Media Spin on Iraq: We’re Leaving (Sort of)
Last week, a media advisory from “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer” announced a new series of interviews on the PBS show that will address “what Iraq might look like when the U.S. military leaves.”
A few days later, Time magazine published a cover story titled “Iraq: What will happen when we leave.”
But it turns out, what will happen when we leave is that we won’t leave.
Urging a course of action that’s now supported by “the best strategic minds in both parties,” the Time story calls for “an orderly withdrawal of about half the 160,000 troops currently in Iraq by the middle of 2008.” And: “A force of 50,000 to 100,000 troops would dig in for a longer stay to protect America’s most vital interests…”
On Iraq policy, in Washington, the differences between Republicans and Democrats — and between the media’s war boosters and opponents — are often significant. Yet they’re apt to mask the emergence of a general formula that could gain wide support from the political and media establishment.
The formula’s details and timelines are up for grabs. But there’s not a single “major” candidate for president willing to call for withdrawal of all U.S. forces — not just “combat” troops — from Iraq, or willing to call for a complete halt to U.S. bombing of that country.
Those candidates know that powerful elites in this country just don’t want to give up the leverage of an ongoing U.S. military presence in Iraq, with its enormous reserves of oil and geopolitical value. It’s a good bet that American media and political powerhouses would fix the wagon of any presidential campaign that truly advocated an end to the U.S. war in — and on — Iraq.
The disconnect between public opinion and elite opinion has led to reverse perceptions of a crisis of democracy. As war continues, some are appalled at the absence of democracy while others are frightened by the potential of it. From the grassroots, the scarcity of democracy is transparent and outrageous. For elites, unleashed democracy could jeopardize the priorities of the military-industrial-media complex.
Converging powerful forces in Washington — eager to at least superficially bridge the gap between grassroots and elite priorities — are likely to come up with a game plan for withdrawing from Iraq without withdrawing from Iraq.
Scratch the surface of current media scenarios for a U.S. pullout from Iraq, and you’re left with little more than speculation — fueled by giant dollops of political manipulation. In fact, strategic leaks and un-attributed claims about U.S. plans for withdrawal have emerged periodically to release some steam from domestic antiwar pressures.
Nearly three years ago — with discontent over the war threatening to undermine President Bush’s prospects for a second term — the White House ally Robert Novak floated a rosy scenario in his nationally syndicated column that appeared on Sept. 20, 2004. “Inside the Bush administration policy-making apparatus, there is strong feeling that U.S. troops must leave Iraq next year,” he wrote. “This determination is not predicated on success in implanting Iraqi democracy and internal stability. Rather, the officials are saying: Ready or not, here we go.”
Novak’s column went on to tell readers: “Well-placed sources in the administration are confident Bush’s decision will be to get out.” Those well-placed sources were, of course, unnamed. And for good measure, Novak followed up a month before the November 2004 election with a piece that recycled the gist of his Sept. 20 column and chortled: “Nobody from the administration has officially rejected my column.”
This is all relevant history today as news media are spinning out umpteen scenarios for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. The game involves dangling illusionary references to “withdrawal” in front of the public.
But realities on the ground — and in the air — are quite different. A recent news dispatch from an air base in Iraq, by Charles J. Hanley of the Associated Press, provided a rare look at the high-tech escalation underway. “Away from the headlines and debate over the ’surge’ in U.S. ground troops,” AP reported on July 14, “the Air Force has quietly built up its hardware inside Iraq, sharply stepped up bombing and laid a foundation for a sustained air campaign in support of American and Iraqi forces.”
In contrast to the spun speculation so popular with U.S. media outlets like Time and the PBS “NewsHour,” the AP article cited key information: “Squadrons of attack planes have been added to the in-country fleet. The air reconnaissance arm has almost doubled since last year. The powerful B1-B bomber has been recalled to action over Iraq.”
This kind of development fits a historic pattern — one that had horrific consequences during the war in Vietnam and, unless stopped, will persist for many years to come in Iraq.
