[PAA-Discuss] FW: Solomon / Media Spin on Iraq: We're Leaving (Sort of) / Sep 01

[Lee Loe]

Today's commentary:
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2007-08/31solomon.cfm

==================================

ZNet Commentary
Media Spin on Iraq: We're Leaving (Sort of) September 01, 2007 By Norman
Solomon 

In mid-July, a media advisory from "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer"  announced
a new series of interviews on the PBS show that will address  "what Iraq
might look like when the U.S. military leaves."

A few days later, Time magazine published a cover story titled "Iraq:  What
will happen when we leave."

But it turns out, what will happen when we leave is that we won't leave.

Urging a course of action that's now supported by "the best strategic  minds
in both parties," the Time story calls for "an orderly withdrawal  of about
half the 160,000 troops currently in Iraq by the middle of  2008." And: "A
force of 50,000 to 100,000 troops would dig in for a  longer stay to protect
America's most vital interests..."

On Iraq policy, in Washington, the differences between Republicans and
Democrats -- and between the media's war boosters and opponents -- are
often significant. Yet they're apt to mask the emergence of a general
formula that could gain wide support from the political and media
establishment.

The formula's details and timelines are up for grabs. But there's not a
single "major" candidate for president willing to call for withdrawal of
all U.S. forces -- not just "combat" troops -- from Iraq, or willing to
call for a complete halt to U.S. bombing of that country.

Those candidates know that powerful elites in this country just don't  want
to give up the leverage of an ongoing U.S. military presence in  Iraq, with
its enormous reserves of oil and geopolitical value. It's a  good bet that
American media and political powerhouses would fix the  wagon of any
presidential campaign that truly advocated an end to the  U.S. war in -- and
on -- Iraq.

The disconnect between public opinion and elite opinion has led to  reverse
perceptions of a crisis of democracy. As war continues, some are  appalled
at the absence of democracy while others are frightened by the  potential of
it. From the grassroots, the scarcity of democracy is  transparent and
outrageous. For elites, unleashed democracy could  jeopardize the priorities
of the military-industrial-media complex.

Converging powerful forces in Washington -- eager to at least  superficially
bridge the gap between grassroots and elite priorities --  are likely to
come up with a game plan for withdrawing from Iraq without  withdrawing from
Iraq.

Scratch the surface of current media scenarios for a U.S. pullout from
Iraq, and you're left with little more than speculation -- fueled by  giant
dollops of political manipulation. In fact, strategic leaks and
un-attributed claims about U.S. plans for withdrawal have emerged
periodically to release some steam from domestic antiwar pressures.

Nearly three years ago -- with discontent over the war threatening to
undermine President Bush's prospects for a second term -- the White  House
ally Robert Novak floated a rosy scenario in his nationally  syndicated
column that appeared on Sept. 20, 2004. "Inside the Bush  administration
policy-making apparatus, there is strong feeling that  U.S. troops must
leave Iraq next year," he wrote. "This determination is  not predicated on
success in implanting Iraqi democracy and internal  stability. Rather, the
officials are saying: Ready or not, here we go."

Novak's column went on to tell readers: "Well-placed sources in the
administration are confident Bush's decision will be to get out." Those
well-placed sources were, of course, unnamed. And for good measure,  Novak
followed up a month before the November 2004 election with a piece  that
recycled the gist of his Sept. 20 column and chortled: "Nobody from  the
administration has officially rejected my column."

This is all relevant history today as news media are spinning out  umpteen
scenarios for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. The game involves  dangling
illusionary references to "withdrawal" in front of the public.

But realities on the ground -- and in the air -- are quite different. A
recent news dispatch from an air base in Iraq, by Charles J. Hanley of  the
Associated Press, provided a rare look at the high-tech escalation
underway. "Away from the headlines and debate over the 'surge' in U.S.
ground troops," AP reported on July 14, "the Air Force has quietly built  up
its hardware inside Iraq, sharply stepped up bombing and laid a  foundation
for a sustained air campaign in support of American and Iraqi  forces."

In contrast to the spun speculation so popular with U.S. media outlets  like
Time and the PBS "NewsHour," the AP article cited key information:
"Squadrons of attack planes have been added to the in-country fleet. The
air reconnaissance arm has almost doubled since last year. The powerful
B1-B bomber has been recalled to action over Iraq."

This kind of development fits a historic pattern -- one that had  horrific
consequences during the war in Vietnam and, unless stopped,  will persist
for many years to come in Iraq.

Assessing the distant mirror of the Vietnam War, the narration of the  new
documentary "War Made Easy" (based on my book of the same name)  spells out
a classic White House maneuver: "Even when calls for  withdrawal have
eventually become too loud to ignore, officials have put  forward strategies
for ending war that have had the effect of prolonging  it -- in some cases,
as with the Nixon administration's strategy of  Vietnamization, actually
escalating war in the name of ending it."

Between mid-1969 and mid-1972, American troop levels dropped sharply in
Vietnam -- while the deadly ferocity of American bombing spiked upward.

The presence of large numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq during the next  years
is a likelihood fogged up by fanciful media stories asserting --  without
tangible evidence -- that American troops will "pull out" and  the U.S.
military will "leave" Iraq. The spin routinely glides past such  matters as
the hugely militarized U.S. embassy in Baghdad, the numerous  permanent-mode
U.S. bases in Iraq, and the vast array of  private-and-often-paramilitary
contractors at work there courtesy of  U.S. taxpayers. And there's the
rarely mentioned prize of massive oil  reserves that top officials in
Washington keep their eyes on.

The matter of U.S. bases in Iraq is a prime example of how events on
Capitol Hill have scant effects on war machinery in the context of
out-of-control presidential power. "The House voted overwhelmingly on
Wednesday to bar permanent United States military bases in Iraq," the  New
York Times reported on July 26. But the war makers in the nation's  capital
still hold the whip that keeps lashing the dogs of war.

As the insightful analyst Phyllis Bennis points out: "The bill states an
important principle opposing the 'establishment' of new bases in Iraq  and
'not to exercise United States control of the oil resources of  Iraq.' But
it is limited in several ways. It prohibits only those bases  which are
acknowledged to be for the purpose of permanently stationing  U.S. troops in
Iraq; therefore any base constructed for temporarily  stationing troops, or
rotating troops, or anything less than an  officially permanent deployment,
would still be accepted. Further, the  bill says nothing about the need to
decommission the existing U.S. bases  already built in Iraq; it only
prohibits 'establishing' military  installations, implying only new ones
would be prohibited."

Despite all the talk about how members of Congress have been turning
against the war, few are clearly advocating a genuine end to U.S.  military
intervention in Iraq. Media outlets will keep telling us that  the U.S.
government is developing serious plans to "leave" Iraq. But we  would be
foolish to believe those tall tales. The antiwar movement has  an enormous
amount of grassroots work to do -- changing the political  terrain of the
United States from the bottom up -- before the calculus  of political
opportunism in Washington determines that it would be more  expedient to end
the U.S. occupation of Iraq than to keep it going under  one guise or
another.

____________________________________

The new documentary film "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep
Spinning Us to Death" is based on Norman Solomon's book of the same  title.
Grassroots activists have begun to use the DVD as an antiwar  organizing
tool. For information about the full-length movie, narrated  by Sean Penn
and produced by the Media Education Foundation, go to:
www.WarMadeEasyTheMovie.org