The Post: a little Truth mixed in with the Propaganda

The front page of the Washington Post is a great example of propaganda in journalism. In the upper left of their front page (online version), we see a picture of a man and his dog walking across what looks to be dry, heavily cracked mud and the headline is, "2005 Continues the Warming Trend," so they are starting with the obligatory gobal warming pitch. The top headline in the center of the page reads, "Bush Allowed Domestic Spying in 2002 Order - President authorized NSA eavesdropping operations with post-9/11 order, despite previous legal prohibitions against such tactics." At least they got the obligatory stab at the President out of the way early. Actually, now that I look, the rest of the front page is a verbal assault on our nation's President, too. That's what it's all about though, isn't it? Attacking the President. Every. Single. Day. Nothing unusual there. Next on their front page we have, "Sen. McCain Takes the Lead - Torture ban compromise becomes an awkward dance in which President Bush must follow." So now we are to believe that Senator McCain is telling the President what to do, reinforcing the "Bush can't think for himself" meme. (Funny. I thought this week's angle was that the President does not listen to others - that he lives in a bubble.) This story from the Post further paves the way for a McCain run for President in '08, which wouldn't be as good as Hillary but better than any other Republican the Post's editors can think of. Next we have, "Experts Cautious on Iraq Vote - Analysts say high turnout and little violence during elections is a positive step but not a turning point." What would we do without the Post's duplicitous "experts" and "analysts?" Actually, we'd do pretty well, particularly in Iraq. I'm wondering how they can call this "news" without collapsing in a fit of laughter. Next we have the Post's lead opinion piece apparently, which starts with "The struggle for Mideast democracy will be a human triumph if it succeeds -- but not, by itself, a victory for American national security." The 'Post didn't have articles like this when we invaded Kosovo or Somalia. Explain to me how Kosovo or Somalia made our nation more secure.

But, speaking of troops, I did find this article in the Post yesterday which is not an article at all but a letter from a US Marine. It was not mentioned on their front page of course, but at least they printed it. Maybe they're slipping. (I can dream, can't I?) The letter is so good, I think I'll just 'post' the whole thing right here:

The Truth On the Ground
By Ben Connable

Wednesday, December 14, 2005; Page A29

When I told people that I was getting ready to head back to Iraq for my third tour, the usual response was a frown, a somber head shake and even the occasional "I'm sorry." When I told them that I was glad to be going back, the response was awkward disbelief, a fake smile and a change of subject. The common wisdom seems to be that Iraq is an unwinnable war and a quagmire and that the only thing left to decide is how quickly we withdraw. Depending on which poll you believe, about 60 percent of Americans think it's time to pull out of Iraq.

How is it, then, that 64 percent of U.S. military officers think we will succeed if we are allowed to continue our work? Why is there such a dramatic divergence between American public opinion and the upbeat assessment of the men and women doing the fighting?

Open optimism, whether or not it is warranted, is a necessary trait in senior officers and officials. Skeptics can be excused for discounting glowing reports on Iraq from the upper echelons of power. But it is not a simple thing to ignore genuine optimism from mid-grade, junior and noncommissioned officers who have spent much of the past three years in Iraq.

We know the streets, the people and the insurgents far better than any armchair academic or talking head. As military professionals, we are trained to gauge the chances of success and failure, to calculate risk and reward. We have little to gain from our optimism and quite a bit to lose as we leave our families over and over again to face danger and deprivation for an increasingly unpopular cause. We know that there are no guarantees in war, and that we may well fail in the long run. We also know that if we follow our current plan we can, over time, leave behind a stable and unified country that might help to anchor a better future for the Middle East.

It is difficult for most Americans to rationalize this optimism in the face of the horrific images and depressing stories that have come to symbolize the war in Iraq. Most of the violent news is true; the death and destruction are very real. But experienced military officers know that the horror stories, however dramatic, do not represent the broader conditions there or the chances for future success. For every vividly portrayed suicide bombing, there are hundreds of thousands of people living quiet, if often uncertain, lives. For every depressing story of unrest and instability there is an untold story of potential and hope. The impression of Iraq as an unfathomable quagmire is false and dangerously misleading.

It is this false impression that has led us to a moment of national truth. The proponents of the quagmire vision argue that the very presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is the cause of the insurgency and that our withdrawal would give the Iraqis their only true chance for stability. Most military officers and NCOs with ground experience in Iraq know that this vision is patently false. Although the presence of U.S. forces certainly inflames sentiment and provides the insurgents with targets, the anti-coalition insurgency is mostly a symptom of the underlying conditions in Iraq. It may seem paradoxical, but only our presence can buffer the violence enough to allow for eventual stability.

The precipitous withdrawal of U.S. troops would almost certainly lead to a violent and destabilizing civil war. The Iraqi military is not ready to assume control and would not miraculously achieve competence in our absence. As we left, the insurgency would turn into internecine violence, and Iraq would collapse into a true failed state. The fires of the Iraqi civil war would spread, and terrorists would find a new safe haven from which to launch attacks against our homeland.

Anyone who has spent even a day in the Middle East should know that the Arab street would not thank us for abandoning Iraq. The blame for civil war would fall squarely on our shoulders. It is unlikely that the tentative experiments in democracy we have seen in Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan and elsewhere would survive the fallout. There would be no dividend of goodwill from heartbroken intellectuals or emboldened Islamic extremists. American troops might be home in the short run, but the experienced professionals know that in the long run, quitting Iraq would mean more deployments, more desperate battles and more death.

Sixty-four percent of us know that we have a good shot at preventing this outcome if we are allowed to continue our mission. We quietly hope that common sense will return to the dialogue on Iraq. Although we hate leaving our families behind, many of us would rather go back to Iraq a hundred times than abandon the Iraqi people.

A fellow Marine and close friend epitomizes this sentiment. Sean has served two tours in Iraq as a reserve officer. During his last tour, he was informed of the birth of his baby girl by e-mail, learned his father was dying of cancer, and was wounded in the same blast of an improvised explosive that killed his first sergeant on a dirt road in the middle of the western desert. Sean loves his family and his job, but he has made it clear that he would rather go back to Iraq than see us withdraw.

Everyone in uniform does not share this sentiment. Thirty-six percent of military officers are less confident in the mission. But these officers will continue to work as hard as the rest of us toward success because they, too, are professionals. With men and women such as this, the United States has an excellent chance of success in Iraq. We can fail only if the false imagery of quagmire takes hold and our national political will is broken. In that event, both the Iraqi people and the American troops will pay a long-term price for our shortsighted delusion.

The writer is a major in the Marine Corps

I think the disparity in opinion is due to the fact that 99% of Americans have not spent a day on the ground in Iraq and only know what the Post and other mainstream media propaganda outlets tell them. Much of the information we receive from our most trusted sources is false - if people don't see the world clearly then they can't make decisions on a rational basis.