Frank’s Case Book

To be successful in broadcast news, it not only helps to be competent but attractiveness also counts. Lara Logan of the 60 Minutes broadcast news magazine qualifies on both counts. Unfortunately, she has apparently fallen into the regrettable habit of some journalists of reporting stories that suit an anti-War agenda.

Early this year, she reported on the insecurity of the Baghdad Road, a six-mile highway linking the Baghdad Airport to central Baghdad. At that time, the road was particularly insecure with road side bombs making it a dangerous commute.  Here was a major road that after a year, the Coalition Forces had not managed to totally secure.  This was not just any road in Iraq, it is the major and most important road. The security of the road was aptly used as a metaphor for desultory progress in the entire Iraqi War.

However, it seems that the opposite situation could also represent a metaphor for progress in Iraq. The improved security for the Baghdad Road should be a mark of progress, but that metaphor has not been used.  It is not that it has been deliberately ignored. It simply seems that the symbolism of success is lost on those accustomed to thinking in terms of US military failure.

After training Iraqi troops, US troops have turned over security for the Baghdad Road to those troops. The result was a dramatically more secure road. While US troops had patrolled the neighborhoods along the Baghdad Road, Iraqi troops were far more effective. They could pick up small cultural clues, like a different Arabic accent that would allow them to isolate potential insurgents in ways that were simply beyond American troops. As Iraqi soldier Lt. Omar Tarik Ali, explained, “We are Iraqis, and we know strangers from their faces. We can stop them, and we know if they lie to us. The Americans don’t know.”

By the time 60 Minutes re-aired the piece in November 6, 2005, the situation had changed on the ground. The Baghdad Road had become much safer, but the change did not alter the report. The improvement was not unknown. It had even been acknowledged a couple of days earlier in a small article in the Washington Post on page A15.

This is but one example in a string of situations where good news on the ground in Iraq has been drowned out by a media fixation on bombings. The story of bombings should be told, but so should the good news. Most Americans do not have first hand knowledge of Iraq, so the conventional bad news bias cannot be compensated for by experience. This makes reporting more of a challenge, a challenge that many reporters have not stepped up to.

This inadequate knowledge is one reason that Americans have become more disenchanted with prospects for success in Iraq and their surprise at conspicuous successes like last week’s elections.

Among US military officers, who are on the ground, there is far more optimism. According to Ben Connable a major in the US Marines on his third tour of Iraq, “64% of US military officers think we will succeed if we are allowed to continue our work.” As to the disparity of this opinion with that of some of the chattering classes in the United States, Connable explains of his fellow US officers:

“We know the streets, the people and the insurgents far better than any armchair academic or talking head. We are trained to gauge the chances of success and failure, to calculate risk and reward. We have little to gain from our optimism and quite a bit to lose as we leave our families over and over again to face danger…”

Whether, in the long run, we succeed in Iraq will depend, in large measure, on whether voices like Connable’s are heard over the din of media despondency, and Americans appreciate the hopefulness of those close to the situation.  Ben Connable knows what is happening, but the media prefers to listen to Cindy Sheehan, an anti-war mother whose understandable sadness has grow into self-destructive bitterness fertilized by angry Left-wing rhetoric. It is up to correspondents like Lara Logan to get it right.

There are some Republicans who point to the differences between Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CN) and Representative John Murtha (D-PA) on Iraq as a sign of a deep split in the Democratic Party. In reality, it is less of a split and more a sign of the increasing isolation of Lieberman in a Left-sliding Democratic Party and the radicalization of a formerly moderate representative like Murtha. MoveOn.org, a core interest group supporting the Democratic Party, is now considering the support of a challenger to Lieberman in the Democratic primary.

For Lieberman, it has been a quick five-year descent. In 2000, he was near enough to the mainstream of the Democratic Party to be its nominee for Vice-President in a hair-thin presidential election. In 2004, he ran an honest but mediocre bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. Governor Howard Dean had radicalized the base of the Democratic Party and Lieberman was too moderate to secure the nomination. Now an important Democratic constituency is eager to dispose of Lieberman’s lucid but inconvenient voice: a voice that is too often ignored.

John Murtha has rocketed in the opposite trajectory. Considered a rather obscure pro-defense Democrat, perhaps a little of a pro-life, pro-gun Pennsylvania embarrassment to the Left-wing elements of the Democratic Party, he has obtained more national attention in the last few weeks than in his entire previous Congressional career by coming out for “immediate redeployment” of troops in Iraq. For the Left and the media being anti-Bush on Iraq apparently trumps even abortion and gun control.