Assessing the distant mirror of the Vietnam War, the narration of the new documentary “War Made Easy” (based on my book of the same name) spells out a classic White House maneuver: “Even when calls for withdrawal have eventually become too loud to ignore, officials have put forward strategies for ending war that have had the effect of prolonging it — in some cases, as with the Nixon administration’s strategy of Vietnamization, actually escalating war in the name of ending it.”
Between mid-1969 and mid-1972, American troop levels dropped sharply in Vietnam — while the deadly ferocity of American bombing spiked upward.
The presence of large numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq during the next years is a likelihood fogged up by fanciful media stories asserting — without tangible evidence — that American troops will “pull out” and the U.S. military will “leave” Iraq. The spin routinely glides past such matters as the hugely militarized U.S. embassy in Baghdad, the numerous permanent-mode U.S. bases in Iraq, and the vast array of private-and-often-paramilitary contractors at work there courtesy of U.S. taxpayers. And there’s the rarely mentioned prize of massive oil reserves that top officials in Washington keep their eyes on.
The matter of U.S. bases in Iraq is a prime example of how events on Capitol Hill have scant effects on war machinery in the context of out-of-control presidential power. “The House voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to bar permanent United States military bases in Iraq,” the New York Times reports. But the war makers in the nation’s capital still hold the whip that keeps lashing the dogs of war.
As the insightful analyst Phyllis Bennis points out: “The bill states an important principle opposing the ‘establishment’ of new bases in Iraq and ‘not to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq.’ But it is limited in several ways. It prohibits only those bases which are acknowledged to be for the purpose of permanently stationing U.S. troops in Iraq; therefore any base constructed for temporarily stationing troops, or rotating troops, or anything less than an officially permanent deployment, would still be accepted. Further, the bill says nothing about the need to decommission the existing U.S. bases already built in Iraq; it only prohibits ‘establishing’ military installations, implying only new ones would be prohibited.”
Despite all the talk about how members of Congress have been turning against the war, few are clearly advocating a genuine end to U.S. military intervention in Iraq. Media outlets will keep telling us that the U.S. government is developing serious plans to “leave” Iraq. But we would be foolish to believe those tall tales. The antiwar movement has an enormous amount of grassroots work to do — changing the political terrain of the United States from the bottom up — before the calculus of political opportunism in Washington determines that it would be more expedient to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq than to keep it going under one guise or another.
The new documentary film “War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death” is based on Norman Solomon’s book of the same title. Grassroots groups have begun to show the DVD around the country.
For information about the full-length movie, produced by the Media Education Foundation and narrated by Sean Penn, go here. http://www.theconnextion.com
The US won’t leave — it can’t leave, as Dyer noted in the linked article below. The Dems’ only way out of the cul-de-sac they’ve been forced into by BushCo is impeachment.
http://www.gwynnedyer.net/articles/Gwynne%20Dyer%20article_%20%20NY%20Times%20vs_%20Reality.txt
too bad Solomon and other liberals misled voters into supporting the pro-war Kerry in 2004. the antiwar movement–the only force that can possibly hope to end the war–was seriously derailed by its leadership’s support for the democrats. I hope Solomon and others don’t make that mistake this time.
Wednesday’s Bill sounded promising at first listen but scratch beneath the very thin surface and it is revealed to be just another empty gesture. I am actually surprised at how quiet the US media “reaction” is on this one……
but you should have heard Rep. Barbara Lee splutter and stammer when she was asked in a CBC interview if the US gov’t giving up any pretense for control of Iraqi oil meant that US corporations would do the same….classic!
Dem dims are just as pathetic as the other half of the one-party state……
we leave when the oil is gone
So glad you are bringing this to the forefront.
The fear is they would do their best to just let this slide by, hoping no one would study the fine print. This is where Kucinich and Gravel are so signicant. They’re, when allowed to squeeze a word in, cutting through the haze of deception which is such a shock that MSM generally ignores much of it–but it serves to chip away at those familiar lies.
