There's an editorial in the World Tribune about Iraq written by a U.S. soldier in Iraq. I am always interested in hearing the unfiltered and varied opinions of America's finest, and LTC Tim Ryan's piece is an interesting and informed treatment of the war. For instance, Ryan argues the old neocon talking point that the media doesn't pay any attention to their "successes". But the twist he puts on the media's responsibilities is a little overwrought:
The inaccurate picture they paint has distorted the world view of the daily realities in Iraq. The result is a further erosion of international support for the United States' efforts there, and a strengthening of the insurgents' resolve and recruiting efforts while weakening our own. Through their incomplete, uninformed and unbalanced reporting, many members of the media covering the war in Iraq are aiding and abetting the enemy.Now, ignoring his comment questioning the loyalties of war critics, I've no doubt that LTC Ryan wants - even needs - to believe that the job he is doing is of unquestionable moral fiber and integrity. But he seems to believe that, given this fact of moral certitude (the final analysis of which is incomplete, at best IMHO), there is no room for criticism of the policies motivating his mission. And if you don't have his (priviledged) knowledge and vantage point, you can't come to a "correct" conclusion about the success of the war. Is this a valid point?
From the perspective of somebody who sees his mission as a vital, humanitarian one, I can see why he or she would feel that the good works done have been ignored. However, they haven't been ignored because the media wants to withhold this info, I believe. They've been withheld because, in the final analysis, nobody cares. When American boys are dying for a mission that has been shown to be based on utter falsehoods (WMD), the fact that foreigners are benefiting kinda gets overshadowed. I do not think this is the media "twisting the facts" or omitting vital information - this is the media giving the public information it cares about. Sorry, LTC Ryan - your safety is a lot more important to us than a bunch of non-American people getting a well.
After all, LTC Ryan, isn't the primary role of the U.S. Military is to protect America and Americans, not foreigners? When our troops die for the benefit of other people, you'll have a hard time justifying it on that point alone. We don't want Iraq to fail, but you have a different idea of what constitutes "success" than a lot of us do, and "you living" is one element thereof. Obviously, you're in a much better position to volunteer your life for the cause than we are, so this shouldn't surprise you.
Another problem I have with the editorial is that, while it claims to "set the record straight", it reeks of bias. Setting the record straight means reminding people of the successes while conceding the failures. When you pretend that the bad stuff didn't happen, or make excuses for it, you undercut your own argument against bias. So while I'm willing to consider the veracity of this argument:
The fact is the Coalition is making steady progress in Iraq, but not without ups and downs. So why is it that no matter what events unfold, good or bad, the media highlights mostly the negative aspects of the event? The journalistic adage, "If it bleeds, it leads," still applies in Iraq, but why only when it's American blood?I must also question way examples are used to back this argument up:
As a recent example, the operation in Fallujah delivered an absolutely devastating blow to the insurgency. Though much smaller in scope, clearing Fallujah of insurgents arguably could equate to the Allies' breakout from the hedgerows in France during World War II. In both cases, our troops overcame a well-prepared and solidly entrenched enemy and began what could be the latter's last stand. In Fallujah, the enemy death toll has exceeded 1,500 and still is climbing.There is no argument for comparing the quelling of resistance to invasion to a war between two matched military powers. None at all. And furthermore, quelling a resistance movement does not in and of itself represent progress in doing the things we feel we collectively promised would improve the future of Iraq. Simply killing people who are against our vision, or even some Iraqis' visions, of the future is not enough to make us proud.
This is tone that I think the neoconservatives and generally hawkish war supporters fail to realize is grating to the average American. We don't want to hear about Americans dying, but we also don't especially care to hear about non-Americans dying, either. It's not particularly good news that people hostile to an American invasion are being killed by us. Yes, it does constitute a short term victory, Mr. Ryan - but just like every death of an American is not a loss, every death of a insurgent is not a victory. You have a broader view of the conflict, but you deny that there are Americans who have a one as well, even if it represents different motivations than yours. And disagreement isn't the same thing as distortion (at least not in a free republic).
