Today has been a historic day. With preliminary estimates indicating a voter turnout of some 11 million, well over the lower projections and indicating a high turnout, this month's election in Iraq is yet another step forward toward success, and the difficult goal of providing an alternative example of free choice to people of the Mideast that are still burdened by despotism and violence.
Without denying the fact that the White House public relations have done a very poor job of both articulating the goals and specifics of various actions in the prosecution of the Iraq War, the basic idea has always been sound. With few exceptions, like the Gulf Emirates and Turkey, the choices in the Arabian peninsula have generally since WW II fallen into choosing between a charismatic or strong despot or monarchy, or an Islami-fascist style of fundamentalist theocracy. Starting in 2003, for better or worse (this writer feels for the better) America and its allies have sought to provide another choice --- some form of elected representation, of freely chosen or at least accountable representative government. That's a laudable goal, and even for those unconvinced that intent was benevolent, or warranted, today's election should serve as reminder again that however it exactly came about, that this is a future worth trying for Iraq, as well as the United States, and the world.
It is this basic fact that more than any other throws into stark relief the deplorable condition of editorial comment and vision these days, whether in print or televised. Put frankly, all partisan bickering aside, each success in Iraq is arguably more proof of the mass media's failure. Failure to have vision, to have any sense of daring, or able to see beyond the next moment. Since our forces went into Iraq, most of the media to varying degrees have worked tirelessly to stress the failures, the setbacks, the problems, involved in warfare. And only America's faults. They have used their power in a very real way to constantly "talk down" the war's possibilities, and our fighting forces. Even the character of our military is hastily and almost eagerly impugned and called into question on the basis of isolated incidents. Incidents which have little importance in the grand scheme of things, and reflect a dangerous emphasis on the opinions of the enemy and of political forces with the interests of the United States far from their mind.
The same holds true for the chronicling of the attacks of the enemy. Footage re-run constantly, the losses stressed, and hyperbolic commentary. While similar coverage of our military's victories or successful sweeps or even reconstructions get scant comment. In one sense, the losses inflicted by suicide bombers -- while individually tragic and significant --- in the larger sense are little more than the kind of attrition strafing and bombing fighters inflicted on our forces daily in World War II or Korea, or any conflict. Attrition losses cannot be avoided, and while every effort must be made by officers in command to limit them, they should not be allowed to dictate the verdict on a war effort. For example, attrition losses did not lead to the U.S. Navy abandoning the push through the Solomons in the 1940's, because the overall success was clearly discernible. The election in Iraq today is just such a discernible success and step toward progress. Yet except for these most obvious of moments, too big to ignore, the mainstream media generally focuses only on the results of a suicide-bombing, or isolated examples of misconduct. With an overwrought anxiety for the welfare of the enemy and a magnification of our cost that is mind-boggling, given the scale of what we are attempting.
No one with any knowledge of the history of the region could have expected this attempt to establish any form of representative government in Iraq to go either easily, or swiftly, let alone, free of murderous violence and opposition from reactionary forces. Today's election shows that process is still moving forward despite the enemy's efforts, just as it does in a war that is being slowly but surely won. Its really high time many Democrat party leadership and the media get on board with the potential, and stop carping about how we got here. Very few good decisions were made diplomatically after the end of the first Gulf War to present. We need to accept that and work with the moment and toward the future. Now is not the time to lose heart and go wobbly at a time of historical paradigm shift potential. Backing away from the task we have both been handed, and stumbled into, is not an option now.
- Anthony
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
"for those unconvinced that intent was benevolent, or warranted, today's election should serve as reminder again that however it exactly came about, that this is a future worth trying for Iraq"
As one who might resemble this remark, I want to start out by indicating wholehearted agreement for the sentiment that, things being what they are (and were), the Iraqi vote is cause for rejoicing. (One might wish for such a passionate and involved--not to mention committed--electorate in the U.S.). Iraq is well on her way to self-determinated government, and we would do well to take as little part (and credit, IMHO) as possible. The question and issue for me is not now and has not ever been about what is right or wrong for Iraq, but what is right or wrong with the government in which I can and do have some responsibility and influence.
Which brings us to:
"No one with any knowledge of the history of the region could have expected this attempt to establish any form of representative government in Iraq to go either easily, or swiftly, let alone, free of murderous violence and opposition from reactionary forces."
The problem is, exactly that, whether by hubris or malicious/greedy intent, our leadership willfully guided intel to fit a conclusion (rather than the other way around) and in so doing robbed a nation of the chance to honestly and openly debate the costs and benefits of taking action against Saddam; for what its worth, that is a duty that Americans would have probably abdicated anyhow.
I can find cause for celebration for the humanitarian outcomes of taking on Saddam's regime while deploring the tendency by the current administration to consolidate power in the Executive.
Just in case it got lost in all of that rambling...I agree that the Fourth Estate has also abdicated its duty in prosecuting truth. I would point out, though, that news outlets on both sides of the aisle are guilty of allowing partisan pandering narrow their journalistic focus.
"Since our forces went into Iraq, most of the media to varying degrees have worked tirelessly to stress the failures, the setbacks, the problems, involved in warfare. And only America's faults. They have used their power in a very real way to constantly "talk down" the war's possibilities, and our fighting forces."
Does this media focus on the negative provide hope for the enemy forces or erode support among the American public, if the two can be separated for a moment? Which is more disastrous?
There doesn't seem to be a great deal of concern among average Americans that Iraqis have a representative gov't, and I wonder if that's really a media failure, a gov't spin failure, or that Americans just aren't interested in nation-building, especially when the benefits aren't immediately visible (but the losses in American lives certainly are).
For terrorists, I suspect that the American media's seeming self-hatred could support a view that America would collapse if they are consistently targeted, here or abroad. THAT is dangerous, and it's extremely unfortunate that the negative sensationalism that the media oftem provides is what sells.
Post a Comment