringing increased contempt for the American media across the land except on the noisy left. And the noisy left doesn’t win elections. [Emphasis added by me]

So, who would you believe? Hugh Hewitt and all the wonderful untold stories (they are hidden in the same place the WMDs are); or, Michael Ware? All you have to do is listen to Michael Ware speak - you can almost feel through him the horrors he sees there.

Reporter 1, Propagandist 0

It is tried and tested that if you don’t like the message, you shoot the messenger. So it is that the Administration has embarked on a full-scale war on the media because everyone knows that if only the media said that Iraq was a bed of roses, the Iraqi people would be eating their bread with milk and honey the very next day. With that in mind, the surrogates have fanned out with ruthless efficiency. I have to admit that I admire their discipline. It is wonderfully orchestrated. First Donald Rumsfeld launched the first salvo on Sunday, then the Vice President and the President with a quick one two punch. Then they spread out on to the cable shows and sang the same tune. Nothing bad has ever happened in Iraq, just talk to the right Iraqis. Report the good news: the school openings, the bridge building, the candy distribution, and on and on. Talk to the Interior Minister about how the men in black are keeping the peace. Talk to the Vice President about the roses that the Iraqis are throwing at our troops. Just start talking to the right people and you will see the true Iraq, not the Iraq that you have conjured up with your IEDs and your death squads and your beheadings.

Here’s a sobering thought, courtesy George Orwell:

If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say of this or that event, it never happened — that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death?

Why is the Administration attacking the media on the 3rd anniversary of the invasion? The conventional wisdom is that it will rally the base. I think it certainly will do that. But I also think it is also an indication that the Administration knows that the war in Iraq is lost. They are now in political damage control mode. I would expect that any decisions regarding the strategy in Iraq will primarily be decided by domestic political considerations. The war in Iraq now is about political survival at home. It is a tragedy that the people of Iraq are only props for political theater half a world away.

General Paul Eaton’s scathing op-ed in The New York Times takes aim squarely at Donald Rumsfeld. The first three paragraphs set the tone for a verbal assault on the Defense Secretary:

DURING World War II, American soldiers en route to Britain before D-Day were given a pamphlet on how to behave while awaiting the invasion. The most important quote in it was this: "It is impolite to criticize your host; it is militarily stupid to criticize your allies."

By that rule, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is not competent to lead our armed forces. First, his failure to build coalitions with our allies from what he dismissively called "old Europe" has imposed far greater demands and risks on our soldiers in Iraq than necessary. Second, he alienated his allies in our own military, ignoring the advice of seasoned officers and denying subordinates any chance for input.

In sum, he has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically, and is far more than anyone else responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq. Mr. Rumsfeld must step down.

In labeling Mr. Rumsfeld as "incompetent", General Eaton, in one stroke, dismisses Mr. Rumsfeld as unqualified to lead the armed forces. That is a very serious charge, and if in fact, our senior commanders share this view, Mr. Rumsfeld would best serve the country by stepping down.

General Eaton also makes very clear how ill prepared we were for the post-war (Phase IV) part of the invasion. This is a familiar charge, vehemently denied by the Administration, which is now adding to the growing chorus coming from our retired senior officers. The General also charges that the invasion and its aftermath were micro-managed from Washington by what he termed the "8,000-mile screwdriver". Apparently, the lessons of Vietnam have been overlooked.

The General further charges that the military was sent in under-manned and under-equipped. In other words, from the very beginning of the invasion, we have left our military in dire straits.

Apparently the message from the military senior staff wasn’t getting through to Washington then and is not getting through now. I suspect the message left the military fine but no one was listening at the other end. Not surprising, given Vice President Cheney’s remarkable defense of the patently false today:

On Sunday, Vice President Dick Cheney did not express any regret for predicting in the days before the invasion that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators or his assessment 10 months ago that the insurgency was in its "last throes." On the contrary, he said the optimistic statements "were basically accurate, reflect reality."

There is a stunning disconnect here between those statements and what has actually transpired over the last three years. The President today kept up the positive spin without mentioning the difficulties:

President Bush marked the anniversary of the Iraq war Sunday by touting the efforts to build democracy there and avoiding any mention of the daily violence that rages three years after he ordered an invasion.

The president didn’t utter the word "war."

In their effort to convince us that all is well, the Administration is losing us, the military and the war in Iraq. It is time to stop spinning and start listening to the best advice of our generals, our experts on the region, and others to get us out of the morass we are sinking into.

Is Iraq in the middle of a civil war? Former Iraqi interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi thinks so. George Will thinks so. On the other hand, Vice President Dick Cheney sees nothing of the sort. Secretary Donald Rumsfeld agrees with the Vice President. President Bush is way ahead of both the Vice President and the Secretary and sees victory looming on the horizon.