“The disconnect between public opinion and elite opinion has led to reverse perceptions of a crisis of democracy. As war continues, some are appalled at the absence of democracy while others are frightened by the potential of it. From the grassroots, the scarcity of democracy is transparent and outrageous. For elites, unleashed democracy could jeopardize the priorities of the military-industrial-media complex.
Converging powerful forces in Washington — eager to at least superficially bridge the gap between grassroots and elite priorities — are likely to come up with a game plan for withdrawing from Iraq without withdrawing from Iraq.”
Great passage.
The antiwar movement sees the entire dynamic at work in the Middle East–including the long history of injustice against Palestinians and the very powerful influence of the Likud lobby’s long arm of influence in our government. This is a real problem when this reality is suppressed for a variety of reasons–political careers, exploiting the tribal allegiance of American Jews casting criticism of Israel as anti-semitic, convergence of oil interests–all which allows the Neo-Con agenda to gain footing and weakens the peace movement.
All these things are interconnected. It is impossible to ignore any one aspect of it. It would be helpful if publications like “The Nation” did not assist in the efforts to sabotage organized efforts in the peace movement by framing it as “anti-semitic”.
Sooner or later the subject will be exposed to the air–and, the blowback could be disasterous if it isn’t dealt with honestly and with humility NOW.
Would someone kindly explain to me what the HELL is the logic of using B-1Bs to fight a frickin’ GUERILLA ARMY!?!
It’s offical - we DID learn nothing from Vietnam.
About the B-1Bs.
The plan is to break the back of the resistance by targeting–punishing the population at large.
War tactic.
It won’t work–regardless of how they try to characterize Iraqis as backwards, primitive peiople. They are the cradle of civilization–ancient culture and heritage and they have great pride in their identity.
They will never back down.
Pere Ubu:
It makes perfect sense. Everyone we kill in Iraq and Afghanistan is an insurgent or an al Qaeda fighter. Everyone. So the more we kill, the more we kill. So, bigger bombs, bigger planes, bigger guns. Of course.
Solomon is a terrifically astute analyst; there’s not single idea in this article that I’d dispute. On the other hand, as noted by nickhart above, it’s true that his position on the ‘04 election was poorly thought out, much as Medea Benjamin’s was. Both are identified mostly with a Green perspective, & both were so terrified of Bush that they made the mistake of embracing “Anyone But Bush.”
The high quality of Solomon’s media analysis stems from his correct understanding of the mechanisms of US society. Here’s a passage I thought particularly accurate (it also caught Vern’s eye, above):
“Those candidates know that powerful elites in this country just don’t want to give up the leverage of an ongoing U.S. military presence in Iraq, with its enormous reserves of oil and geopolitical value. It’s a good bet that American media and political powerhouses would fix the wagon of any presidential campaign that truly advocated an end to the U.S. war in — and on — Iraq.
The disconnect between public opinion and elite opinion has led to reverse perceptions of a crisis of democracy. As war continues, some are appalled at the absence of democracy while others are frightened by the potential of it. From the grassroots, the scarcity of democracy is transparent and outrageous. For elites, unleashed democracy could jeopardize the priorities of the military-industrial-media complex….
One should take note of the class-consciousness here. Solomon sees clearly an verboten idea that America’s rulers (& media) always want you to forget: that US society doesn’t work the same way for the rulers and the ruled. What’s in the interests of the rulers isn’t in the interests of the rest of us.
Everyone we kill in Iraq and Afghanistan is an insurgent or an al Qaeda fighter.
Exactly what they said in Vietnam - anyone we killed there was either NVA or a “sympathizer”.
And didn’t the B52s we used make a difference there, fershure. /snark
As to the re-build-up of bombers – it is a sign of weakness when you rely on air power. It means you do not control the ground (and this after four bloody years). And bombing will only lead to further atrocities of civilian deaths. It’s like trying to use a club to kill two or three particular ants on an entire anthill.
“The House voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to bar permanent United States military bases in Iraq.” This says nothing about the Blackwaters operating in Iraq.
“The bill states … not to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq.” Again, this says nothing about the Exxon-Mobils controlling the oil resources.
