Expectations gap rankles Iraq
US 'golden moment' in Iraq continues to dim.
The Christian Science Monitor
July 2, 2003
Iraqis begin warming to US presence
A recent poll shows nearly two-thirds of Baghdad
residents want the US to stay until Iraq is stable.
The Christian Science Monitor
July 1, 2003
Do I detect a certain ambivalence here?
I have no idea what's actually going on at the CSM, but in my experience, this kind of journalistic schitzophrenia often reflects an ideological split within the editors ranks -- leaving the hapless reporter caught in the middle. One day comes a call to go do a story about A, and make sure you hit points (b) and (c). The next day, the marching orders are to do a story about anti-A, making sure to hit points (anti-b) and (anti-c).
I think this battle between competing realities is much like the one currently being waged in the minds of the American people, as they try to understand what happened to America's glorious victory over Saddam. Unfortunately, perhaps, for the Bush administration, the arc of public opinion appears to be following the same course it did in Vietnam, but at an accelerating speed.
The second CSM article is actually the more interesting one -- at least historically. It falls into a category, familiar to students of the Vietnam War journalism, of the "it's not as bad as it looks" story:
Nearly three months after the fall of Baghdad, and amid still chronic shortages of basics like electricity, Iraqis and US military and civilian officials alike say relations are beginning to mature, as both sides adjust to the new reality across Iraq."We are now in a situation where there is no substitute for the Americans in our city," says Taha Bidawi Hamid, mayor of Fallujah, 30 miles west of Baghdad, where US troops killed 16 protesters in late April.
Well, there aren't any substitutes as far as Mr. Hamid is concerned, anyway:
last month, a rocket-propelled grenade hit the back of his neighbor's house, and there was recently a gun attack that sprayed 10 bullets at his office.
But, not to worry -- all that hard work by the Coalition Protection Racket . . um, Protective Authority, is finally starting to pay off:
That shifting attitude reflects the results of a first-ever poll of Iraqis, reported by CBS earlier this month, that nearly two-thirds of Baghdad residents want US forces to stay until Iraq is stable and secure, and that only 17 percent want US troops to go home immediately.
Now by last month, the reporter means early June -- several geological ages ago, in terms of the evolution of the war. I remember seeing a story about the same "poll" when it first came out, and wondering how one conducts a scientific survey in a city like Baghdad -- with no phone service, virtually no electicity, and street crime raging out of control.
Pollster: (to looter) Excuse me sir, but do think the Americans should stay in Iraq until stability has been restored?
Looter: (carrying a TV) Oh my yes, there are still many places we still haven't looted. Bush good!
Back during the Vietnam War, Time magazine practically had the franchise of this type of reporting. In fact, if you've seen Francis Ford Coppola's extended cut of Apocalpyse Now (Apocalypse Redux), there's a trully bizarro scene of Marlin Brando -- looking as big as the dark side of the moon in his black pajamas -- reciting a stack of Time clippings about the improving prospects for a U.S. victory.
Again, I don't know what's going on at the CSM, but these kind of stories are usually the result of pressure from above -- from the administration, or its friends, transmitted through a sympathetic publisher or senior editor. I suppose we in the anti-war camp should welcome these stories, since they are an important part of the process by which the war hawks are gradually exposed as fools and liars.
Ditto, we should probably give thanks for Bureaucrat Man, who continues to engage in what Ralph Peters, the retired general and military commentator, calls a "Stalinist" exercise in reality denial:
"Day by day, conditions in Iraq continue to improve,'' said Bremer. ''Freedom becomes more and more entrenched and the dark days of the Baathist regime are further and further back in people's memories.''
Bremer, I think, is clever enough to realize his non-stop lying is quickly ruining his carefully tended relationship with the media, which a few weeks back was talking about how "decisive" and "organized" and "deft" he was. But Bremer also knows what his bosses expect: complete and constant conformity to the party line.
O'Brien: But I tell you, Winston, that reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal.