In an earlier post I had discussed the opposing views of the crisis offered by Donald Rumsfeld and George Will. I had suggested that the Administration might take this opportunity to discuss with the American people more candidly what the situation in Iraq is like. However, it appears that the Administration has decided to give no quarter. Everyone has come out forcefully with the same talking points. It’s their story and they are sticking to it.

I am reminded of Fonzi from the sitcom "Happy Days". He just could not come out and say he was sorry. The word would stick in his throat and the most he could say was "I’m s-s-s-o-o-o..". The Administration and its allies cannot seem to utter the words "civil war". It would be comical if the situation were not so tragic. Allawi states that about 50 to 60 Iraqis are dying per day and he thinks this means "civil war". I’ll grant that Allawi benefits from screaming "fire" because he sorely needs to get back in the game. However, it seems to me 50 to 60 people being killed per day in sectarian violence smells like civil war. That is up to 420 people killed per week; 1800 people killed per month; 21,900 people killed per year. The United States military lost 58,226 men and women in action in Vietnam from 1964 to 1975. That is about 5293 KIA per year in what was a shooting war. If the current Iraqi conflict rages 11 years, the Iraqi death toll will be, at the current rate, a staggering 240,900. By any stretch of the imagination, there is a war raging in Iraq. We may choose to call it a "fashion show" for all that matters, but by any name, it is a war.

The verbal gymnastics required to dance around the "civil war" issue is illustrated in The Washington Post article by a quote from British Defense Secretary John Reid:

Every single politician I have met here from the prime minister to the president, the defense minister and indeed Ayad Allawi himself yesterday said to me there’s an increase in the sectarian killing, but there’s not a civil war and we will not allow a civil war to develop

When does the Minister think the line will be crossed? And how will he not allow it to happen? Is there some hard line between sectarian killing and civil war? If there is, we would like to know where it lies so that everyone is on the same page. He follows that quote up with an unfortunate Orwellian statement:

The essential thing is to show maximum unity in a government of national unity so that the terrorists that do want a civil war do not get their wish.

Naturally, the government of national unity should maximize its "unityness".

The Vice President is also very confident that we are headed in the right direction:

I think we are going to succeed in Iraq, I think the evidence is overwhelming.

I am still hoping that the Administration will change course, not as a sign of weakness, but as a sign of wisdom. Here’s Senator Hagel with some advice:

"It’s important that we stop this talk about we’re not going to leave until we achieve victory," said Republican Senator Chuck Hagel.

"We need some new thinking here," Hagel told ABC television.

We need to move beyond semantics and toward reasonable discourse and action.

There are two remarkable articles on The Washington Post website tonight. The juxtaposition of the two also is startling. There is an article by George Will titled "Bleakness In Baghdad" and another by Secretary Donald Rumsfeld titled "What We’ve Gained in 3 Years in Iraq". Their views of what is happening in Iraq could not be any more different.

George Will writes about the conditions on the ground:

Conditions in Iraq have worsened in the 94 days that have passed since Iraq’s elections in December. And there still is no Iraqi government that can govern. By many measures conditions are worse than they were a year ago, when they were worse than they had been the year before.

Secretary Rumsfeld writes about the conditions on the ground:

The terrorists seem to recognize that they are losing in Iraq. I believe that history will show that to be the case.

…

Today, some 100 Iraqi army battalions of several hundred troops each are in the fight, and 49 control their own battle space. About 75 percent of all military operations in the country include Iraqi security forces, and nearly half of those are independently Iraqi-planned, Iraqi-conducted and Iraqi-led. Iraqi security forces have a greater ability than coalition troops to detect a foreign terrorist’s accent, identify local suspects and use force without increasing a feeling of occupation. It was these Iraqi forces — not U.S. or coalition troops — that enforced curfews and contained the violence after the attack on the Golden Dome Shrine in Samarra. To be sure, violence of various stripes continues to slow Iraq’s progress. But the coalition is doing everything possible to see this effort succeed and is making adjustments as appropriate.

George Will sums up the effort to bring democracy to Iraq:

Three years ago the administration had a theory: Democratic institutions do not just spring from a hospitable culture, they can also create such a culture. That theory has been a casualty of the war that began three years ago today.

Secretary Rumsfeld opines on the same effort:

The rationale for a free and democratic Iraq is as compelling today as it was three years ago. A free and stable Iraq will not attack its neighbors, will not conspire with terrorists, will not pay rewards to the families of suicide bombers and will not seek to kill Americans.

What is going on here? Why such starkly different views of the same situation? Is the situation in Iraq much better than the vast majority of the media and punditry would lead us to believe? Or is the Administration refusing to face some very uncomfortable truths about the results of its policy? I am not on the ground in Iraq, I cannot say for certain. However, I can make a best guess based on the information available to me from the Administration and the various media outlets. The preponderance of evidence based on the Administration’s own assessments over the last three years and the information from the media leads me to believe, and I believe common sense suggests, that the situation in Iraq is not going well.

