Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiLiberal Hawk Says Iraq No Longer Matters
Iraq is now a "Non- Story" and quickly becoming irrelevant to the presidential campaign. So says liberal pundit Peter Beinart. If there's anything more dangerous than a neoconservative hawk, it's a liberal hawk.
Of course liberal hawks like Beinart want us to believe that public concern about Iraq is fading away. They don't want the public paying attention as they lock in their plans to keep up to 50,000 U.S. troops permanently on massive military bases in that war-torn country. They don't want the public to realize that the top three Democratic candidates for the presidential nomination have endorsed the plan to make Iraq an outpost of the empire.
As always, liberal hawks want the political spotlight focused on domestic affairs, while the governing elite takes care of imperial business unimpeded by bothersome and unpredictable public opinion. They agree with conservative hawks that the public is too ignorant and capricious to be trusted with the awesome responsibility of being the world's only superpower. That's a job for hard-headed rational experts, they say.
Rational? Let's take a look at Beinart's argument for Iraq becoming a "non-story." The public is losing interest, he says, because "not as many people are dying there. Fewer deaths mean fewer front-page stories, and fewer front-page stories mean less discussion on the cable shows, which were pretty sick of the topic already." So people have stopped paying attention.
Sounds simple enough, until you start looking at the complications. Why are there fewer front-page stories? Not because things have grown rosy in Iraq. Look at the stats (from antiwar.com): Dec. 2, 53 Iraqis killed by violence; Dec. 1, 40 Iraqis killed; Nov 30, 21 Iraqis killed; Nov. 29, 30 Iraqis killed. Yes, the numbers are roughly half of what they were earlier this year.
But Beinart would have us believe that there is some objective standard at work here, that some magic number makes a day's death toll objectively newsworthy, and 21, or even 53, doesn't cut it. That's just silly. If editors and cable show hosts want Iraq on the front page, they could certainly say that 53 deaths, or even 21, is newsworthy. I know I would.
Perhaps, though, when Beinart said "not as many people are dying there" he meant not as many Americans -- which would make sense. Public concern about the war probably reflects concern about U.S. casualties a lot more than concern about Iraqi casualties.
But if U.S. deaths are the issue, again it's all relative. Yes, the death toll has dropped significantly since its most recent peak in May, 2007. But U.S. personnel still die nearly every day, and that can certainly be declared newsworthy.
The U.S. death toll has fluctuated a lot since the spring of 2003. Both '04 and '05 saw dips as dramatic as we've seen in the last half year. There is no clear correlation I can find between those fluctuations and public concern about the war.
In fact public concern about the war is very difficult to measure. In one recent poll of voter's top concerns, the economy did edge out Iraq. But in another poll taken just a few days later Iraq was by far the highest priority, with only half as many people naming the economic as their biggest concern. In general, despite all the fluctuations in the death toll, the long-term trend over the last few years is for a growing number of people to say that Iraq is the nation's biggest problem.
Whether Peter Beinart was talking about Iraqi deaths or U.S. military deaths or both, a temporary decline in those numbers does not, in itself, make the mainstream media lose interest in the war. If Iraq is disappearing from the headlines, there is some other factor at work here.
I suspect it's that editors and cable show hosts are watching what's going on, not only in Iraq, but in Washington and in elite policymaking circles (like the Council on Foreign Relations, where Beinart is a senior fellow). They know that at the highest levels the debate about what to do in Iraq pretty much ended over the summer.
Among Democrats, virtually all the elite figures have endorsed the Bush administration's plan to pursue the "Korea model," with those 50,000 or U.S. troops "enduring" (the new code word for permanently) on those U.S. bases in Iraq. Only Bill Richardson has publicly called for all U.S. troops to leave Iraq. (Kucinich fans may be glad to hear that Dennis doesn't count as part of the elite.) Meanwhile, Bush has agreed to begin, however slowly, withdrawing some troops from Iraq.
The elite Dems, like the Republicans, want to sweep the nation's antiwar mood under the rug. But the only way to do it is to ignore the war itself. The more that Americans hear about the war, the more they want all U.S. troops brought home on a fixed timetable. Politicians could get away with posing as antiwar, yet saying they wanted only "combat" troops brought home, until a few months ago, when the public caught on to that trick. Now antiwar talk inevitably stirs up the (very reasonable) demand to get all of our troops out of Iraq.