Nobody has to hold any fingers up in front of Bremer's face to get him to say "5" -- or 3 or 28 or -14, whatever the party requires. He understands, I suspect, that those who take a bullet for the team now (Pointdexter, Abrams, etc.) may still reap their rewards somewhere down the road -- in another Republican administration, if not another life.
But the administration is trying to use classic 1984 methods when we most definitely don't live in a classic 1984 world. The flow of information is simply too wide and too deep for Big Brother to control. If the Bushies were truly wise to the ways of our wired world, they would simply answer all questions directly, honestly and -- above all -- at great length, burying journalists in a mountain of information and analysis, until the inevitable overload set in and the media collectively decides it's had enough of the Iraq story and moves on to more important topics, like the next installment of Star Search.
But instead, the administration appears determined to dredge up every bad memory of Vietnam -- even as it denies another "Vietnam" is in the making:
Faced with growing indications that some of the daily attacks against U.S. soldiers in Iraq are organized and coordinated, U.S. administrator Paul Bremer and Army officers say they want as many as 50,000 new troops in the theater, according to knowledgeable sources in Washington.A possible request by Bremer for the additional troops was discussed at a national security council meeting several days ago, but the White House has indicated it would be reluctant to agree to such a large increase, the equivalent of more than two divisions, the sources said.
A source outside the administration but familiar with the deliberations said: "The White House is aware that Bremer wants them. They're not happy about it. They don't want a formal request because then, politically, there's fallout."
Just change the name "Bremer" to "Westmoreland," and those paragraphs could have been ripped right out a David Halberstam's The Best and the Brightest.
Militarily speaking, the administration may well be right: Iraq may not be the new Vietnam (although it could be something even <worse . ) The journalistic parallels, on the other hand, are undeniable. What the administration needs to worry about is the fact that popular opinion also seems to be moving down the Vietnam track -- and moving down it in a hurry. These Gallup poll results, which I wrote about yesterday, have to be a source of at least some concern in Karl Rove's office:
Source: Gallup
Notice how quickly this national case of "buyer's remorse" has developed, compared with it's Vietnam War counterpart:
Source: Gallup, Washington Post
In terms of second thoughts, Americans would seem to stand about where they did in the summer of 1967 (the famous "summer of love," a label which I suspect no historian in his or her right mind will ever attach to the summer of 2003). That was three years into the war. We've been in Iraq for not quite three months. Things move faster on the home front these days.
The war hawks would like to spin this as a good thing -- i.e. "We've only been in Iraq for three months, so how come you commie 'rats keep calling it a quagmire?" But politically, it's hard to see that line selling. As any smart marketing or advertising guy will tell you: In this day and age, three months is almost an eternity.
On the other hand, the same Gallup results show Bush has plenty of rope left to hang us with. His approval rating is still north of 60%, and people still seem to think he's a "strong leader" -- which politically seems more important than being a "competent leader," or even a "sentient leader." Americans also appear to feel that having stuck both feet in the Iraq quagmire, they might as well take a mudbath:
Although a modest majority of Americans, 56%, say the situation was worth going to war over, a much larger majority, 69%, say that it is worth having U.S. troops in Iraq now.
It may be that time actually is on Bush's side -- not because the Iraq is going to be better than Vietnam, but because the American attention span has gotten so much shorter since Vietnam. Who knows? By the time the enormous costs and consequences of the war in Iraq have become obvious to everyone, the press and the public may have changed the subject.
So when does the next Star Search begin, anyway?
what strikes me from article 2 is this:
"We are now in a situation where there is no substitute for the Americans in our city," says Taha Bidawi Hamid, mayor of Fallujah
now...hmmm...
would that be an iraqi elected mayor of Fallujah or an American appointed one?
inquiring minds want to know...
Why do they like having an Attila the Hun for a leader?
Because Americans think of themselves as John Wayne. (And yeah, I know that John Wayne wasn't even John Wayne.)
We'd rather be tough and wrong than meek and right. But I think that we're ultimately going to end up looking meek and wrong, once the Iraq situation matures a little.
