Media Criticism

Anyone that watched the lies and fabrications of Colin Powell as he presented the case for intervention in Iraq in 2003 is concerned with Western rhetoric about Iran. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard and other elements of conservatism in Iran have been accused of developing nuclear capabilities, consorting with Syria to intervene in Iraq and plotting the destruction of Israel. All three of these have truth to them, in particular the anti-Semitism of the Iranian elites but every decision regarding Iran will be colored with the brush of Iraq’s failures.

As a student editorial writer in college, I devoted several articles to my opposition to the war in Iraq in the winter of 2003. I think that a war with Iran would be better justified than the war in Iraq but we are already over-committed in Iraq and under-committed in Afghanistan. We have cast our lot in the Middle East by attempting to nation build in Iraq where the military threat was minimal. It is impossible now to fight in Iran without making a choice: push the nation into mandatory service to mobilize soldiers for Iran or pull everything out of Iraq to deal with Iran. Neither option is palatable but don’t worry, the Bush administration will find a way to make a choice that will please no one

While the geopolitical issues inherent in an Iranian war are obvious, there is something more basic that lies at the bottom of the conversation about war. Rep. Dennis Kucinich has been sounding the call for the House and the Senate to cut funds to the war in a demonstration of Congressional power. His rhetoric is more about promoting peace through one of the most powerful countries (for now) in the world. The Bush Administration is countering with a tired continuation of an amorphous war on terror that claims to have protected America from a 9/11-style attack in the last seven years. There is no reason for terrorists to attack us again because they have already gotten what they wanted. American involvement in the Middle East creates chaos, allows petty dictators to rise in the region and ensures a future filled with conflict over one of the world’s scarcest resources.

In the end, I see America going to war with Iran. Hillary Clinton is a poor person’s Republican trying to win the Democratic nomination to get the right label. Conservatives will disagree with me on Clinton’s conservatism but she certainly speaks like a hawk that is concerned with the same issues at Giuliani and Romney. I will never vote for Hillary Clinton for this reason but millions will. I just hope Americans know what they are getting into with either of the front runners in this race. I will cast my lot with someone concerned with the Constitution and the even division of powers in our government whoever that may be.

The confrontation between Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and George W. Bush on Tuesday was something that battle rappers and high school debate teams should watch in equal measure. Both presidents gave speeches several hours apart and Bush attended meetings in order to get out of seeing Ahmadinejad’s speech. Bush spoke about the authoritarian and dictatorial governments throughout the world including Cuba, Zimbabwe and a nation that starts with I and ends with ran.

Ahmadinejad was slightly more subtle than George W. Bush which proves that he is a bit of a buffoon in his own right. Anyone should be more subtle than Bush and Ahmadinejad’s speech was something to behold. He describes an occupying force that does not admit defeat, allows thousands of deaths and devalues the independence of other nations. I wonder which occupying force in the Middle East he could be referring to?

The United Nations offers a distinct opportunity for tyrants and democrats alike to speak to a global audience. America has always been hostile to the United Nations because a) it has no muscle and b) arguments going back to Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations indicate a hint of racism underneath political arguments. Americans do not have a right to tell the world who they can hear speak in the United Nations because it is not OUR organization. People can protest all they want but Ahmadinejad spoke, the Cubans left after Bush’s rhetorical attack and representatives from brutal dictatorships took these attacks in stride. While the arguments between Bush and Ahmadinejad were superficial and full of bile, they do show the value of open debate. You can take what you will from that statement but if we want to spread democracy to the world (like Wilson), we need to be prepared for the bruises, cuts and psychological damage associated.

There are few things I dislike more than when President Bush tries to make an historical analogy and fails miserably. Bush gave a speech yesterday at the VFW annual convention in Kansas City where he compared the push for withdrawal in Iraq to a similar push at the end of America’s involvement in Vietnam. He made a similarly strained comparison between the Iraq War and the American Revolution after Fourth of July 2007. I cannot wait for the president to compare Iraq and the Mexican-American War or the French-Indian War.

While the analogy sounds great and draws applause from some conservatives, most reasonable people know that it rings hollow. I heard numerous programs on Wisconsin Public Radio (I live in Milwaukee) where the experts were trying to hide their bile for such a poorly constructed argument. Cheney, Bush and their group of spokespeople have denounced this comparison for years now because it denotes failure. I am convinced that the orchestration of this turn by the Bush Administration was the swan song of former puppeteer Karl Rove. The dynamics of surrounding nations was different in Vietnam as it is in Iraq even though war supporters have tried to cast the former as a defeat to communism and the latter as a failure against terrorism. Bush’s speech exposed his fatal flaw which is his inability to see the gray between black and white.

Alright, this is a bit conspiracy-theorist and I don’t completely believe that. I am having an issue, however, with the way Bush’s speech at the VFW was framed all week. Every time you saw an article on Hillary Clinton speaking at the event, it would indicate that President Bush would sweep in at the end of the week as a conservative salve for veterans. While the speech was recognized as a mixed blessing by most accounts, media outlets all over the country have subconsciously helped set up Bush’s effort to recast the war as a mission of American promise. As a nation, we need to look back the faux intellectualism that is inherent in making a comparison between past and present events to keep Republicans and war Democrats honest.

Television news is rarely blasted for being too complicated; they manage to fit an entire day’s worth of information into a perfect 30-minute square (including commercials), and often they still have time to talk about Paris Hilton or Harry Potter.

