Ruminations, October 18, 2009

The war in Iraq

The war In Iraq, judging by the media, is winding down. U.S. military fatalities have been, for the last 18 months, the lowest for the entire operation. Is the war over?

Maybe not. If we look at the military deaths, it does seem that the war is winding down. If we look at Iraqi civilian deaths figures (from the Brookings Institute), they show 1,831 Iraqi civilian deaths in 2008. Taking Brookings’ figures for January 2009 through August 2009, we can project a slight increase to 1,898 deaths for 2009. If Iraqi civilian deaths are increasing, how can we claim the war is winding down? We may be ready to leave but somebody is sure staying and fighting.

If we look at our objectives for the war, in no particular order, they seem largely satisfied:

• We are certain that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
• Iraq is no longer a government supporter of terrorism.
• Iraq is not run by a hostile dictator.
• Iraqi oil revenues will not be used to further hostile actions against the United States or its allies.
• Iraq is no longer sponsoring terrorist raids against Israel.
• Iraq is a fledgling democracy and model to the rest of the Mid East.

Since we are in the midst of a phased withdrawal, why are terrorists continuing to kill civilians? Why are some foreign governments continuing to support terrorists in Iraq?

It would appear that the last bullet point, “Iraq is a fledgling democracy and model to the rest of the Mid East,” and all that implies, is the objective that most concerns the enemy. In fact, the establishment of a democracy in Iraq has been a source of encouragement to the protestors in neighboring Iran. One would have to conclude that the attacks in Iraq are intended to bring enough fear to the citizens of Iraq that they will opt for a dictatorship that promises security rather than democracy – and thus not serve as a model of democracy to the other countries of the Mid East...

Providing support for the government of Iraq and holding on to the hard-won victory while scaling back American troops will not be easy – but it is important. We wish President Obama well.

“Obama’s War”

Maybe it was Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals that has led many on the left to tie wars to individuals. In Rule 12, Alinsky says:”Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.” When the Radicals to whom Alinsky speaks oppose a war, they associate the war with a president. At one time (even pre-Alinsky), opponents of the Korean War called it “Truman’s War.” The War in Vietnam was often referred to as Johnson’s War or Nixon’s War.  And of course, the war in Iraq was often called Bush’s War.

Now, on Public Broadcasting, of all places, the war in Afghanistan is being referred to as “Obama’s War.” What gives? Have Alinsky’s radicals become anti-war in Afghanistan and anti-Obama?

By assigning ownership to a war, you can absolve yourself from doing anything to support the war effort, and perhaps, even rationalize working to subvert efforts to win. While wars can and should be debated even while the war is ongoing, we need to remember that under the constitution we have one president and he/she is the commander-in-chief. While we are free to disagree with the policies of the president, wars they wage are our nation’s wars; they are not personal wars.

Constitutionally, the Rules for Radicals have no standing in American law. But make no mistake: National wars are not waged by individuals; they are waged by the national institutions. The war in Afghanistan is not Obama’s War; it is America’s.

War on Fox News

Sometimes, when you fight a battle, the battle itself isn’t as important as the political message it sends to others. It could be that this is the point of the Obama Administration’s so-called war on Fox News.

Last week on CNN, White House Communications Director Anita Dunn said, "What I think is fair to say about Fox — and certainly it's the way we view it — is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party. They take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition research, put them on the air. And that's fine. But let's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is." She then added, in a comment to The New York Times, "We're going to treat [Fox News] the way we would treat an opponent."

Earlier this year, President Obama said, “I've got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration. You'd be hard pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front." True or not, Obama expresses an attitude toward Fox and he will act according to his attitude.

When Obama put on a weekend blitz to promote his health care program in September, he appeared on five television news programs plus the David Letterman show. He pointedly left out Fox News.

When Fox News offered to host a 2008 Democratic presidential debate, Obama and the rest of the Democratic presidential candidates refused to participate.

Last week, Fox News was informed that no one from the White House would appear on Fox News until 2010 at the earliest.

Many pundits have been critical of the Obama’s strategy of waging war on a news network. For one thing, they draw parallels with President Nixon’s ineffective efforts to marginalize The New York Times. It’s an interesting parallel but it fails in comparison because Fox News is not The New York Times. Regardless of what you think of The Times, it is the pre-eminent newspaper in the country and its industry rallies around it. Fox is considered, rightly or wrongly, an outlier of news organizations. The Times decides what is news and the industry immediately takes note, whereas the news media can take a week or more to notice what Fox News has decided is news.

So, will it hurt Obama to isolate and marginalize Fox News? Probably not. But that may not be Obama’s real goal. Considering that the news media, excluding Fox, does seem to have a favorable view of Obama, his message to them may be: you’d better keep your coverage of this administration positive if you want to stay in the loop.

Whether or not that is the intended message that Obama wants to send, it may be the message that the news media draws from his actions.