Unless Dennis Kucinich or Bill Richardson or Mike Gravel are elected president in 2008, the United States will not be leaving Iraq. The 2 Democratic uber-phonies, Clinton and Obama, will not get us out. No Bush doppelganger from the Rethuglican party will get us out. Kucinich or Richardson or Gravel almost certainly won’t get the nomination. So we’re not getting out of Iraq.
Iraq is just the gas tank for the naval and air assets to start the real war to deal with the primary threat to American global authority.
China.
Control the oilfields in Iraq. Radioactively contaminate the oil in Iran making it unsafe for use for some 10,000 years or so (if it isn’t just incinerated by ground penetrating nuclear ‘bunker busters’
The only source that can supply China with the volume it will need after that will be the Saudis, who may refuse or set any price they choose, thus hamstringing China’s economic progress and limiting their ability to provide a prolonged military response.
Consider…
About 90% of the operational B1Bs, B2 Spirits and B52s have been quietly relocated to Guam in the last 3 years.
150 stored nuclear warheads collected from Rammstein AFB in Germany and sent…where?
U.S. Pacific Fleet commander Admiral Robert Willard has arrived on island and he’s scheduled to meet with Navy leaders and tour several facilities on Naval Base Guam later today.
The USS Buffalo has been homeported in Guam. The fast attack Los Angeles Class submarine arrived on Guam July 19 after being previously homeported in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. The USS Buffalo will hold a change of command ceremony tomorrow relieving Commander Rian Humm by Commander Scott Pappano, who recently served at the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
The Buffalo now joins the USS City of Corpus Christi and the USS Houston at Apra Harbor.
The pieces are moving to their planned locations on schedule it would seem.
stinger_28
That’s an interesting position. It brings to mind a title of one of Noam Chomsky’s recent books, “Hegemony or Survival.” — We cannot have both.
What makes the U.S. think it’s allowed to have “vital interests” and other countries are not?
Things will play out as they always do - small X number of troops will be “withdrawn” and/or “redeployed,” the Glorious Messed-up-potanian Successes of the Loonitary Dicktators will be broadcast 24/7, and by Memorial Day, most American will once again be unable to find Iraq on a map, comforting themselves in the knowledge that “we won” and are “out of that place.”
It’s what we Americans do best - pretend like it never happened.
Cindy Sheehan is expected to be on Amy Goodman’s “Democracy Now” program on Friday. Spread the word.
stinger_28 July 26th, 2007 2:38 pm
I think that you have nailed it. You must have been reading “The Program for the New American Century”, by the neocons. So much of that gets to become official Washington vision.
War is Peace. Death is Life.
The aristocrats don’t give a rats’ ass how many peasants die or what kind of a hell they turn the Earth into. They can always buy a personal “stairway to heaven”.
As long as you allow capitalism of any kind to exist, “what you get is what you got”.
Fight or bow down. There are no other options.
relayer@q.com
I mentioned this earlier - in some other articles. But perhaps the tip of the iceberg seen today in terms of the stock market and the underlying MASSIVE credit bubble may help inject clarity. The US has a massive debt problem that within 4 years has caused the government to extend its debt burden from 6 Trillion to now close to 10 Trillion dollars! Yes thats right 10 Trillion!!!!!
The US economy (again how much double accounting is going on here I don’t know - but figure about 50%-more on that later) is supposedly putting out 15 Trillion dollars a year. However - what we have to take into account is - that a larger than many suspect portion of the economy actually comes from the taxpayer- for example - other than Defense, how about prisons (Corrections Corporation), Healthcare (medicare- 4 large companies including Bill Frist’s beloved Columbia HCA caught for atleast 10 Billion dollars of healthcare fraud that we know of), Hedge fund & S&L bailouts, don’t forget Delta airlines and also all those Fords and GMs the government buys for ‘offical’ business. In addition - the largest pension funds in the WORLD belong to government employees (California Teachers for example). Don’t forget Fannie Mae, Sallie MAe and the student loans as well.
