Iraq War: Battle for the American Mind

The Continuing Battle For The Mind Of The American Public Evaluating The Progress Of The War In Iraq - The View Of The Front Line Troops Vs. The View Presented By Much Of The American Media.

Recommended Reading:
1. My Year In Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, Simon & Schuster, 2006.
2. “The War You Didn’t See”, Robert C.J. Parry, Los Angeles Times, Feb. 12, 2006.
3. “Fire From The Home Front”, Nate Boaz, Los Angeles Times, Feb. 12, 2006.

Background:
America’s front line soldiers and marines in Iraq (those who are in day-to-day contact with both the Iraqi people and with the insurgents) appear to hold very different views as to what are the “true facts on the ground” (and the actual significance of those facts) than the views as reported to the American public by the U.S. media. America’s fighting troops are far more optimistic in their assessments of Iraq’s progress to-date in nation building and they are much more hopeful of Iraq’s potential for future success

Some factors which contribute to this substantial disconnect between our troops and the media include:

First, the business of reporting is extremely competitive. Reporters (as well as news outlets) compete with each other for very limited amount of on-the-air time, column inches, bylines, etc. THe sensational and the exceptions make the news. “If it bleeds, it leads.” Routine reports of successes do not get published (and if they do, they do not command page one locations, nor do they get banner headlines). Hence, the media tends to focus on blood (casualties, ambushes) and isolated problems, especially those that might be attributed to failures in command or to deficiencies in America’s political leadership (such as inadequate personal body armor; vulnerabilities of vehicles to improvised explosives; alleged abuse of detainees; etc.).

Second, the majority of American reporters are holed up in protected hotels in Baghdad. Baghdad is certainly a very violent and dangerous place. This violence is what the reporters see. This violence is what the reporters report. Outbreaks of violence between Iraqi religious/political factions is always a present danger (especially between Sunnis and Shiites). There may be periods of time when, in certain areas, the levels of violence could approach that of a low intensity civil war; however, most of Iraq (whether “most” is measured by the percentage of the total population, by the number of provinces, or by the number of cities) is relatively peaceful. Schools are open and functioning; economic development is progressing; building of housing and businesses by the Iraqis demonstrates the faith of the local populations in their future. Most economic indicators and most polls show that the average Iraqi has enjoyed a rising standard of living. (Some key national indicators such as oil production and electrical output are down. These downturns have been caused by network disruptions due to terrorist attacks and by the many years of decay that have taken their toll of these industries’ infrastructures.)

To fully understand how a reporter’s personal experience and orientation can easily influence his/her perceptions, one should consider the differences that there would be in the reports describing conditions in Los Angeles between one that was prepared by a reporter who was stationed deep within Los Angeles’ downtown high crime area when it is compared with the reports of a second reporter who was filing his/her accounts from within the upper middle class community of Santa Monica.

Adding to this problem are some of the practices of major news reporting organizations such as having their high profile people make quick in-and-out tours of Iraq and their frequent turnover of their reporters that are assigned to be on the scene within Iraq.

Thus, much of the pre-existing mindset and many already-made opinions get passed on as fact to the incoming journalists from the journalists that are already on the scene. (During the Vietnam era we called this “Saigon bar talk”.)

Third, polls and surveys show that a large majority of the media vote for the Democratic Party and that they are anti-Bush and anti-Iraq War. Further, a large majority of those that the media regard as their social and intellectual peers also vote Democratic and are anti-Bush and anti-Iraq War. Thus, like most humans, reporters and editors tend to more readily accept as “fact” assertions that are in accord with their already existing beliefs.

The orientation of much of America’s mainstream media can be illustrated by the recent public remarks of Christine Amanpour, head international correspondent for CNN. When discussing the war in Iraq, Amanpour said, “I never said the word ‘mistake’, I said ‘disaster’.” To back up her observation, she cited some statistics, all of which turned out to be untrue, “New polls are saying that the [Iraqi] people are losing hope. The basic quality of life in Iraq is now worse than it was before the war.” Her drumbeat was clear: Iraq is a swamp. We are drowning. We were wrong to go to war. We are not winning. We can’t win.

More Information: For more informative accounts of Iraq’s actual status and its progress, the reader is referred to several well-written on-the-scene narratives:

1. My Year In Iraq, by Ambassador L. Paul Bremer III, Simon & Schuster, 2006. This is an account of the status of Iraq as it was in May 2003 (a ruined country with huge and complex problems: overcrowded schools, with most children not being educated; a barely operating health system; water and sewage systems not functioning; etc.) and the progress in Iraq that has taken place since then.

2. “The War You Didn’t See”, by Robert C. J. Parry, Los Angeles Times, Current Section, Feb. 12, 2006. Parry is a senior account manager for a Century City company. Parry served for 10 Months as a First Lieutenant in Iraq. Parry describes the heroic combat experiences of his unit as contrasted with the negative reports appearing in the press. He affirms his belief of the “importance of having a fully informed American constituency involved in making the decisions of government.” However, he concludes that “when it comes to Iraq, in my experience, that constituency is poorly served by the media.”

