Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

War on Iraq

How to Stay in Iraq for the Next Million Years

By Tom Engelhardt, Tomdispatch.com. Posted February 22, 2008.


When did immediate military withdrawal from Iraq stop being an option?
Advertisement

Think of the top officials of the Bush administration as magicians when it comes to Iraq. Their top hats and tails may be worn and their act fraying, but it doesn't seem to matter. Their latest "abracadabra," the President's "surge strategy" of 2007, has still worked like a charm. They waved their magic wands, paid off and armed a bunch of former Sunni insurgents and al-Qaeda terrorists (about 80,000 "concerned citizens," as the President likes to call them), and magically lowered "violence" in Iraq. Even more miraculously, they made a country that they had already turned into a cesspool and a slagheap -- its capital now has a "lake" of sewage so large that it can be viewed "as a big black spot on Google Earth" -- almost entirely disappear from view in the U.S.

Of course, what they needed to be effective was that classic adjunct to any magician's act, the perfect assistant. This has been a role long held, and still played with mysterious willingness, by the mainstream media. There are certainly many reporters in Iraq doing their jobs as best they can in difficult circumstances. When it comes to those who make the media decisions at home, however, they have practically clamored for the Bush administration to put them in a coffin-like box and saw it in half. Thanks to their news choices, Iraq has for months been whisked deep inside most papers and into the softest sections of network and cable news programs. Only one Iraq subject has gotten significant front-page attention: How much "success" has the President's surge strategy had?

Before confirmatory polls even arrived, the media had waved its own magic wand and declared that Americans had lost interest in Iraq. Certainly the media people had. The economy -- with its subprime Hadithas and its market Abu Ghraibs -- moved to center stage, yet links between the Bush administration's two trillion dollar war and a swooning economy were seldom considered. It mattered little that a recent Associated Press/Ipsos poll revealed a majority of Americans to be convinced that the most reasonable "stimulus" for the U.S. economy would be withdrawal from Iraq. A total of 68% of those polled believed such a move would help the economy.

Anyone tuning in to the nightly network news can now regularly go through a typical half-hour focused on Obamania, the faltering of the Clinton "machine," the Huckabee/McCain face-off on Republican Main Street, the latest nose-diving market, and the latest campus shooting without running across Iraq at all. Cable TV, radio news, newspapers -- it makes little difference.

The News Coverage Index of the Project for Excellence in Journalism illustrates that point clearly. For the week of February 4-10, the category of "Iraq Homefront" barely squeaked into tenth place on its chart of the top-ten most heavily covered stories with 1% of the "newshole." First place went to "2008 Campaign" at 55%. "Events in Iraq" -- that is, actual coverage of and from Iraq -- didn't make it onto the list. (The week before, "Events in Iraq" managed to reach #6 with 2% of the newshole.)

True, you can go to Juan Cole's Informed Comment website, perhaps the best daily round-up of Iraqi mayhem and disaster on the Web, and you'll feel as if, like Alice, you had fallen down a rabbit hole into another universe. ("Two bombings shook Iraq Sunday morning. In the Misbah commercial center in the upscale Shiite Karrada district, a female suicide bomber detonated a belt bomb, killing 3 persons and wounding 10 ... About 100 members of the Awakening Council of Hilla Province have gone on strike to protest the killing of three of them by the U.S. military at Jurf al-Sakhr last Sunday, in what the Pentagon says was an accident ... Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that officials in Baqubah are warning that as families are returning to the city, they could be forced right back out again, owing to sectarian tensions ... ") But how many Americans read Juan Cole every day ... or any day?

On that media homefront, the Bush administration has been Houdini-esque. Left repeatedly locked in chains inside a booth full of water, George W. Bush continues to emerge to declare that things are going swimmingly in Iraq:

"... 80,000 local citizens stepped up and said, we want to help patrol our own neighborhoods; we're sick and tired of violence and extremists. I'm not surprised that that happens. I believe Iraqi moms want the same thing that American moms want, and that is for their children to grow up in peace ... The surge is working. I know some don't want to admit that, and I understand. But the terrorists understand the surge is working. Al Qaeda knows the surge is working ... "

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: bush, media, iraq, clinton, obama, mccain, surge

Tom Engelhardt, editor of Tomdispatch.com, is co-founder of the American Empire Project and author of The End of Victory Culture.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
When???
Posted by: carbon-based on Feb 22, 2008 2:40 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"When did immediate military withdrawal from Iraq stop being an option?"

When those making such ridiculous statements realized that there is more to Iraq than just an invasion. The more democrats promise to end this and change that the more you know they are clueless of what they speak, or just lying..or both!

Listen to Obama, first he's against the war, then he votes along party lines, then he realizes after really analyzing the situation that there is no way we are withdrawing all our troops.