So whats the point - of the above digression. The point is that the American Industrial complex is not well. Industry the ship that became a destroyer post world war two has reverted to a schooner. If not for active infringement and protection of the US governemnt many of the pseudo captains of industry (Bill Gates) woud be reduced to theor rightful stations of corporal of the guard.
So - what we have is an immense bubble globally - which hinges on only one thing and a deteriorating industrial base which is disguised by massive spending into defense and creating a conduit to directly feed Industry with printed dollars -so they can maintain the illusion that they are the centers of economic prosperity. However - the FACT -is 75% (yes it’s true) of the US GDP is generated by Consumer spending - hence the movie maxed out!
Petro-dollars. If foreign governments were not compelled to keep large reserves of US dollars for oil - the dollar would be worthless - and that is not an allegoical statement but truly a literal one. As long as governments need to have currency required (US Dollars) we can hedge our debt thu the need of keeping dollars for oil. So it is not coincidental that price of OIL has risen drastically - sure it helps Exxon - but it helps the US immensely - because countries now have to keep MORE US dollars. Thereby slowing or at the very least impeding the obvious truth about the value of the dollar. Note carefully - that almost every major currency in the world has ‘risen’ against the dollar - the yen, euro, rouble, deutschmark, Australian,Canadian dollars and OMG the indian rupee as well. Which means - that the dollar is in serious jeopardy and there are people out there who recognize this- also note the unimpeded rise of gold from 250 - almost 700 dollars -never being stopped despite all this so called great news about the ‘booming’ US economy. The US has basically bought its super power status by the ‘perceived’ value of the dollar- what happens when that perception is gone? Iraq had moved to euros in exchange for their oil 6 months before the invasion, Iran, Russia and Venezuela are making active moves to have countries pay in yen or euros for oil. If Iraq was independent - this would have been close to 40 percent of the world’s oil - more than enough to quickly undermine any need to hoard US dollars by China, Japan, India etc etc. By capturing Iraq - we have reduced that number to close to 30 percent and with Iran - close to 80 percent of the oil in the world would HAVE to be paid for in US dollars - regardless. This is the ONLY way - the US can survive its spendthrift ways. That is WHY the senate recently VOTED 97-0 (not kidding - 97-0) talk about bi-partisan cooperation to extend te blame to Iran for supporting the Iraqi Insurgency. The situation is more desperate than they are letting on- and unlike Vietnam - this is not a political battle where the US can ‘afford’ a defeat. A defeat here is the defeat of American properity -as we know it.
So we understand that it is not about oil per se but rather about continuing hegemony for survival - the other course of being fiscally responsible will fall on deaf ears -as the Senate in particular is busy playing thefiddle while the american people burn with lower living standards, longer work hours, and less opportunity. All the people in Congress know this - and that is why there has been a rush to implement population control and intimidation as soon as possible. As always - the people are always the LAST to know.
The U.S. has built the WORLD’S LARGEST EMBASSY in Iraq to the tune of $600,000,000,000 - Doesn’t sound like leaving to me.
The U.S. had no intention of leaving Viet Nam either. Their gigantic bases there - Cam Ranh Bay, Da Nang - were built for a permanent occupation. As we know, it didn’t work out that way. Bush and the idiots around him have learned absolutely nothing from the past and are dragging us all down the dreary path of repeating what they apparently can’t remember.
Nearly all of the comments on this issue have been excellent. I’d just like to add that they’ve been saying we’re going to start downsizing in Iraq for years. I remember in 2005 the talk at the beginning of the year was there was going to be significant reductions by the end of that year. The game being played by David “Benedict Arnold” Petraeus (who knifed his commanders by kissing Bush’s chicken hawk butt and will lie about the progress made during the surge as Westmoreland lied in Vietnam) is just another example of the same game. Just give us a little more time. We heard it was the beginning of the end when they captured Saddam, when the Iraqis voted for the new Constitution and voted for the current Iraqi Parliament, when they killed Zarqawi, etc. Their goal is to continue the war and con the American people into acceptance in the mistaken belief the war will soon end, or at least be significantly reduced in scope. And as the leadership Dems are complicit in continuing the war, talking against it to garner public support while continuing to fund it without restriction and refusing to initiate simultaneous impeach/remove Cheney/Bush, it continues to go on regardless of the collectively accepted devastating evidence of the utter failure of the policy and the continuing deaths and maimings of young Americans and Iraqis alike.
