The announcement of the successful discovery and killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi this past Tuesday was a major success and achievement in the difficult fight to quell the terrorist-insurgency in Iraq. By an interesting coincidence, it roughly coincided with an anniversary of the D-Day invasion of Normandy in WW II. One couldn't help but reflect on the contrast in both official and press descriptions of a war effort and victory. There is little comparison between the two conflicts, to be sure, but one could at least hope there would be comparable putting the campaigns and victories in context.
The death of Zarqawi and nearly ten of his staff or adherants, is not just `one win' on an interminable road. Its a success with potential that under a decisive and coherent political atmosphere, may carry the seeds of a turning point in the war. It ranks second only to getting Osama Bin Laden in its potential value and disruptive effect against the Islamo-terrorist enemy. Unfortunately we do not have such a coherent atmosphere, or any sign of understanding of the fact that wars involve alot of killing and violence, and the mere fact of that is not to be handled in a way that numbs public confidence. No war is winnable the way both the administration and the coverage are presenting. President Bush initally said the victory with Zarqawi "helps a lot" but at the same time stressed that it won't check the insurgency. Even if true, this is a very soft-pedal, even emasculating way, to treat a major victory. War is as much pyschological as it is about arms and armaments, and the government seems unable to realize they keep sending a detached and plodding message of policy inertia, rather than a steady MacArthur-like stepladder to victory as in "Operation Cartwheel" or even the precision plans and goals under Colin Powell's direction in Gulf War I. And then of course we have the media, relentlessly reporting on minutiae that would be truly staggering in a major war like Korea, let alone the World Wars. Its not really a case of them being "biased" or "spinning"; IMO, rather, the problem is the shell-shock and numbing effect it has on public perception, and to no real point. Casualties cannot be avoided in a war.
For example, I notice today, that MSCNBC reports that "A roadside bomb targeting a police patrol exploded in an outdoor market in Baghdad on Saturday, killing four people and wounding 27, police said" and that further "Gunmen in two cars also shot to death a Shiite metal worker and wounded two others in their shop in western Baghdad, police Capt. Jamil Hussein said". In addition "A mortar landed on a house elsewhere in the capital, seriously wounding a 50-year-old woman and a 2-year-old girl, Lt. Maitham Abdul Razzaq said." Finally there is mention of a gunfight between Iraqi soldiers and "gunmen" (presumably enemy terrorists) that killed two people, and that other "gunmen" in killed three Shi'ites in a drive-by shooting at a bus station.
What is so striking about this is the truly small scale of the violence, considering that this is a "war" and not a riot or gang uprising, with which such death figures more nearly find parallel. Yet it succeeds in giving an `overshadow' feeling, if not eclipsing, the major success with Zarqawi's elimination. An elimination that itself is now already being second-guessed with talk about whether maximum effort to save his life was made by the Iraqi police and U.S. troops arriving on the scene. And remember, we are talking about someone who we had just targeted with two 500 pound bombs ---- as if that action was not itself a blatant attempt to kill him.
Its truly baffling, and the analogy above actually holds part of the answer. The problem is that the war in Iraq, if not the War against Terrorism itself, is treated with a style and micro-attention that is more appropriate to major civil unrest in nations or even political clashes that result in riots. But not a full-blown war. Nor is this only on the "press" side. The government too, speaks about gains and losses in the war with a curious lack of coherency and sought for goals.
And so it is no surprise at all to read this morning on AOL: "Poll Finds Backing for Troops Survey Also Underscores Doubts on War"
Noteworthy is the first quote: "The latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that many Americans perceive the alleged atrocities against Iraqi civilians by U.S. forces as isolated incidents while saying the U.S.-led invasion was a mistake, an unusual disconnect that sets this conflict apart from Vietnam."
Actually, this is not surprising at all. The only surprise is that it surprises. For the American people are actually more insightful than the journalist pool that insists on equating this war with Viet Nam; because its the only one many of the latter seem to have studied or are personally in touch with. Rather this poll shows almost exactly where the true fault line lies: the American people know that Islamist-terrorism "started this war" on 9/11/01, indeed earlier, and most get that Iraq was supposed to help in some way. So of course we support the troops -- unlike Viet Nam, its understood that the enemy is determined to bring the fight here, as the recent plan to attack Canada's govermment at its doorstep demonstrates. But the presentation and policy defense of the war has been so abysmal and indeed incoherent in both words and rebuttals, that it is the policy that is starting to dull trust and raise doubts. A fact utterly abetted by the style of reportage, which generally goes uncountered or even put in context.
Right-wing pundits complain that the public shows a certain ennui and flagging support. Left-wing pundits complain about a seeming indifference to overstepping of certain boundries, as in possible deliberate shootings in Haditha, or torture and abuse of detained prisoners. What both are missing is that the political dialogue and partisan rancor, and above all, the surreal reporting of the war by all involved, makes public enthusiasm both difficult, and exhausting. What the partisans don't realize, whether on CBS or FOX, is that American people thought we were fighting a war --- not putting down a riot or discussing a civil rights imbroglio and domestic issue. Yet that is how the Iraq war is continually framed -- with casualties reported in a hyper-detailed fashion more akin to murders in New York, and with the govt response much like a police one -- with no pretense that the `crimes' will ever end, or that there is a "strategy". There is a similar concern with the disposition and motives of the "accused", the enemy, that again undermines any sense of the there "is us" and there is "the enemy" that is essential to maintaining public morale and faith in a conflict.
