The Columbus Institute of Contemporary Journalism (CICJ) has operated Freepress.org since 2000 and ColumbusFreepress.com was started initially as a separate project to highlight the print newspaper and local content.
ColumbusFreepress.com has been operating as a project of the CICJ for many years and so the sites are now being merged so all content on ColumbusFreepress.com now lives on Freepress.org
The Columbus Freepress is a non-profit funded by donations we need your support to help keep local journalism that isn't afraid to speak truth to power alive.
A basic PR problem remains. While you're in a hurry to launch an
all-out war on Iraq, the main obstacle is that a large majority of
Americans don't feel the rush. Uncle Sam's usual carrots and sticks have
a long way to go at the U.N. Security Council. The big disappointment of
January is that some key allies haven't caved yet.
No need to belabor the recent polling numbers. Newsweek did a
national sampling of opinion midway through the month, and you went into
a funk when you read the Associated Press summary: "Most Americans want
the United States to take more time seeking a peaceful solution in Iraq
rather than moving quickly into a military confrontation."
The next sentence was even more cautionary: "By 60 percent to 35
percent, people in the Newsweek poll ... said they would prefer that the
Bush administration allow more time to find an alternative to war." And,
what's more, "a majority would be opposed should this country act without
the support of the United Nations and had no more than one or two
allies."
But before you panic at the specter of peace breaking out, take a
long cold look at another finding: "Support for a military option would
be strong, 81 percent, if the United States were to act with full allied
support and the backing of the U.N. Security Council." Such full support
and backing is likely to be unnecessary. At home, appreciable war fever
is available for inflamation below the surface, and an initial large
majority of domestic public opinion will not be needed to get the war job
done.
It may be possible to chip away at recalcitrant citizens by
portraying the obstinate allies as mischievous or worse. Some media
coverage has been apt. A quiet cheer is in order for your friends at The
Washington Post, where strong editorial support for a righteous war often
runs parallel with news articles. When the Post recently reported on its
front page that France signaled plans to "wage a major diplomatic fight,
including possible use of its veto power" on the Security Council, the
newspaper informed readers that France and other balking countries had
just engaged in "a diplomatic version of an ambush."
An undertone of allied flirtation with treachery is a helpful media
spin at a critical moment. It provides a wisp of underdog status for
American diplomats as they salvage what support they can and preen
themselves as courageous global visionaries -- a posture that can augur
well for the aftermath to a State of the Union text swaddling the
president's war cries in oodles of lofty rhetoric.
The cabinet and sub-cabinet heavy hitters naturally pile on with a
renewed blitz of network talk shows. One way or another, they explain
that the USA's war train is leaving the station, and other nations would
do well to hop on board.
Not many pundits emphasize that the war dealers in Washington have,
as an ace in the hole, the ability to begin large-scale bloodshed and
then let the devil take the hindmost. When warfare becomes a fait
accompli -- with high-tech missiles suddenly flying and with American
soldiers killing and even dying -- the public's numbers quickly shift
away from antiwar sentiment (at least for a while). It's not necessary to
consolidate a supportive majority before war gets rolling. It's
sufficient to have enough people cowed and numbed so that opposition to
starting the war stays within tolerable bounds.
As thoroughly modern masters of war, you comprehend the captivating
power of television to simultaneously mesmerize and anesthetize. Once the
Pentagon's carefully screened video clips are streaming onto TV sets in
wartime, a kind of intoxication sets in; the journalists seem to feel the
rush, and they pass it along. The media pace is frenetic, with adrenalin
pumping; the new conditions of carnage are exactly suitable to play to
the U.S. government's unrivaled strength -- its capacity to inflict
massive and overpowering violence. And, helped along by media spin, most
people back home can be induced to revere the inevitable winner.
"A conqueror is always a lover of peace," the Prussian general Karl
von Clausewitz remarked two centuries ago. The more you yearn to launch a
war, the more you must strive to burnish your image as someone who craves
peace. On your terms, of course.
______________________________________
Norman Solomon's new book, "Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn't Tell
You," is being published this week by Context Books. The co-author is
foreign correspondent Reese Erlich.