Making A Quagmire: The media seeks its Vietnam in Fallujah
Some time ago, a big city newspaper editor became famous for a trick of numbers. In a book on Hoaxes, it is included in its own chapter, titled “I make a crime wave”.
The irony is that all the worthy editor did was tilt his coverage towards the sensational where criminal activity was concerned. In reality, there was no increase in the overall crime rate – the “crime wave” existed only in the imagination of the newsman, and the readers who became increasingly alarmed by his increasingly alarming coverage.
What was true years ago, is happening to this day with regards to the war in Iraq.
While on one hand the media rushes to employ a variety of euphemisms in an effort to make it seem there are no “terrorists” in Iraq, so that they may make the war seem unnecessary, on the other hand the media is trying to make Iraq appear a “quagmire” in which America will get bogged down, suffer increasing casualties, and, ultimately, withdraw from in defeat. This is not a new development; it began even before the first troops set foot on Iraqi sand, when the media “experts” and talking heads began broadcasting predictions of a quagmire. Iraq, we were told, would turn into another Vietnam – a parallel that has since been employed with increasing frequency. Every day, the media trumpet the deaths of American soldiers and civilian employees in Iraq; two slain here, one blown up by a car bomb there. What they lose sight of is that, as tragic as these deaths are, the war in Iraq has been, from a historical standpoint, remarkably low in casualties. It was predicted that Americans would suffer horrible casualties before taking Baghdad. Yet, Baghdad fell quickly, with relatively few American casualties.
The success of the war, for the first part, anyway, was historical. In World War II hundreds and thousands of Americans would die in one battle. Major Iraq cities fell with far fewer casualties. And if American forces had not been pressured to take altruistic nonsense to new lows by risking their own lives to avoid civilian casualties at all costs, U.S. casualties would have been even fewer still. The fact is that despite a poorly guided war effort hampered by concern for “collateral damage” that hamstrung our soldiers, America accomplished something that has never happened before in any other war. We took control of the country with few casualties in virtually no time. Yet, the media doomsayers did not quiet down after Baghdad fell – or even after Saddam Hussein was captured. They persisted in claiming America would get bogged down in Iraq.
Enter Fallujah. This Iraq city had become a notorious terrorist base camp, used to stage attacks on Americans and peace-minded Iraqis. Rather than destroy the terrorists, America allowed the terrorists – or “militants” as the media calls them now – to remain in place. Instead, it was the U.S. who withdrew, leaving Fallujah to fester because our political leaders were fearful that a determined effort to root out the terrorists would cause too much “collateral damage”.
It was a case of a self-fulfilled prophecy. There are no practical obstacles to American victory in Iraq – or anywhere in the terror world. There are two real obstacles, but they begin here at home; the fragmented philosophy of our leaders that dilutes national defense with altruistic concern for enemy casualties, and the media which wants America to fail. But the first was not an obstacle to initial victory over Hussein’s regime.
Even within the fragmented world-view of a “compassionate conservative” such as George W. Bush, who tries to balance a defense of America with altruistic “compassion” for enemy casualties, the necessity of a strong defense won out. True, it was not a smooth road; there were incidents in the first part of the war where U.S. soldiers’ lives were risked needlessly out of fear of hurting the enemy. There was the case of Afghanistan, where food was dropped to feed civilians and ended up being available to jihadists as well; where politically correct concerns actually raised, as a question which was taken seriously, whether America should stop bombing Afghanistan during Ramadan, a Muslim holiday. But by and large American troops fought through the obstacle of their leaders’ clouded mindset. If the President is unclear on some points, U.S. troops were not; they knew what they had to do. And they did it admirably. And, to Bush’s credit, though his effort has been marred by, and diluted with, altruistic nonsense, t is still the strongest response yet any U.S. President has made to the terrorism emanating from hostile regimes in and around the Arab world.
The second obstacle, however, has not been nearly so benign. Because much of the media hails from the political left, they view dimly any use of force in America’s self-interest, preferring instead the altruistic mantle of the U.N. or other such organizations. Because much of the left is guided by the ethical egalitarianism of the multiculturalist viewpoint, which regards all cultures as equal and deserving of consideration, they do not like to see America defend itself against the regimes of hate around the world. The irony is that whilst taking the side of these other cultures the left – which is usually perceived as non-religious, and derides the “right” as “bible-thumpers” -- is taking the side of the most rabidly irrational religious fanatics in the world. It is also worth noting that in taking the side of these regimes, the left ignores that they do not recognize the rights of their own people, in many cases, especially women – a double irony as women’s causes tend to be a bulwark of the left in American politics. But it is an irony that has escaped the Left – and the predominantly leftist media.
Thus the only quagmire that existed in Iraq was that of the media’s own making. There was no obstacle to U.S. victory – beyond that which they created. But more than that, the media could not wait any longer; it had to find its “Vietnam” in Fallujah, because no more opportunities were left to it. The terrorists or “militants” had resorted to cowardly sneak attacks and beheading hapless truck drivers, wearing masks like common bank robbers. Their street fighters had resorted to attacking American troops with small arms fire and rusty pick-up trucks with jury-rigged gun mounts. It was now or never; the U.S. was very close to crushing the terrorists; we certainly had the firepower. The only area where we lacked the ability was with regards to the will of our leaders.
This is why the media had to “make a quagmire”: The enemy was losing this “Vietnam”. And the media could not let that happen. In their view, America is the villain of the world stage, and they could not wait to see U.S. troops retreat. So they began to skew their coverage in ways that discouraged American victory. Sowing doom an gloom with their sensationalist reporting of enemy activity and attacks, and then whining about how any America efforts to stop said attacks by killing the terrorists [“militants”] would inflame the populace. The result was classic leftism at work; the media proposes a problem, then denies the only real solution as too “mean” or “harsh”.
The result was, the U.S. pulled out of Fallujah. The terrorists rejoiced, and are now busily beheading U.S. truck drivers and Italian workers… even as the media continues to insist Iraq had/has “no terror connections”.
As the kidnappings and murders, bombings and sniping attacks at U.S. troops and civilian contractors continue, some Americans on the left-hand side of the political spectrum are blaming President Bush, encouraged by an eager media. These citizens are understandably disgusted at the death of America troops. But note that their newfound belief in isolationism is hardly consistent; many of them were silent when President Clinton used the U.S. military as altruist sandbags in Bosnia, and none of them said a word of criticism when Clinton utilized American troops to install dictator Aristide in Haiti. Why, then, the criticism to denounce President Bush for ousting an anti-American dictator?
The answer is obvious. The anger at murdering terrorists is being shifted, by a clever media ploy, to point at Bush. However, when rational citizens look at the situation as it actually happened, it becomes clear the fault is not the President’s, but the terrorists.
Although, considering the context, one wonders how much of that blame can also be extended to the irresponsible partisan media, who went to Iraq seeking Vietnam, and took it upon themselves to “make a quagmire”.
back!
Click here to go back to Articles, page 1
