THE BROADER VIEW : Words and war
Posted on Sunday, December 3, 2006
URL: http://www.nwanews.com/nwat/Editorial/47714/
We have paid a heavy
price for the lack
of due diligence by much of the mainstream media and by Congress in the period leading up to the war in Iraq. The failure to examine seriously the claims made by the Bush administration for going to war constituted a major breakdown in our system of formal and informal checks and balances and in the watchdog role of the media and Congress and its relevant committees. Over the past year and in some cases longer, key elements within the media have taken on a more responsible role in reporting and analyzing developments in Iraq and related actions within the U. S. government. And now, with Democrats having captured control of the House and Senate in last month’s elections, we can expect Congress to play a stronger role as well. The effect of all this is that President Bush now has much of both the media and the Congress looking over his shoulder — along with much of the rest of the world — as he deals with the dilemma in Iraq. This was evident in recent days as Bush administration struggled to keep an increasingly desperate situation in Iraq from deteriorating further.
It is noteworthy that some key components of the U. S. media have begun referring to the prolonged strife in Iraq as a civil war, a term that the Bush administration has vigorously resisted. NBC News announced this week that it would apply the civil war label, joining the Los Angeles Times, among others, in using that terminology. There is some quibbling over whether the term is appropriate, but the case for using it seems entirely justified. As NBC’s Matt Lauer said, “ the situation in Iraq with armed militarized factions fighting for their own political agendas can now be characterized as civil war. ” But White House Press Secretary Tony Snow insists that the term overstates and misrepresents the nature of the conflict. It is true that there are differing definitions and interpretations of what constitutes a civil war. A leading international relations reference says it is “ protracted internal violence aimed at securing control of the political and legal apparatus of a state” and adds, “ In the analysis of civil wars it is generally possible to distinguish to sides: incumbents and insurgents. ” A widely used international relations text says civil war “ refers to war between factions within a state trying to create, or prevent, a new government for the entire state or some territorial part of it. ” Considering these definitions, the situation in Iraq seems to meet the standard for civil war. John Daniszewski, international editor of The Associated Press, said that the world’s largest news agency remains undecided about using the term. “ From a dictionary and academic point of view, many experts already consider Iraq to be immersed in a civil war, ” he said. However, he noted that others believe a civil war should be more narrowly defined as “ one cohesive force opposing another inside a country — whereas in Iraq the fighting and violence often seem multifaceted, chaotic, and anarchic. ” There’s no doubt that violence in Iraq is multifaceted and chaotic, and perhaps anarchic as well, but that makes it no less a civil war. As CNN’s Michael Ware said this week from Baghdad, “ Anyone who still remains in doubt about whether this is a civil war... is suffering from the luxury of distance. ” Colin Powell, secretary of state during Bush’s first term, agreed this week that Iraq “ could be considered a civil war, ” putting him at odds with the White House. Journalists were cautioned by Roy Peter Clark, senior scholar at the Poynter Institute, a center for journalistic study, who said they should “ avoid the widespread and unreflective use” of the term “ civil war. ” He added, “ To use it is to play into the hands of those who would decertify the press by framing us as against our government and American interests abroad. ” Certainly journalists have an obligation to use terms carefully and responsibly, but the fundamental obligation is to report as accurately as possible, regardless of whether that is always consistent with what government officials say. And in this case, there is strong evidence that our policies and actions in Iraq have damaged American interests abroad. Indeed, much of the media and Congress long deferred to the Bush administration on matters related to national security, including Iraq, and in doing so failed in their responsibilities. The administration has resisted acknowledging the grim realities of a war that has now lasted longer than U. S. involvement in World War II. Candor has been in short supply, beginning with the prewar justification from the White House and continuing through “ mission accomplished” and “ last throes” of the insurgency. Nor has the administration been forthright about the costs. We have already spent more than $ 300 billion in Iraq and are spending at a rate of $ 8 billion a month, but many of the financial costs have not been factored into the budget numbers. The administration has relied heavily on after-the-fact supplemental appropriations and the Pentagon is reportedly preparing a new emergency spending proposal that could be up to $ 150 billion. As Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel said, “ The United States has spent more than $ 500 billion on our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And our effort in Afghanistan continues to deteriorate partly because we took our focus off the real terrorist threat, which was there, and not in Iraq. ”
One reason the White House objects to the “ civil war” label is that its use makes clear that the Bush team has lost control of the narrative on Iraq. For a long period, administration spokesmen criticized reporting from Iraq as not portraying the progress that was being made there while emphasizing the problems. Reporters were said to be lazy and cowardly and, by implication, unpatriotic — even though a number of journalists have been killed or injured and many others have risked their lives in covering the story.
Regardless of the administration’s view that the “ civil war” terminology is misleading, numerous national polls indicate that most Americans appear to have decided that it is civil war, but by whatever name it is called, they are increasingly opposed to the American role there and consider our involvement a mistake. World opinion is decidedly against the United States and our international leadership and credibility have been badly damaged.
When U. S. forces were sent to Iraq, the administration hailed the move as opening a process that would result in the blossoming of democracy throughout the region. Alas, the result has been far different and there are no signs of democracy flourishing or even sprouting. Indeed, as Jordan’s King Abdullah said this week in advance of President Bush’s visit to Amman, there is real danger of three civil wars in the region. In addition to Iraq, there is the turmoil in Lebanon, and, of course, the continuing conflict involving Israel and Palestine.
There’s a real danger that we could be talking about a regional war and not just a civil war. In any case, we are seeing a shift of power and a decline in U. S. influence in the area. One of the recommendations expected from the upcoming Iraq Study Group report is for the United States to talk with Iran and Syria, which the administration has been reluctant to do.
Following their meeting Thursday, Bush proclaimed that Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki Thursday is “ the right guy for Iraq” despite al-Maliki’s sudden cancellation of their meeting the previous day, and despite a memo (leaked to the New York Times ) in which Bush’s national security adviser said the reality on the Baghdad streets suggests al-Maliki is “ either ignorant of what is going on, misrepresenting his intentions, or... his capabilities are not yet sufficient to turn his good intentions into action. ” Al-Maliki has little control over what is happening in Iraq and is closely tied to Moktada al-Sadr, a Shiite cleric highly critical of the American role.
Next week’s release of the report of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group, along with the upcoming Democratic control of Congress, is likely to put added pressure on Bush to find a “ graceful exit out of Iraq, ” as the president himself put it. However, Bush’s statements following the meeting in Jordan did not suggest that he was open to much change in his policies, even though the Baker-Hamilton recommendations may offer him an opening to change course.
Meanwhile, regardless of how the situation in Iraq is characterized, it is a tragic, chaotic and costly conflict, with the danger of spreading even further within the region.
Hoyt Purvis is a journalism and international relations professor and served as press secretary to U. S. Sen. J. William Fulbright, as foreign / defense policy adviser to Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd, and as chairman of the Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board. His column appears on Sundays.