No government we install, democratic or not, will be able to resist uprisings without our help for years to come. So we're stuck there, unless we resign ourselves to a fractured Iraq--partly run by Shiite clerics, and partly run by Kurdish separatists.
It will be tough for the administration to sell the Iraq mission as a success when November 2004 rolls around with 200,000 troops still in country and hundreds of casualties, even if we do have some facsimile of a government in place. And the smart money, I think, says we won't even have that yet.
"Just change the name "Bremer" to "Westmoreland," and those paragraphs could have been ripped right out a David Halberstam's The Best and the Brightest."
Bingo. I was wondering when the names were going to start matching up. The tipping point in this war, (as I've said earlier) was when the first oil pipleine was sabotaged. All we need now are pictures of big spiked booby traps that come swinging out from dark alleys and a helicopter lifting from the roof of the Sadam Palace #2.
You are correct about the information/public opinion curve being compressed and accelerated. I'm not sure if this is a good thing or not. But, that's another discussion...
If I were a betting person I'd say Bremer is toast. He will not survive or be rewarded in the (republican) world to come. He is becomming that radioactive.
I'd say Bremer is toast. He will not survive or be rewarded in the (republican) world to come. He is becomming that radioactive.
Well, that's what I thought about Pointdexter.
So where exactly are these 50,000 troops going to come from? Reserves? National Guard units?
We don't have the men to spare and the request sounds more and more like the end of 1967, not the summer. We realistically need an army of 3-400,000 men just to control Iraq and it would help if there was an army of 100,000 Iraqis to go along with them.
Of course, that isn't going to happen. If we scrape the 50K troops together, that's it. The bottom of the barrel. And we may not have that if we get sucked into Liberia, where we are now sending troops again. The UN wants us to actually stop the fighting and if we commit the Marines, that's it.
It's my understanding that the Vietnam debacle moved the military to create a political "tripwire" for just this sort of scenario, which is already sawing at the ankles of the Bush administration. The Army modified its force structure so that "peacekeeping" was not something it could do. What the brass apparently wanted was to make sure that any sort of prolonged deployment that didn't involve the Army's primary mission of breaking things and killing people (at which, as we've seen, they're very good) would be undertaken by the reserves and the National Guard, the latter of which is under the control of state governors. The hope was that bringing the cost of the deployment home in such manner would act as a brake on over-confident politicians.
As that famous recent photo ("Two Weekends a Year, My Ass") indicates, that strategy is already paying off.
As that famous recent photo ("Two Weekends a Year, My Ass") indicates, that strategy is already paying off.
That reminds me: How on Earth are the National Guard and the reserves going to recruit under these conditions? A few G's toward college sounds great when you're talking about doing some extra weekend calisthenics; it's radically different when you're talking about indefinite deployment to a Middle Eastern hellhole.
Rummy may have spoken too soon about not needing a draft. If this war requires us to refill Iraq as the tours of duty for all the folks in the 3rd ID run out, where are the troops going to come from?
I've been reading the Monitor for a long time, and I think you're right about one thing in particular: the Monitor is covering all sides of an issue that isn't clear at all. Scott Peterson, a gem of a reporter, can't be all places all times, and I think the impulse is to attempt to be even-handed as possible when the situation is so uncertain.
As an aside, I've come up with a nickname which I think fits Rumsfeld to a t:
Captain Quagmire
I wish I was good enough with a pen to design a uniform.
Billmon, I think Lupin just issued a challenge. ;)
I must share this with you guys:
A very funny page by a Brit.
No trick, no spam, no flash, no pop-ups, etc.
Saw some discussion about "where are we going to get the troops" to continue the occupation.
Over at SFFT they are openly discussing the "D"-word.