While Murtha claims that 80% of Iraqis “strongly oppose” the presence of Coalition troops, Lieberman claims “Two-thirds [of Iraqis] say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today.” While both statements could be technically true, probably only one reflects the true sentiments of Iraqis.

While Murtha claims that the troops are a “broken, worn out” force. In the midst of record re-enlistment rates for activity-duty personal in Iraq, Lieberman says our troops “are courageous, smart, effective, innovative, very honorable and very proud.” Again, both statements reflect some truth, but they suggest a radically different assessment of the state of the military.

Murtha believes “that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region.” After his fourth trip to Iraq in 17 months, Lieberman sees far more progress and promise. While eager to have American troops replaced by Iraqis as soon as possible, “What a colossal mistake it would be,” Lieberman warns, “for America’s bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.”

Both men have a right, indeed a duty, to express their opinions. Both positions are borne of sincere concern. In the last few weeks, both men have been clear in their assessment of policy in Iraq. However, only one voice has been heard.

Murtha has been given far more press coverage than Lieberman. This despite the fact that Lieberman is a well-know Senator and Murtha was an obscure Congressman. Murtha’s call for withdraw neatly fits into the media template that the War in Iraq is hopeless. Lieberman’s view of the war does not fit into the press’s paradigm and is left to languish unexamined.

Some have claimed that this disparity in coverage is simply the traditional “bad news bias.” One does not report on how many planes landed safely, but the rare crash draws press attention. This explanation is not sufficient. The fact that many planes land safely is common knowledge. However, the present state of affairs in Iraq is not common knowledge or even broadly agreed upon. Therefore, the media have an obligation to report on important diverging assessments.

Joseph Lieberman gave his assessment in a Wall Street Journal editorial entitled “Our Troops Must Stay.” Usually, such a significant statement by a former vice-presidential candidate from a major party on a crucial national topic would echo in the other media. One could imagine the coverage Lieberman might have received had his message aligned with Murtha’s. Lieberman’s voice instead attenuated into the darkness on major media outlets. Murtha’s criticism of the president was a major story on the newscasts of all three major networks. Lieberman got only a sound bite on NBC .

There used to be a time, before talk radio and the Internet, when events ignored by the major news broadcasts may as well not have happened. There is some consolation in that news is now more fluid, but it would be far better for the country, if the major networks could manage even the appearance of even-handedness.

Despite genuine calls for keeping troops in Iraq until the Iraqis can stand on their own from prominent Democrats like Lieberman, Democratic Whip Congressman Steny Hoyer (D-MD), and others, the heart of the Democratic Party is strongly opposed to US military action. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) was originally vocal about the threat posed by Saddam’s Iraq, but ever the weather vane, she is toning down her rhetoric and increasing her criticism of the President’s war efforts lest other in the Democratic Party challenge her from the Left for the presidential nomination in 2008. What ever minor fissures divide Democrats, they are united by a visceral dislike of President George Bush and all other differences fade in importance. Unfortunately, shrillness is not persuasive; hostility is not leadership; and perpetual and habitual opposition is not policy

There seems to be an interesting battle ensuing for the hearts and minds of people both in the Middle East and here in the United States. Given the intense political wrangling here in the US, one might easily overlook the fact that ordinary Jordanians are angry at Abu Musab al-Zarqawi because of the use of suicide bombs to kill innocent Jordanians at a wedding party. The protest against the Jordanian native brought out over 200,000 Jordanians indicating a public relations nightmare for the terrorist. Proportionately, this would be equal to over 10 million Americans participating in a protest. It would seem that this rejection of terrorism is a major milestone in the War on Terror yet is has largely passed by unnoticed and unremarked upon in the US press.

In the United States most of the attention this week has been riveted on John Murtha, a representative from Pennsylvania. The former combat hero in Vietnam proposed that we “…immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of US forces.” The press describes Murtha has a “hawkish” Democrat leaving the impression that here is a guy who support the Iraq War all along and has lately become disenchanted

Though Murtha is hawkish in the sense that he is friendly to military procurement, he cannot rightly be called hawkish with respect to this war. Though he, like Senator John Kerry voted for the war, he soon had second thoughts. Murtha even supported Howard Dean so the notion that he has recently become a disillusioned hawk is at best misleading. However, we cannot blame Murtha for this misrepresentation. It is a consequence of the media always wanting to look at war news from a particular perspective. The story line of a war hawk turning on the President is more provocative than just more opposition from a Democrat who has long been against the war.