I suggested in two earlier posts today that in order for the Administration to salvage the situation, it needs to be more forthright with the American people. (You can read the posts here and here).

The first two paragraphs of Secretary Rumsfeld’s article are very telling:

Some have described the situation in Iraq as a tightening noose, noting that "time is not on our side" and that "morale is down." Others have described a "very dangerous" turn of events and are "extremely concerned."

Who are they that have expressed these concerns? In fact, these are the exact words of terrorists discussing Iraq — Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his associates — who are describing their own situation and must be watching with fear the progress that Iraq has made over the past three years. [Emphasis added by me]

As long as this Administration continues to equate any views that do not correspond to theirs with the views of the terrorists, they cannot begin to have an honest discussion of the situation. In any situation, including a war, when one side is objectively losing, and it is clear to everyone, including the enemy, that one side is losing; it does not negate the objective truth of the loss. We may loathe the fact that we are losing, but it does not change that truth. Certainly, voicing the fact that we may be losing does not make the speaker, e.g., George Will, an agent of the enemy.

On this third anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq War, I hope we reflect on where we are honestly and move forward positively. The American people are resilient and can handle the truth, regardless of where it might lie. It is time to level with the American people and regain their trust and support. I hope we have reached the bottom of the curve, and things do genuinely get better for us and the Iraqis from here on out. We have lit a powder keg, and my hope is that the very smart people within the Administration, including the Secretary of Defense, will find a way to contain the fallout.

The latest Newsweek poll shows the President with a 36% job approval rating. Only 29% of those polled support President Bush’s handling of the Iraq war. Remarkably, 42% of the public supports the censure of the President over the wiretapping program.

These poll numbers, even though they are great news politically for the Democrats, should not give comfort to most citizens. There is almost three years left in this presidency, and a weakened President will not serve the interests of the American people. We need a President who can confidently navigate the treacherous foreign policy waters ahead. A President distracted by internal political worries is playing a very weak hand against challengers such as North Korea or Iran. Our adversaries, and would be adversaries, surely benefit from a President hamstrung by a clear lack of public support.

What is to be done? Should the public get behind the President or should the President get behind the public? First, I think the Administration needs to realize that they are in the midst of a serious crisis of confidence from the American public. Even though the Administration is right to point out that they should not be making decisions based on polls, the situation now has gone well beyond the public mood in one or two isolated polls. It should be obvious to anyone that the President has lost his mandate. It is than incumbent on the President, in a democracy, to respond to the clear will of the governed and adjust rhetoric and actions to regain popular support. The American public has a collective wisdom and the longer the Administration chooses to ignore that wisdom; the greater harm is done to the country, at home and in international affairs.

As this Administration, I hope, begins to recalibrate to regain its mandate, it is the responsibility of the opposition party to not play every retreat for political gain. The stakes are very high for the country and the Democrats need to encourage this Administration to move toward accommodation without playing politics. We will be looking for Statesmen in the years ahead - it is time for true leadership on both sides of the political aisle.

In his weekly radio address,  President Bush is quoted by The Washington Post as follows:

"The security of our country is directly linked to the liberty of the Iraqi people," Bush said. "We will settle for nothing less than complete victory."

President Bush also said that we will "finish the mission" and that "more fighting and sacrifice will be required". What does "victory" look like? And what "mission" are we currently engaged in? And why is our security directly tied to the liberty of the Iraqi people? These questions need answers - and not the same old talking points. Talking points cannot turn the tide of public opinion when the reality on the ground is so starkly different than the statements being made. This Administration needs to engage the American people in a forthright discussion of our mission and how we will redefine victory, and why we must subsidize the Iraqi people’s struggle for liberty.

The refrain "we will fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here" is beginning to ring hollow. Who is the "them" we are fighting? Surely, the vast majority of the insurgents are not the ones who attacked us on September the 11th. We need to narrow our definition of "them" and start engaging the right "them" if we are to mitigate the threat of terrorism on our shores. I can’t imagine that a single American wouldn’t support the President in going after the right "them" in the defense of America and most civilized peoples.

General William Odom, former Director of the National Security Agency, compares Iraq to Vietnam in Nieman Watchdog. It is a very interesting read. I think both these experiences illustrate the fallacy of viewing circumstances on the ground through the prism of ideology rather than how they really are. The Iraqi people’s politics are probably much more driven by internal dynamics between the various ethnic groups and communities, than by some monolithic drive toward liberty or democracy. It is a fairly trivial observation that we are destined to fail in our goal of establishing a democracy while trying to sort through the complexities of Iraqi politics, the undercurrents of which we barely understand.  All this, it seems to me, was a fairly predictable outcome. The question then really is: what was our exit strategy when we planned this intervention?