I would be willing to hear about improvements being made in the lives of Iraqis, and I do rejoice inwardly everytime I hear that Iraqis are turning a corner in rebuilding their lives. But I can separate this positivity from the negative nature of having my country paying such a large cost in money, lives, and reputation for it. And as a patriot, I have to put the latter before the former. I'm willing to entertain moral arguments; I am not willing to entertain moral equivocation.
Unfortunately, what really kills the arguments of the Coaltion advocates is their focus on death as a metric for success, even as they claim to be advancing the cause of life. Whether they mean to or not, they seem to betray a real bloodlust that I hope most Americans reject. This is where the right and the Pentagon lose us when they trump up the morality of the war. Defeating an insurgency is not the same thing as helping a country rebuild, and I am grateful that the implication is not enough to sway critical media reporting. Ryan reflects this disconnect well at several points in his essay:
More recently, a major news agency's website lead read: "Suicide Bomber Kills Six in Baghdad" and "Seven Marines Die in Iraq Clashes." True, yes. Comprehensive, no. Did the author of this article bother to mention that Coalition troops killed 50 or so terrorists while incurring those seven losses? Of course not.
From where I sit in Iraq, things are not all bad right now. In fact, they are going quite well. We are not under attack by the enemy; on the contrary, we are taking the fight to him daily and have him on the ropes. In the distance, I can hear the repeated impacts of heavy artillery and five-hundred-pound bombs hitting their targets. The occasional tank main gun report and the staccato rhythm of a Marine Corps LAV or Army Bradley Fighting Vehicle's 25-millimeter cannon provide the bass line for a symphony of destruction. As elements from all four services complete the absolute annihilation of the insurgent forces remaining in Fallujah, the area around the former insurgent stronghold is more peaceful than it has been for more than a year.
The number of attacks in the greater Al Anbar Province is down by at least 70-80 percent from late October - before Operation Al Fajar began. The enemy in this area is completely defeated, but not completely gone. Final eradication of the pockets of insurgents will take some time, as it always does, but the fact remains that the central geographic stronghold of the insurgents is now under friendly control. That sounds a lot like success to me. Given all of this, why don't the papers lead with "Coalition Crushes Remaining Pockets of Insurgents" or "Enemy Forces Resort to Suicide Bombings of Civilians"? This would paint a far more accurate picture of the enemy's predicament over here.LTC Ryan then returns to the point of questioning the patriotism and loyalty of the media:
Why do these ruthless murderers, kidnappers and thieves get a pass when it comes to their actions? What did the the media show or tell us about Margaret Hassoon, the director of C.A.R.E. in Iraq and an Iraqi citizen, who was kidnapped, brutally tortured and left disemboweled on a street in Fallujah? Did anyone in the press show these images over and over to emphasize the moral failings of the enemy as they did with the soldiers at Abu Ghuraib?No, they didn't: because I thought that the reprehensible nature of the enemy's tactics was already established. What was NOT established was the reprehensible nature of our own. THAT's what news is. I've heard tons of stories about videotaped beheadings and other brutal crimes, so I just reject utterly the arugment that the media has painted the insurgency to be equivalent to the Civil Rights movement or something. Maybe that's something my vantage point in the States gives me more authority to opine upon than LTC Ryan; I don't know or care because, unlike him, I'm willing to respect a difference of opinion.
And that's what scares us war critics the most - the insistence by neocon hawks that the war must go on at the expense of criticism. It is that free and open dialogue, focusing not on Administration talking points or media spin but on the genuine concerns of the Republic's citizens, that gives our operations in Iraq any legitimacy they might have. If people like LTC Ryan claim to be fighting for this freedom, why do they rail against it when it is incovenient? His claim of moral certitude shouldn't require the approval of others - yet he demands it. It's one thing to set the record straight and correct what you percieve as misperceptions; it's a whole different thing when you start accusing anybody of wilfull treason and manipulation (especially with this Administration's track record)
I don't want to accuse soldiers who have sacrificed so much of ideological hackery; the military does not allow them total freedom of expression, and that must be hard. But they could at least respect the freedoms that the rest of us still retain to comment on their mission. Just because we don't share your priorities, LTC Ryan, doesn't mean we're unconcerned with them. It's simply that we also have your life and the lives of your fellow soldiers on our conscience when weighing them in our hearts.
Read this article