The huge advantage of getting information with this way is that it requires no effort whatsoever. As long as I know how to use a remote control (sometimes more difficult than you would think–my TV has 3), I can keep up with the important goings-on in the world.

However, fitting everything “important” into 30 minutes leaves much to be desired. Television news often sticks to the bare minimum of facts and analysis necessary for understanding.

For instance, yesterday I received Stratfor’s Geopolitical Intelligence Report. Stratfor is an intelligence service based on in-depth analysis (forgive my plug here, but the free reports are excellent resources). Last week, Stratfor’s report declared that the al Qaeda that had attacked us on 9/11 was no longer in existence; the same day, the Bush administration issued a warning that al Qaeda was at full working capacity and warned Americans of a possible summer attack.

These two statements seem irreconcilable on face, but this week’s report clears up that discrepancy. Essentially, Stratfor argues that the small, well-organized terrorist group that carried out the 9/11 attacks is gone and has been replaced by a militant-style organization trained hold up in a firefight. As evidence, Stratfor looks at the recent terrorist attacks in Britain (carried out by “al Qaeda”) and claims that the failure of these attacks means that the old al Qaeda is dead. Whether this is because of the War on Terror, newly developed anti-terrorism techniques, or simply an internal collapse of the organization is unclear. Regardless, the al Qaeda that went undetected in the United States before September of 2001 no longer has that advanced capacity.

This week’s article also addresses yesterday’s National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that al Qaeda has regrouped in Pakistan and is gaining strength. When ABC News reported this, they simply reported that al Qaeda is back in full force and spoke briefly about the implications of a regenerated terrorist group.

Stratfor, however, looks at the issue completely differently. Stratfor argues that, on face, an admission that al Qaeda is stronger than ever is an admission of the failure of the War on Terror. If al Qaeda still exists today as it did in September of 2001, then our past five years in Afghanistan have essentially been wasted. An embattled administration barely able to hold onto one war is hardly going to admit the failure of another. Stratfor offers the key that unlocks this mystery: the al Qaeda spoken of in the NIE is a different type of organization than the al Qaeda that carried out the attacks on 9/11.

The difference between the two analyses–Stratfor and ABC News–is startling. It is not surprising that the ABC News report was alarming. People will keep watching the news if they’re scared, ratings go up, and ABC can sell more advertisements and make more money. Stratfor, however, is exactly the opposite; instead of running around in circles like a frightened puppy, Stratfor quietly argues that the NIE report is not as alarming as it may seem.

Interestingly enough, too, the Stratfor report makes the only coherent argument for staying in Iraq: if Iraq falls to Iranian control due to poor diplomacy, US political strife, and a hasty pullout, the region becomes threatening to western interests. Iraq may not have been a threat when we invaded, but Iran is still a monster we have yet to control. Unlike most right now, Stratfor lambastes the president for failing to make this key argument, not for refusing to withdraw troops.

Politicians and the media gain when issues like Iraq become black-and-white. There are two distinct sides with two distinct plans of action, and one will eventually win. This gives the media an easy story and the politicians an easy platform. If only the issues really were that simple.

Iraq, War on Terror, Afghanistan, Bush, Stratfor, ABC News, Media

This morning’s Washington Post article on Iraq seems disjointed at best. It begins with a description of a recent attack in Kirkuk, but it then degenerates into a haphazard conglomeration of facts and quotations about the war.

This type of reporting makes it difficult for the reader to get a clear picture of the war. On one hand, it quotes statistics that indicate civilian deaths are down, and the article seems to indicate that US control of the country is rising. On the other hand, the main focus of the article–the recent bombing–indicates a civil war of increasing intensity.

However, there is a certain advantage to fact-heavy reporting. A more coherent article would focus on either the US military gains or the regional ethnic conflicts. The result of such an article would be a more distorted perception of the war; at least the random back-and-forth of this article denies the reader the ease of an easy answer to the war.

Maybe that’s why it’s so frustrating to read.

Iraq, Kirkuk, Bombing, Washington Post

President Bush today spoke about the continuation of the Iraq war in no uncertain terms: he plans to stay the course until September, when General Petraeus reports on the situation. This is also when the funding bill for the war is up for renewal, and the only thing more important to President Bush than political progress in Iraq is political progress here at home. He has been facing opposition from Democrats for awhile now, but high-profile Republicans are beginning to break rank. The war position is no longer tenable, and Americans want us out.

What’s interesting to note from today’s Reuters article regarding the war is the amount of unopposed anti-war speech that is quoted. Remember, many of those who are publicly coming out against the war voted for it in the first place. Additionally, until now, these leaders have been quietly voting to continue funding the Iraq war as it is being conducted. Why? The political fallout for supporting the war was less than the fallout for voting against funding the troops. Now, however, the tide has turned.

One year ago, it would have been detrimental for a candidate to be strongly anti-war. Now, congressional and presidential candidates alike are trying to get their anti-war statements into the paper. There’s nothing the journalism business likes more than seeing a president backed into a corner, and with all-time low approval ratings and all-time high anti-war sentiment, it’s not likely we’ll see the Iraq story anywhere but the front page.

In this case, the interests of the media and the interests of the American public are working together. People are hungry to read about the next move in Iraq which, in turn, keeps the issue prominent in the world of journalism. Sensationalism is serving us well today.