The White House and the McCain campaign are both turning up the heat on mainstream media outlets, challenging their inaccuracies and going public with their complaints. In theory this sounds like a fine idea, a much needed correction to the obvious biases and just flat-out inaccuracies that any serious observer of news coverage can spot. And there is no easier way to “bond” with the conservative base than to rail against the liberal media, as John McCain did effectively with the New York Times’ lobbyist story.
But, at least with regard to the McCain campaign, dangers lurk. Their opponent, of course, is Barack Obama–not the media. The “story of the day” is ideally not “McCain attacks CNN for bias,” but “Obama gets trapped in foreign policy misstatement.” For better or worse, the public doesn’t care much about media bias. Nor does the “everyone is out to get Republicans” meme appeal to most voters (many of whom would like to “get” those same Republicans).
It was, it seems, many conservatives and the McCain camp itself which ripped Obama for objecting to press scrutiny on Rezko and Wright. The contrast between McCain–who plunges into media scrums–and Obama–who shrinks from pressers–is an effective one, if the McCain message is transparency, openness and determination under fire. But it doesn’t help to turn around and bellyache that the coverage is insufficiently supportive.
This is a tightrope for the McCain camp: to walk the line between exposing media unfairness and keeping their eye on the ball. Frankly, there is a great deal in mainstream media coverage– whether of Obama’s latest conflict-of-interest problem or of his fumble on Iran–which has been exceedingly fair to the McCain camp. And in our current media universe, the McCain people may have an easier time than any other Republican presidential candidate in political history in getting their message out. After all, Ronald Reagan managed to get elected twice in a media environment utterly dominated by three networks and a handful of openly oppositional newspapers.
There’s a point at which we have to substantially withdrawal forces. What Obama is doing is nothing new, and he’s simply building on Bush’s success. However, we’ll need a tripwire force of, say, 20K guys left behind to act as a combination border guard/Praetorian Guard to prevent the return of another Saddam. We’re talking, maybe, another 15-20 years.
It seems obvious to any observer that Iraq’s main problem over the previous years has been a lack of central power, not a surfeit of it; it also seems obvious that as the state reins in illegal armed elements, there will naturally be those who will complain about “centralization” and “strongman” tactics. There is a happy balance between a strong state and a strong civil society, and it does not involve the proliferation of illegal armed groups – by this measure, Iraq still has some measure to go towards a strong state before we can start worrying about renewed tyranny.
Sorry for the pessimism, but I don’t believe that Iraq will be able to avoid further civil conflict. The Sadr movement is laying low – but still very strong. This movement has not been de-fanged and de-clawed. The Sunni dominated provinces are playing the political game at this time and also laying low. The Sunni’s have learned that fighting the Americans drains man power – man power that will be needed for future battles with their Shia arch enemies. The issue with Kurdistan is even more muddled – and then further complicated by the ethnic divisions of the city of Kirkuk.
In the case of Iraq, a democracy can not exist for the simple fact that the people do not want it. Sure – the educated classes would like for a parlimentary democracry to evolve, but the people – the common illiterate uneducated plebes that they are – will ultimately prefer strict religous islamic dogma & decrees and tribal based laws as opposed to the complicated compromises that are required for a multi-cultural pluralistic democracy. See – these people hate each other – really hate each other. We see this pattern in all parts of the Islamic world, therefore we should assume that this pattern of political process will continue in Iraq.
Regardless of all of the propaganda regarding the success of the surge – which I won’t dispute -in Iraq we’re still stuck with a smoldering fire that only needs a bit of kindling to re-ignite into a raging inferno. No action by the US can really prevent this – other than maintaining a large garrison in this nation for decades. The costs would be out of the question for our economy that is crumbling at its foundations. And garrisoning much of the military in Iraq limits US ability to respond to other potential conflicts that may come in this current era. Yet, a garrison will have to be maintained of several brigades at a minimum plus USAF support as post #1 indicated. We’re so screwed, and so many men and women and so much U.S. wealth has been swandered on this action. I’ve said it before, so I’ll say it again. If I had the choice to re-visit the Iraq situation of 2003 – I’d choose those no-fly zones and other UN actions to contain this state rather than what we’ve now inherited.
I think people missed one of the most important pull-outs of the Iraq war already-the pullout of the international media. I’m not exactly Polly-Annish about the future but the seven levels of ecstasy that the media would experience with every terror bombing was a bit much.
Uh huh – Still just 400,000 in jordan.
Until they come back they are a 3rd front.
I missed a sentence -> 1..2 million refugees in Syria plus <400.000+ in Jordan .
They must be factored in .
To #3, A Kill-Lease Heal:
I believe you underestimate our accomplishments in Iraq and the prospects for the stability, growth, and prosperity of the country, which has become an important ally in the war on global jihadism.
In the first paragraph of your response, for example, you downplay the extent to which the Sadrist party and its militia have been weakened, marginalized, and really made completely irrelevant. Prime Minister Al-Maliki’s brave and in the end resoundingly successful operation in Basra and Sadr City in the spring of 2008 was the end of Sadrism as a major force in Iraq. Al-Sadr is part of Iraq’s sanguinary past, not its future. The trajectory of Al-Maliki’s career since that sweep through the badlands, on the other hand, has been ever onward and upward.
In the second paragraph of your comment you rehearse the by now hackneyed claim that democracy cannot work in Iraq. If you ask me, when I look at Congress in this country, democracy seems to work better in Mesopotamia than it does on the Potomac. The legally constituted government of Iraq is now in control of most of the country and is gaining authority and respect every day. While a reversal remains remotely possible, the remarkable headway that the country has achieved is now the Iraqi government’s and ours to lose or surrender. The insurgency lost all initiative some time ago, and slowly, painfully, the primary parties in Iraqi public life are learning the art of politics.
In your third paragraph, A Kill-Lease Heal, you write, illogically: “Regardless of all of the propaganda regarding the success of the surge — which I won’t dispute — in Iraq we’re still stuck with a smoldering fire . . .” If you don’t dispute the success of the surge, you can’t really call it “propaganda,” can you? You concede the reality of the successful surge and victory in Iraq. That reality exists independently of your feelings about the matter. Therefore, it is not propaganda but that strangest of things in the media of today: an actual factual fact.
In the same paragraph you worry about our maintaining a large garrison in Iraq to secure the peace. As more time passes, however, and the elected government of Iraq strengthens its legitimacy in the eyes of Iraqis, our role will be supplanted by the Iraqi Security Forces. Furthermore, you assert that a continued U. S. military presence in Iraq hamstrings the ability of our military to project power. On the contrary, Iraq is the perfect place for our guys: in the heartland of the ancient caliphate, not the only place where the war on global jihadism will be fought but almost certainly where it will be won. In any case, our armed force have to be stationed somewhere. Why not in the region where the fight is? Time and resources are now on the side of the good guys in Iraq. Hope and change have come to the Arab Muslim world.
As for your final assertion that we should have let Saddam be, that is a discussion for another time. For now let two names suffice: Uday and Qusay.
Yours respectfully,
Pedant