By Danny Schechter
www.OpEdNews.com
Suddenly, the words "exit strategy" has entered into the popular
discourse. 41 Congress members have formed an Out of Iraq caucus.
Four, including two Republicans are proposing a Congressional
resolution to set the date. More newspapers and opinion columnists
are mouthing the words that were downright unacceptable or even
treasonous in last fall's Presidential election,
Then the Democrats were out bushing Bush in their fidelity to the
"stay the course until we win" mantra. Anything else was "cutting
and running" in the GOP parlance, and one by one the "opposition"
party cleaved to the center for cover and respectability. MoveOn
moved off the war issue while Howard Dean dropped his anti-war focus
to become Party Chairman.
All was quiet on the western front as the White House trumpeted
success after success and the press abandoned analysis for
hotel-based reporting of incidents. Even the anti-war movement
seemed to have slowed its momentum,
And then the unexpected! An internal secret document was leaked to a
British newspaper--owned by Rupert Murdoch no less--and suddenly the
words Downing Street became known far and near. Activists and the
Internet went into overdrive to turn a confirmation of early
planning for war into an issue that could be grounds for a
Presidential impeachment.
Once again the US press was asleep at the switch, ignoring it all as
'old news" unworthy of coverage. A Google search using the phrase
'Downing Street Memo' yielded 154,000 'hits' yet only the tiniest
fraction were stories in the corporate media. Eric Boehlert reported
on Salon, "that newspapers blamed the Associated Press not
mentioning it as an excuse for their own blackout on news of the
Downing Street memo for their own lack of coverage.
Those who rely on mainstream sources for their news didn't seem to
know what the memo said. It was left to David Letterman to inform
President Bill Clinton about it, more evidence that comedians know
more about what's happening than many journalists.
But fortunately not all Americans are relying on Lame stream media
sources or even the American press (A recent Gallop poll found only
35% of readers found their own newspapers trustworthy)
That's one reason that a counter-narrative about Iraq is beginning
to take hold.
But even as the controversy about the past came into focus. A new
debate is emerging about the future and the media is just catching
wind of it. The new once rarely whispered question: Is it time for
the US to pull up stakes in Iraq and split? Or is it just a matter
of time?
Predictably Tom Friedman, the NY Times op-ed columnist and sometimes
self-styled "Mayor or the Middle " East agonized about how the
Pentagon's policies that he had earlier supported had failed. But
after describing the mess we've made in Iraq, he advocated sending
more troops, more "boots on the ground." He sounded just like those
liberals advising Lyndon Johnson who kept escalating the number of
troops sent to Vietnam.
In Sunday's New York Times, the Baghdad based John Burns who also
supported the invasion to topple Saddam is now reporting that US
forces are stretched thin and the new Iraqi army is a joke:
"Commanders concerned for their careers
have not thought it prudent to go further, and to say publicly what
many say privately: that with recent American troop levels - 139,000
now - they have been forced to play an infernal board game,
constantly shuttling combat units from one war zone to another,
leaving insurgent buildups unmet in some places while they deal with
more urgent problems elsewhere"
Burns explains that of the 139,000 soldiers in country, only 60,000
are combat troops. He concludes that whatever optimistic news we get
of insurgents being slain, the military is reading the tealeaves and
wants out, Their code word here is "the feeling is growing."
" But whether there are too many American soldiers or too few, a
feeling is growing among senior officers in Baghdad and Washington
that it is only a matter of time before the Pentagon sets a
timetable of its own for withdrawal. These officers point to the
effect on American public opinion of the slow disintegration of the
30-nation military coalition that America leads, and to frustration
on Capitol Hill with the faltering buildup of Iraqi forces. These
officers also cite the recruiting slump and fear the risk is growing
that the war, like Vietnam, will do lasting damage to the Army and
the Marines.
"I think the drawdown will occur next year, whether the Iraqi
security forces are ready or not," a senior Marine officer in
Washington said last week. "Look for covering phrases like 'We need
to start letting the Iraqis stand on their own feet, and that isn't
going to happen until we start drawing down'. "
And so as "the feeling" grows and as demands for withdrawal
intensify watch for those "covering phrases," the new face of media
spin.
And also consider this--a realization widely understood by
commentators in the Middle East and echoed daily on pro-insurgent
websites like JihadUnspun.com where propaganda from the other side
challenges propaganda on ours--that this war is already lost. And
ours is the only country that doesn't know it.
If you thought the Downing Street Memo should have had more
coverage, watch for reporting on the World Tribunal on Iraq that
concludes its yearlong 14 country series of hearings in the next
weeks in Istanbul judging the conflict as a crime.
The judgment of guilt is a certainty but wouldn't it be great if the
American people could get to weigh the evidence.
Mediachannel.org's News Dissector Danny Schechter is finishing a
book "When News Lies" which will also include his film WMD (Weapons
of Mass Deception) on the media coverage of the war. See
www.wmdthefilm.com )
Add your comments below
Contribute $$ to OpEdNews