Murtha is certainly entitled to his own opinions, but not to his own facts. He suggests that the Americans have become the focus of the insurgents implying that if we withdrew, violence would subside. Though Americans continue to be target, they are hard targets, and insurgents instead are attacking other Iraqis in mosques and market places. Other Iraqis as opposed to Americans appear to be the target of choice. This tactic is not the hallmark of a popular peoples’ movement, but rather the sign of a minority trying to secure power any way it can.

Murtha believes one of two things. He may believe the war has been largely won and if we withdrew troops quickly the Iraqis could take care of their own security. They just need a little push to venture on their own. However, Murtha’s pessimistic assessment that the

“… war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy…”

confirms that this is not his position.

The second alternative is that Murtha believes the war is not going well and cannot be made to go well by changes in strategy. If it is not going well and we withdraw, it is likely that Al Qaeda would control large areas of Iraq and be able to launch future operations. If Murtha counsels withdrawal, then he must be concluding such an outcome is preferable to the current track. Perhaps it is possible to make such a case, but Murtha has a responsibility to explain the consequences of his recommendations.

There are real questions about the appropriate levels of troops or how much to push the Iraqis into more forward positions. Let there be reasoned debate. However, the vitriol spewed by some Democrats, taking the MoveOn.org and Michael Moore line, that Bush’s motives were not honorable are making such a debate less possible.

Only partially tongue-in-cheek, Charles Krauthammer , a former psychiatrist and medical researcher, discovered a new psychiatric condition, Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS): “the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush.” This syndrome is perhaps a lingering consequence of the contested 2000 election. There remains a hard-core subset of Democrats, usually Democratic activists, who in spite of all the re-counts are incapable of believing that Bush was legitimately elected president. Even Bush’s 2004 election win by an absolute majority (greater than 50% of the votes) did little to assuage the anti-Bush anger. An absolute majority was something even Bill Clinton was unable to accomplish in two election victories. Indeed, there are those to this day who are convinced that Senator John Kerry really won Ohio and would have had an Electoral College majority even with a minority of popular votes. Perhaps this lingering 2004 anger is aggravated by the early exit-poll results that pointed to a Kerry victory. It is hard to loose. It is even harder to loose, when you believe you have victory in your grasp.

This anger has morphed in to the “Bush lied, people died” argument that Bush deliberately lied about the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) to invade Iraq. The argument is at war with itself. If Bush knew there were no WMD and that such information would inevitably come out after a war, it would have been a very clumsy and foolish lie. Moreover, there is little plausible reason to go into Iraq except if that it involved American security. Iraq would have been happy to sell us all the oil we want for a lot less cost than a war. It is enlightening to read pre-war far-Left literature arguing that the US should not go to war because of the large number or troops that would be exposed to Saddams’s biological and chemical weapons.

It is indisputable that there was a pre-war, bi-partisan consensus that Saddam was at least actively seeking WMD. Consider the following pre-war quotes:

“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.” — Madeline Albright, Secretary of State for President Bill Clinton.

“I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons … I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.” — William Cohen, Secretary of Defense for President Bill Clinton.

“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — President Bill Clinton.

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years.” — Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.” — Senator Hillary Clinton.

“I want to be real clear about the connection with terrorists. I’ve seen a lot of evidence on this. There are extensive contacts between Saddam Hussein’s government and al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.” Joseph Lieberman, Senator from Connecticut and 2004 Democratic candidate for vice-president.

Were all these people conspiring to abet Bush in a nefarious lie?

There are only two ways to look at this consensus and to make the argument that Bush lied about WMD to get us into war in Iraq. The first is the most excusable. People making this argument may be ailing from acute BDS and are not responsible for their babbling. The second is to internally acknowledge the hollowness of the argument, but to nonetheless exploit it for temporary political advantage in spite of the fact that it serves to undermine the war effort. If one has legitimate criticisms about the Iraq War, there is a moral duty to responsibly voice them. The argument that “Bush lied” is not responsible.

For additional quotations check here and here.