McCain is the only one that called it correctly, like Korea, we could be there in some form for the next 100 years

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: When??? Posted by: brunowe
» RE: When??? Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: When??? Posted by: brunowe
» RE: When??? Posted by: umrayya
» RE: When??? Posted by: umrayya
» RE: When??? Posted by: Tahlavi
Five Years and Counting
Posted by: Roy Eidelson on Feb 22, 2008 3:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for this excellent analysis. From a psychological perspective, for five years now the Bush administration has promoted the misguided and destructive invasion and occupation of Iraq by manipulating the public and the mainstream media. I examine the warmongering appeals they have used--and how to counter them--in a 10-minute video entitled “Resisting the Drums of War” available for viewing HERE.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You think that the war is expensive!
Posted by: phindrup on Feb 22, 2008 3:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Americans believe that the war is expensive.
Just wait until reparation is ordered, and individual claims for damages descend upon you.
Failing economy, loss of 'super power status' and the account for this Bush inflicted disaster.
Nowhere will anybody shed a tear for you, nowhere will there be even a sliver of sympathy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the duh word, Genocide
Posted by: KAEL on Feb 22, 2008 5:58 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most Americans can think on both sides of the issues. They see a wrong war criminally conducted. They don't see that two wrongs make a right. Causing an immediate genocide in Iraq is not an option for most Americans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: the duh word, Genocide Posted by: umrayya
They will never leave...
Posted by: mjglow on Feb 22, 2008 6:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just like they never left Germany, Bosnia, Kosovo or any other place where they have managed to set up camp.

Speaking of Kosovo...why is there no mention of the Belgrade burning of the US Embassy anywhere on here? I'd think it would at least deserve a blog...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» That's interesting Posted by: Antoine
No one..
Posted by: motamanx on Feb 22, 2008 8:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...seems to want to define "victory", so we will never "give up to the terrorists".

In fact, WE are the terrorists; and "victory" is when Exxon gets Iraqi oil.

It's all so unmentionable, but it's true. Leaving immediately is the only sane option.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The US genocide has been in progress for over 15 years now
Posted by: ScottP on Feb 22, 2008 8:32 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The idea that a genocide will begin after the US withdraws is a cruel hoax. The genocide was started by the US in the Gulf War, and was called "shock and awe." It involved the destruction of the nation's infrastructure, continued with the slaughter of civilians, continued with the blockade under Clinton, then continued with W's second round of "shock and awe" and invasion, then continued under the occupation with firing of public employees to undermine the economy, arming of the death squads, setting up the puppet regime, etc. The UN definition of genocide:
...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
– Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II (quote from wikipedia)

There are over 4 million refugees who will attest to the destruction of their society. Add to that a million a year for as long as the occupation continues. This is not an accident, it is a plan. The idea of spending another year or 16 months or 2 years after the election "drawing down" is just another appeasement to the war profiteers.

OUT NOW! NOT ANOTHER DIME!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The war demoralizes and kills those most dangerous to America's future.
Posted by: aka_bozo on Feb 22, 2008 1:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Republicans and their kids.

Vote for John in `08!!

Help Jesus thin the herd. VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You've got to hand it to the Americans
Posted by: famouspipeliner on Feb 22, 2008 11:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here they are, in the new century, warring on sovereign nations, occupying foreign lands and seizing resources whilst still giving full pretense to the notion that they're out there for any reason which happens to address the situation of the moment.
And then you've got the military who won't want to surrender any of the ground they've gained...and the bases have been constructed. What do you Americans think is going to happen? A hundred years war? Jesus Christ, we haven't got that much time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush wants failure
Posted by: mattehood on Feb 29, 2008 6:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only thing wrong with the first Gulf War is the military was to successful. Saddam Hussein out foxed Bush Sr because he expected Saddam to fight to the bitter end. Bush would be able to force the coalition to fight into Baghdad to remove Saddam. Once Saddam surrendered, the push to steal the oil of Iraq stopped; which has been the goal of the CIA since the 1940's. President Bush Jr. is not going to make the same mistake his father did. He does not want success! Success means he has to withdraw soldiers. This President is sabotaging his own war. He is not leaving until he has pacified the Iraq people by Americanizing them. We are at war with Islam. The Koran is against usury. They will not tolerate charging interest rates towards their fellow Muslim. The entire nation feels that the oil belongs to all the people of Iraq. Private property and capitalism is a sin! Islam and communism is hostile towards the crooks on Wall Street. What ever contract the Iraqi government signs with the Bush administration was done under duress and is not legally binding under International law! Bush is doing exactly what they did to the Iranians in 1953! Why dont they talk about why the west was kicked out of Iraq the first time. The Western oil companies conspired with the Saudi government to control the Iraqi oil fields. They cheated Iraq out of taxes and revenue. They deliberately failed to developed the pipelines and the oil fields of Iraq to enrich their Saudis friends and themselves. The Exxon's of America have been successful to reduce the oil from Iran and Iraq. That is why we are paying $130 dollars for a barrel of oil. Osama Ben Laden main complaint against the west is that he felt that the west were cheating the Arabs in the price of fuel. He helped Bush get his wish. I would not be surprised if he is not getting rich of Bush's war to continue his war! It has been the long term goal of the CIA's cold war plans to privatise the middle east. They believe the best way to change society is to wage war! That is what they teach all Bones-men at Yale

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]