When I hear pundits warn that Iraq is becoming a “quagmire,” I
wince.
“Quagmire” is a word made famous during the Vietnam War. The current
conflict in Iraq comes out of a very different history, but there are
some chilling parallels. One of them has scarcely been mentioned: These
days, the editorial positions of major U.S. newspapers have an echo like
a dirge.
Of course, the nation’s mainstream press does not speak with a
monolithic editorial voice. At one end of the limited spectrum, the
strident and influential Wall Street Journal cannot abide any doubts. Its
editorials explain, tirelessly, that the war was Good and the occupation
is Good -- and those who doubt are fools and knaves. (LBJ called such
dissenters “Nervous Nellies.”)
The Journal editorial writers fervently promote what used to be
called the domino theory. The day after the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad
blew up last month, the paper closed its gung-ho editorial by touting a
quote from Centcom commander Gen. John Abizaid: “If we can’t be
successful here, then we won’t be successful in the global war on terror.
It is going to be hard. It is going to be long and sometimes bloody, but
we just have to stick with it.”
As the summer of 2003 nears its end, most newspaper editorials are
decidedly less complacent about the occupation of Iraq. Some lambast the
Bush administration for deceptive spin, poor planning and go-it-alone
arrogance. A big worry is that the U.S. government now faces a quagmire.
During the late 1960s, that kind of concern grew at powerful media
institutions. After several years of assurances from the Johnson
administration about the Vietnam War, rosy scenarios for military success
were in disrepute.
But here’s a revealing fact: In early 1968, the Boston Globe
conducted a survey of 39 major U.S. daily newspapers and found that not a
single one had editorialized in favor of U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam.
While millions of Americans were demanding an immediate pullout, such a
concept was still viewed as extremely unrealistic by the editorial boards
of big daily papers -- including the liberal New York Times and
Washington Post.
Yes, some editorials fretted about a quagmire. But the emphasis was
on developing a winnable strategy -- not ending the war. Pull out the
U.S. troops? The idea was unthinkable.
And so it is today. Consider the lead editorial that appeared in The
New York Times on the same day that The Wall Street Journal was giving
Gen. Abizaid the last word. “The Bush administration has to commit
sufficient additional resources, and, if necessary, additional troops,”
the Times editorialized. The newspaper went on to describe efforts in
Iraq as “now the most important American foreign policy endeavor.” In
other words, the occupation that resulted from an entirely illegitimate
war should be seen as entirely legitimate.
A week later, the Times followed up with a similar tone --
reminiscent of the can’t-back-down resolve that propelled countless
entreaties for more effective “pacification” during the Vietnam War.
Articulating what passes for dissent among elite U.S. media, the Aug. 27
editorial cautioned that “the United States will pay a high price in
blood and treasure if the Bush administration persists in its misguided
effort to pacify and rebuild Iraq without extensive international
support.”
Troops from other nations are being imported. But that does little
to make the occupation of Iraq less of a U.S. operation. The Vietnam War
had its multilateral fig leaves too; the war was supposedly an “allied”
effort because it included participation from Filipino, Australian and
South Korean troops.
When the Bush administration was striving to use the United Nations
last fall, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman applauded the attempt
to manipulate the world body. For a while in November, he was happy: “The
Bush team discovered that the best way to legitimize its overwhelming
might -- in a war of choice -- was not by simply imposing it, but by
channeling it through the U.N.”
Current media appeals for multilateral policies rarely go beyond
nostrums like giving the handpicked Iraqi leaders more prominent roles,
recruiting compliant natives and foreigners for security functions, and
getting the United Nations more involved. But whatever the U.N. role in
Iraq turns out to be, the U.S. government still insists on remaining in
charge.
Despite the compromises, that’s the bottom line. The Bush
administration is not letting go of a country that has so many attractive
features to offer -- including a central geopolitical foothold in the
Middle East, access to extensive military bases for the Pentagon, and ...
oh yes ... about 112 billion barrels of known oil reserves under the
sand.
_____________________________________________
A transcript of Norman Solomon’s Aug. 26 appearance on CNN, debating U.S.
policies in Iraq, is posted at:
www.accuracy.org/NSCNN082603.htm