The bipartisan elite is fending off the rising antiwar tide by a huge public relations campaign to persuade us that it's OK to keep fighting the war as long as the levels of violence are falling. Since they do have statistics that seem to show a short-term drop in violence, their PR effort has been quite successful. The public demand to bring our troops home has fallen in recent months.
Democratic leaders -- including their leading presidential candidates -- and pundits know that if the war remains a big issue, they face a double threat: Either they will stoke the fires of a real antiwar movement, or there could be a prowar backlash that will ambush them next November. Either way, they are safer letting the issue quietly fade away.
So liberal hawks like Peter Beinart take to the pages of elite media (in this case the Washington Post) to tell us that Iraq is now a "non-story," no longer a pivotal issue in American politics. If their prediction turns out to be true, it will be largely because they are working so hard to make it true. The more people read that the issue no longer matters, the more likely they are to believe that it no longer matters.
It's up to us to make it matter. More people read letters to the editor column than just about any other part of the newspaper. And the talk shows still have their phone lines open. We may not have the high-paid public relations professionals on our side. But Jim Morrison would surely want us to remember that, if they've got the guns, we've got the numbers.
Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder and author of Monsters To Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin. Email: chernus@colorado.edu
23 Comments so far
Show AllSIOUXROSE----As always so beautifully said. It is difficult these days to see the LIGHT at the end of this dark tunnel the howling fiends would take us. There are no rules of engagement and one feels stunned and breathless facing the monstrosity of every self serving tendency holding sway over any sense of respect, compassion and inter-connectedness. They would drown out the music of the spheres is they could. We must not allow it, and I pray the Hierarchy is working nonstop to counter balance this darkest of forces.
Excuse me, but there *is* a difference between Hillary, Obama, and Edwards. Both Hillary and Obama have accepted oil lobby money (see oilwatchdog.org) and both talk in code about "protecting our national interests" (i.e. getting at Iraqi oil). Edwards has taken no lobbyist money, so if voters want change, vote for an *electable* candidate who won't be beholden to special interests, as Hillary and Obama most certainly are (Kucinich is the Nader of the 2008 primaries, a vote for him is a vote for Hillary). Furthermore, Edwards has pledged *against* permanent military bases in Iraq. Any candidate who pledges to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq immediately is either lying or naive. Edwards has pledged to withdraw all combat troops by the end of 2009 or sooner. That's probably the best we can hope for, considering the risk of genocide that still exists between the Sunni and Shiite factions. A measured withdrawal will give time to assess the situation and to collaborate with neighboring countries to reduce the risk of expanding the civil war in Iraq beyond its borders.
And look at the mainstream media as every war-cheerleader from Bush on down stands before the world with their lying pants around their ankles in the wake of the Iran report---Oh, you don't want to hear about that, here's a nice big fire or car accident or kitten up a tree with Britney---and besides Americans, you have no memory beyond yesterday anyhow....or at least, that's what we A.D.D.-imbeciles are banking on....
As the article explains, there is no real difference between Hillary/Obama/Edwards and whoever the GOP candidate will be. The Democratic and Republican parties are both neo-liberal and imperialist. They only try to divert our attention from the real issues with their "Culture War" of "Red States and Blue States."
Vote Green in 2008. It is the only real alternative that will be on the ballot in most states in the upcoming election.
http://www.gp.org/
Peter Beinart only recently admitted that the Iraq war was a mistake; now he just wants it to go away. Not the war itself, mind you; just the news of the war.
A million dead, millions wounded or driven into exile, two trillion dollars wasted that must be repaid by our children and grandchildren, extremist terrorist groups emboldened and greatly enlarged, our reputation and constitutional rights in tatters--and these fools claim it's a non-issue. The Holocaust is still an issue 62 years later, and very few Americans would claim otherwise. This war is a crime, and an ongoing one. A slight downtick in deaths doesn't end our concern or exculpate its architects in the Bush administration or its supporters and enablers in Congress.
A liberal hawk is an oxymoron. A hawk is an authoritarian, the opposite of a liberal.
Well, since we don't have a draft everyone who's currently serving has done so by his own volition. Of course, we as taxpayers don't have much choice in the matter.
Iraq is a corporate war -- a war for the wealthy, underwritten by -- and fought by -- the taxpaper.
But -- since there is no draft -- it is arguably a non-issue from a class perspective. Our focus should be single-payer health care, a shortened work week (I suggest 32 hours), paid maternal/paternal leave on par with Scandinavia, etc.
Yes, their deaths were in vain.