Formulating and presenting a consistent message of goals and strategy, and speaking about each gain clearly when they are made, is an essential, as is not overplaying setbacks of an attrition nature. Contrary to possible expectation, this is not the press's job, but the government's. They leave the press little choice but to chase the next sensationalist road-side bomb or event. For when clear statements of candor are not provided, goals other than ethereal ones set and stated, and both Right and Left seem to show as much concern for how their actions are perceived as they do for victory, the public can't be blamed for a swelling impatience, and yes, Doubt.
- Anthony
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
"One couldn't help but reflect on the contrast in both official and press descriptions of a war effort and victory."
So you wish 'the spin' were 'spun' a different way. Doesn't mean that it still wouldn't be spin.
"IMO, rather, the problem is the shell-shock and numbing effect it has on public perception, and to no real point."
Yes, because the bah-ing American sheep don't understand the reality of war. Are you in support of those educational committees that dumb-down school textbooks so that students (read: lambs) can know RIGHT from WRONG in big fat letters?
"For when clear statements of candor are not provided, goals other than ethereal ones set and stated, and both Right and Left seem to show as much concern for how their actions are perceived as they do for victory, the public can't be blamed for a swelling impatience, and yes, Doubt."
I'm all for coherent statements that address the issues from the current administration, but please, let's not dumb-down Americans (or accept their dumbing-down) by implying that what they really need is more fact-giving hand-holding by the press and administration, so that they can form opinions off of admin spin. How about holding EVERYONE to a higher standard than that?
One or two media/admin information rants are acceptable in my world, but at some point one must realize that they are fundamentally attacking the intelligence of the media's audience/admin's constitutents. Particularly if what one is suggesting is just a different flavor of spin so that the audience 'feels' a different way.
An interesting take...and I agree fully with Psych's response. Not enough time to fully unpack the assertions her, but consider:
* How different (in number and scale of attacks) is the war this week without Z as opposed to last week with him?
* What tactical advantage might we gain by downplaying Z's influence? Especially given that some critics contend that we were overhyping his position to begin with...
The cell-based structure of guerilla-terrorists suggests that Z's death probably means more to us than to them...Pontecorvo's _Battle of Algiers_ is a pertinent, if heavy-handed, reminder of this dynamic.
I realized I should have elaborated a bit on my prior point – after all, a rant against a rant isn’t conducive to discussion.
It is a cycle to criticize the “other side/s” for disseminating certain information in a certain way, if one’s goal is to have information disseminated in a way that is more favorable to one’s position. There’s too much that’s arbitrary in such an approach.
I may be mistaken, but it seemed from your post that you wanted the media and/or the admin to have a stronger “Rah-rah” cheering reaction to al Zarqawi’s death in order to sway public opinion to be more positive about the conflict in Iraq. That the public may not have, you attribute to the press’s failure to remind everyone of the great evil of terrorism and 9/11, or the admin’s failure to clearly state their goals and accomplishments.
Some of your contentions - that Zarqawi’s death could be a turning point in the war, that it is second in significance only to bin Laden’s capture - will only be deduced from the sobering distance of time. In other words, we clearly don’t know enough of the impact of Zarqawi’s death, or of the future of the Iraqi or terrorist conflict to be able to make such statements. You wisely state that his death could have these “potentials,” however, at the present time they are nothing more than platitudes, and trying to play that to the American people is no different than any distortions in which you think the media are engaged.
You seem to have a set notion of how war (vs. major civil unrests) should be covered, and perhaps that is a topic for discussion, though I cannot easily see how any universal standards or parameters could be set, given the nature of conflicts and allowing for the fact that each one is, in many ways, unique. Hopefully unique – it really is a pity if groups fight the EXACT same war over and over again.
I think your last paragraph begins to lay down how you think war coverage should be approached: “formulating and presenting a consistent message of goals and strategy, and speaking about each gain clearly when they are made, is an essential, as is not overplaying setbacks of an attrition nature,” but this is clearly not enough, as the administration has done this, but perhaps not with the repetitiveness or clarity you would like? Or perhaps it’s the media’s 24-hour news cycle that leaves them “little choice but to chase the next sensationalist road-side bomb or event?” In that case, the admin just hasn’t been clever enough in its media dealings to avoid the public reaction, “swelling impatience, and yes, Doubt.”
The problem with this line of thinking is in its tendency to think of the American people as automatons, who if they just received the right data input, would output the desired poll numbers. Most people, however, have a whole range of presuppositions that they use to determine how successful we have been in Iraq that can’t be summarized in facts like how many minutes Zarqawi’s death was covered, or what words the news anchor said, or whether 9/11 was mentioned in the same news presentation. And if you don’t think they are robots, you must think they are geniuses for whom the information must be carefully calculated, lest they see through it all.
Either way, it suggests a lack of confidence in the American people that is more adequately addressed at a grass roots educational level than twisting the news so that it will create the desired psychological state in that same audience. The importance of the individual and faith in his/her reasoning abilities, is, after all, a valued contribution of Western civilization, and shouldn’t be catapulted so quickly.
To anonymous:
George Will also mentions Pontecorvo's "Battle of Algiers" in his column for Newsweek this week (June 19). He writes: "when the current war began, the U.S. military studied the movie...See the film now, as an antidote to excessive euphoria about the limited damage that can be done to a decentralized uprising by the killing of even an important operative."
I had not been aware of the connection, so thank you for mentioning it.
Post a Comment