3. “Fire From The Home Front”, by Nate Boaz, Los Angeles Times, Current Section, Feb. 12, 2006. Boaz is a second year student at Harvard Business school. After 9/11, he served for 19 months as a Marine Officer in the Middle East, including Iraq. Boaz states, “We defeated the enemy, provided security, delivered basic necessities, repaired hospitals and schools, and gave lots of candy to Iraqi kids. We Marines thoroughly believed in what we were doing. We fulfilled our purpose and morale was accordingly high.” Boaz cites several personal experiences that he had with the press where they made untrue statements concerning the feeling that Iraqis have toward the U.S. troops; the actual makeup of the resistance; U.S. troops’ treatment of Iraqi prisoners; U.S. troops “terrorizing” innocent civilians; etc.

Evidence that further supports the observations of Bremer, Parry and Boaz is provided by the actions of the American troops on the ground in Iraq. They are showing their support for the U.S. efforts in Iraq by reenlisting at rates that are far above historic norms. The number and rate of reenlistments far surpasses the military command’s predictions of the expected reenlistment rates for such combat troops. Many U.S. troops are also volunteering to extend their tours and to serve additional tours with their units in Iraq.

How extensively have these facts been reported to the American public by the U.S. media?

How Can We Prevent The Next 9/11?

Syndicated New York Times columnist David Brooks blends wisdom, common sense and clear writing skills to present significant issues to the American public. The Times would greatly benefit if their editors would pay closer attention to Brooks when formulating the Times' editorial positions.

The Bush Administration and the American people may have already lost the media war over the National Security Agency's (NSA) preemptive electronic search for terrorist communications.

The media battle began when James Risen and Eric Lightblau of the New York Times tipped off the entire world (and all the terrorist networks) that the United States was effectively intercepting their communications (and as a consequence was successfully derailing terrorist plots for future attacks on the U.S.).

Many in the media (and several Congressional leaders who certainly should know better) began a determined and concentrated assault both upon the Bush Administration and upon the NSA. They unleashed a blizzard of television and radio talk show appearances, editorials, "news analyses" and "op-ed" pieces in which they asked loaded questions (such as: "Is the government listening in on your phone calls?"; "Does Presidential snooping damage our nation?"; "Has Bush put himself above the law?"; "Do the NSA eavesdropping programs endanger the liberties of American citizens?"; etc.). They then proceeded to answer their own questions with strongly aggressive negative answers, freely employing misleading buzzwords and phrases (such as: "snooping"; "domestic spying"; "warrantless wiretapping"; "deliberately spying on American citizens"; "disregard of Constitutional safeguards"; etc.).

Brooks cuts through much of this clutter. Brooks' column, December 27, 2005, asks: "It's your call: Do you snoop or do you stand back?" Brooks' column, "Bring Back the Gang of 14", February 12, 2006, urges Senate moderates to strike a deal based on a series of truths including the need for the Executive to run aggressive intelligence programs to head off attacks and the need for Congress to responsibly oversee (rather than attack and tear down) these programs. Brooks emphasizes that it is the joint responsibility of both the Executive and Congress to protect the U.S. and that the public must hold both the Executive and Congress accountable for doing so.

Other thoughtful articles on this subject include: "Our Right To Security" by Debra Burlingame, (sister of Charles Burlingame III, pilot of American Airlines Flight 77 which was crashed by hi-jackers into the Pentagon on 9/11), Wall Street Journal (WSJ), January 30, 2006; "A New Surveillance Act", by Richard Posner, judge on the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and a senior lecturer in law at the University of Chicago Law School, WSJ, February 15, 2006; "If al Qaeda phones, tell them we can't take the call." by Daniel Henninger, WSJ deputy editorial page editor, WSJ, February 10, 2006.

"Israel's High Court Has Blood On Its Hands, Again"

DEBKA is a very informative Middle-East intelligence reporting organization.

Israel's High Court is basically a self-appointed institution (by and from within a small Israeli legal in-group). The High Court has become increasingly intrusive by countering a wide range of Israeli military operations, security, cabinet and legislative decisions. How to hold the High Court responsible for the consequences of their decisions which directly result in serious injury or death of Israelis is an important issue. The latest:

DEBKAfile reports (February 5, 2006 11:11 (GMT + 02:00))
An Israeli woman, Kinneret Ben Shalom, 53, from Petach Tikva, was slashed to death by Palestinian terrorist in a minibus near her home town east of Tel Aviv Sunday morning

[The killer] badly cut four more passengers riding in the bus before he was overcome.

The killer is from a village near West Bank town of Nablus. When handcuffed by police he recited Quran passages and refused to answer questions. He reached central Israel through Jerusalem, where the defense barrier's completion is held up by the High Court