To the vanity of US Tyrants Bush Cheny Wolfowitz etc.
Someday justice will prevail. A hemp dance for the lot.
With this idiotic assertion the 'Iraq no longer matters', I guess Cindy Sheehans loss of her son was truely in vain and for nothing... along with the loss of every other mothers child murdered in this act of blind stupidity.
The plunge in U.S. deaths in Iraq is a public relations stunt. Never leave basee, no get killee. What goes on outside is anybody's guess and who the hell compiles the casualty figures anyway? The Maliki government? The absurdity of the situation is so transparent that even the stupidest fool in the world wouldn't buy the offical story. Oh, I must have forgotten to include the American sheeple in the equation
They're both in on the "CON" part
Giuliani will bomb Iran out of conviction. Hillary will bomb Iran out of convenience. Who says there is no difference between the 2 parties?
locust wrote: "Take away the President's Constitutional powers of war-making."
Agghh! Imperialist propaganda is penetrating Common Dreams postings! Take a look at Articles I and II. Congress, not the president, has the power to declare war. The president is the commander in chief of the army and navy. So locust should have written, "Stop the president's unconstitutional usurpation of Congress's war-making power."
A killer is a killer. It does not matter that you graduated cum laude from a top university, like and understand Ingmar Bergman movies or write for a political journal that touts itself as sober and rational. If you think our occupation of Iraq is hunky dory . . . you're a killer and no better than the empty-headed, knuckle dragging sociopaths of the Republican party. Are you, Peter Beinart, willing to die for Iraq? Like hell!
They can say it doesn't matter. They can present polls as evidence. They can play the peanut shell game all day long. The truth is that more and more people are becoming wise to these antics. It's the domino effect. When one wakes up we all start to wake up. So keep on saying the surge is working. Keep trying to spread the vapors of fear. Keep pretending that everyone is mindless. Keep covering up your failure in Iraq and your nonsense about Iran. Keep lying and deceiving. You will discover that eventually your Tower of Babel will fall.
In the words of a great man, Phil Ochs:
In a building of gold, with riches untold,
lived the families on which the country was founded.
And the merchants of style, with their vain velvet smiles,
were there, for they also were hounded.
And the soft middle class crowded in to the last,
for the building was fully surrounded.
And the noise outside was the ringing of revolution.
Karl Rove said that the Repub strategy should be to focus on domestic issues.
So the difference between Repubs and Dems is...?
Ah, I almost thought of something but I got distracted. I'll try again after lunch.
Had enough yet?
Stop voting Democrat!
There are no liberal mainstream pundits. They just label some liberal so they can say there is some sort of balance. The ones they say are liberal I reject.
Some topics for real liberal pudits should be the false flag 9/11 attack. The illegal wars, the control of the media, the rigged elections etc. etc.
Democratic Party MO: Don't talk about the war, just focus on domestic issues.
"In fact public concern about the war..."
It is an occupation, not a war.
Take away the President's Constitutional powers of war-making.
Take away the argument that we are 'winning the war'. An occupation can never be won.
Argue against the continued occupation of Iraq. Then statistics won't matter.
Of couse it doesn't when one has the need to cover their arse while pandering for Zionist dollars and ignoring the unspeakable displacement of Iraqis.
Still applicable:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2004/12/13/181521/76
You can pretty much count on this Beinart schmuck being wrong most of the time.
EZE: So true!
If there is a history to take a fair accounting, the Bush presidency will be seen as the largest experiment in "reality management" every explored. Watching the few congress people with any sense of morality seek to counter the many moves this adminstration makes in the direction of absolute power, watching the way they completely ignore every rule, every decency, every aspect of fair engagement... one cannot win against such an opponent because even basic ground rules, concepts agreed upon for centuries are being put into jeopardy or ignored by this band of murdering thieves that has taken over our nation, and has grand ambitions for the world. Luckily earth mother, the elements of her kingdoms, and the Hierarchy can only let this go so far... IF it brings the world to the realization NO MORE war, no more trafficking in weapons, the suffering and loss of so many might have been worth it; for every epoch has its martyrs. Just as an overweight person might binge before a long diet, I hope this banquet to the vanities of Mars and all warriors proves the surfeit to the sense-lessness of destruction, nor does this modus operandi operate on the cheap. What's the total these days, a few trillion and counting? No money for sensible things like health care, better education, repair of necessary domestic infrastructure, etc. The priorities of such extravagant waste will stun saner minds IF saner minds prevail into future generations.