The Draft Debate Lies Ahead
Class: U.S. History
Teachur: Miss Schlessinger
Subject: The 2nd Iraq War
Date: July 2, 2103
By: Billy Feather, 6th grade
One hundred years ago, the United States declared war on the country of Iraq, which doesn't exist anymore. Back in those old days, when the USA was the dominant power, People thought the US's power was overwhelmning. They, or at least some of them, thought that they could bully any other coyuntry into doing anything they wanted it to do. That was when George Bush and his collaborators had taken over the country. He is now known as the 13th floor president because no building wants to be known as having a 13th floor! The Iraquis had been unhappy with their leader, Sadam Hussane. He would pull off people's fingernails with pliers. So George Bush ordered the US military to attack. Billions and billions of ordrinary Iraqui citizens were burnt and scrambled. When George Bush ran out of things to bomb the people ros up and annhiliniated the US troops. It was a very bad time in US History. Because George Bush insulted all the other countries they would not help him when the attacks came. They were happy to see the US burning. After President Dean was assassinated by the Faux News people (or Fox News - no one is sure anymore) and the country was plunged into the "Black Decade" then the lynchings began. Ken Lay was the first to go. This was a despicable time in US History and I would have hated to be alive then. Even though they all said he desrved it. It was a terrible time with bombs and germs and all those nukes in the Middle East. We were grateful to the Canadiens for helpiong us out and accepting control of the renegades. Now that the US is composed only of Florida and Texas we are much smaller but even mor patriotic than ever. Today I am attending another redistricting party! It will be lots of fun with baloons and clowns!
Thank you Miss Schlessinger and I hope I get a good grade on this paper.
Hmmm...given all the Vietnam analogies, does this make you our era's Iggy Stone, Billmon? ;-)))
does this make you our era's Iggy Stone, Billmon?
There is no higher praise . . .
As a Bremer fan, billmon, I'm sure you'll treasure this quote from the LA Times, which I've included in my latest Groundhog Day report rounding up news from Iraq:
Bremer, in his news conference, grew testy at a reporter's suggestion that many Iraqis were unhappy with the U.S. presence.
"I've traveled around this country a lot and spent four days on the road this week, and I didn't meet any of those people you're talking about," he said. When the reporter, of National Public Radio, insisted that he was not alone in hearing such opinions, Bremer answered: "Good — maybe you can do my job better than I can."
Hardly any sixth grader write that well now. In a hundred years? Fuhgeddaboudit.
Of course, I meant to type
Hardly any sixth grader writes that well now. In a hundred years? Fuhgeddaboudit.
I guess "s" has gone missing. Perhaps it's with "w", "m", and "d".
Swopa, that is a great quote. On This American Life there was a very interesting segment that talked about how isolated and removed Bremer was to the Iraqis. I suspect that he just can't understand why he can't get no respect when he is issuing edicts from inside Saddam's air-conditioned palace. (June 20, episode 240)
Act Three. You Talkin' to Me? Adam Davidson reports from Baghdad on the charismatic, ambitious young Americans who want to bring freedom and hope to Iraq, if only the Iraqis would listen to them. There is a ominous information gap between the U.S. officials running the country and the Iraqi people being governed. (18 minutes)
Too bad Dubya was partying too much during Viet Nam to learn a damn thing.
"Hardly any sixth grader writes that well now"
Well, slightly OT, but I would be greatly interested to see what the patrons here think about the prose of this young twelve year old...
The American flag stands for the fact that cloth can be very important. It is against the law to let the flag touch the ground or to leave the flag flying when the weather is bad. The flag has to be treated with respect. You can tell just how important this cloth is because when you compare it to people, it gets much better treatment. Nobody cares if a homeless person touches the ground. A homeless person can lie all over the ground all night long without anyone picking him up, folding him neatly and sheltering him from the rain. School children have to pledge loyalty to this piece of cloth every morning. No one has to pledge loyalty to justice and equality and human decency. No one has to promise that people will get a fair wage, or enough food to eat, or affordable medicine, or clean water, or air free of harmful chemicals. But we all have to promise to love a rectangle of red, white, and blue cloth. Betsy Ross would be quite surprised to see how successful her creation has become. But Thomas Jefferson would be disappointed to see how little of the flag's real meaning remains.