When Tester, Webb, Casey, McCaskill and Cardin voted the way those whom they defeated would have voted on funding the surge and Sharrod Brown did not even vote on it, it became clear (again) that all the Dems want is to con American voters into thinking they oppose the war while their three front runners all support keeping undefined “residual” forces in Iraq forever.
Solomon was wrong on Kerry and he’ll probably be wrong on Hillary, but he’s dead on in this piece.
John Edwards (from my reading of his website and listening to him) has the intention of withdrawing all US troops from Iraq, and to have no permanent bases there. And he is one of the ‘major’ candidates.
www.johnedwards.com/issues/iraq
Edwards won’t take money from lobbyists or PAC’s. Okay, he’s said some ignorant and militarist things about Iran, and has more recently said some more sensible things about Iran. He’s much better on domestic issues than foreign policy. It’s true, he’s not Dennis Kucinich. And yes, he’s got a lot of money and a big house. And, he could actually win the Presidency, and he could be a far better President than any we’ve had in my lifetime. (Not that there has been much competition in the form of ‘good’ Presidents).
I do believe it’s inaccurate to bunch him with Hillary and Obama, the DLC favorites.
iyamwutiam: Interesting.
Since all we have to offer the world is weapons and the only way we interact is by attacking, then maybe instead of repaying the debt, we will bomb the countries that hold the note and build US embassies. That or same said countries will carve up the US territory in real estate trade and say, China takes NY. Then they could open factory sweatshops for American workers.
I wonder if debt forgiveness will ever apply to us?
VERN: I agree. US trade increasing resembles tactics taken by Mafia strong men… the Confessions of a Professional Hit Man clarified this score, as did the piece by Chalmer’s Johnson on past CIA efforts to alter governments that refused to do “business” our way. Bullying is effective when your weapons arsenal is tops. That’s becoming the ONLY thing the US exports, apart from Hollywood flicks that also glorify violence, and/or drugs that disguise symptoms or mask emotions and natural cycles. Even might has its limits…
It really is about class–whether you call it “elite’ opinion versus the grassroots, or whatever, it’s about class. And the divide is across all issues: healthcare, war, education, trade. Unless Americans stop denying that class rules this country, we’re just going to widen the gap.
fedup. Exactly! It isn’t just America either.
Around the world nationalism and patriotism are used as clubs to beat us all over the head with when we disagree with the ruling class.
What the hell good is love of country when neighborhoods and communities rot from crime, poverty and neglect.
We’ve all figured out who globalization serves.
Wedge issues have always been exploited by the ruling class, as a means of divide-and-conquer. You can see it in small group dynamics, or empire.
Sex, race, ethnicity, religion, nationalism, patriotism, etc. — all laid out to deflect any response to the ongoing class warfare against all of them.
Nationalism is the most recent deflection. It’s interesting to note that the far-right promotes nationalism, national identity, etc. out of one side of their mouth. But their policies encourage outsouring the US military to foreign mercenaries, offshoring manufacturing and IT jobs by the tens of thousands, etc. It’s clear that patriotism is exploited — though trashed in the background — as another hot-button issue to keep people divided.
Will. When you read Edwards website, he talks about withdrawing all COMBAT troops by the end of 2008. He openly says we’d still be involved with training Iraqi security forces (whatever they are) and would respond to other security threats from Iraq. All 3 Democratic frontrunners (Edwards, Obama and Clinton) favor retaining residual forces in Iraq. Given the fact he voted to allow Bush to have his war, that is unacceptable. He’s still using the same group-think-of-fools that caused the “experienced, grown-ups” to vote us in in the first place. Just like Hillary and Obama, he talks out of both sides of his mouth.
Only Kucinich (by far the best of the Democratic contenders), Gravel and Richardson favor withdrawal of ALL US troops from Iraq expeditiously.