Charlotte Aldebron, 12, wrote this essay for a competition in her 6th grade English class. She attends Cunningham Middle School in Presque Isle, Maine.
How many "first Iraqi polls" have there been? Reuters says that
According to Iraq's first opinion poll, released on Thursday, around 73 percent of Baghdad residents say U.S. troops have failed to bring security to their troubled city.
However, only 17 percent of respondents said U.S.-led forces should quit Iraq forthwith. Around 51 percent wanted them to stay until a permanent government can be elected.
51 percent isn't "nearly two thirds". And what did the remaining 32% of Iraqis think?
I would be greatly interested to see what the patrons here think about the prose of this young twelve year old...
I taught college freshman to write expository prose at a major, if not particularly distinguished, state university for a while, and few of those freshmen wrote as well as Ms. Aldebron.
Re Charlotte Aldebron: in five or ten years we might see that name in print again, if she maintains that quality of writing.
Thanks for posting that, Gary.
L
Cross-post with Matt, sorry.
But nearly 20 minutes apart, how did that happen?
L
How to Find Weapons of Mass Destruction
Here is something that makes so much sense, a child could have thought of it! Use Google to find those pesky WMD's!
MattS posted this over at The Left Coaster.
go to www.google.com
type "Weapons of Mass Destruction" into the search bar
click "I'm Feeling Lucky" rather than "Google Search"
read the error message. your search continues.
I think the most interesting angle here is the one a schizophrenic editorial staff at CSM. It's one thing to appear even-handed, but it's quite another to have two stories in such direct conflict on consecutive days, absent a huge change in information.
Cheers Billmon.
L
Well, maybe not the most interesting angle.
Seems bullshit-fatigue is starting to get to me.
L
Louis;
"Schizophrenic publishing" isn't that unknown within the print media. The New Republic, before the Afghan War, often had articles opposing each other on given issues of the moment. (It might be doing so now, but I gave up giving them money when it became obvious that they would only publish their preferred version of reality in the Middle East and no one elses.) One of my local newspapers, The Seattle Times, is doing that somewhat now, as the owner is pro-Bush and most of his key local writers most defintely not.
I'm not disputing the fact that it's common, but I do think it's interesting to note and I've only rarely seen such a specific example as this one.
Perhaps it's for lack of looking.
L
The other thing which got me here is that both articles aare ostensibly by the same writer. Now there's an odd turn.
L
Re: US occupation and rebuilding Iraq:
Japan was occupied solely by the United States. Like Germany, Japan formed a representative democracy with a new constitution. Japan also rebuilt their industries using aid from the U.S.. Occupation ended in 1952, and Japan has since become the United State's strongest ally in the East, and also its main economic competitor around the world.
Q: When did WWII end?
Anyone?
A: 1945
Lets see, that means the US occupied Japan for 7 years before Japan was able to stand on its own.
Hmmm... how long have we been in Iraq?
Some global history q-and-a
GEORGE W BUSH: Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations including our own. We will remain in Iraq as long as necessary and not a day more. America has made and kept this kind of commitment before, in the peace that followed the World War.
Of course many of you will say that he is a liar, but we all know where that discussion will lead (wmd anyone?)
Homework: Find out (using your new found skills of googling) how popular we were in the eyes of the Japanese during this time.
... looks like the links didn't make it.
Homework assignment #2: Find the links (again using google) to the highlighted text above.
How long before Charlotte Aldebron is rounded up and herded into a camp under Patriot II for being an obvious terrorist sympathizer?
His approval rating is still north of 60%, and people still seem to think he's a "strong leader" -- which politically seems more important than being a "competent leader," or even a "sentient leader."
I continue to be outright boggled by this little fact myself. Why do they like having an Attila the Hun for a leader? I guess that is what you get when you've turned the American public into gamblers -- they like the guy who rolls the dice.
Excellent post, Billmon.