Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

The So-Called War Critics

September 15, 2007 is the deadline for the George W. Bush administration to submit a report to Congress defending its Iraq "surge...

September 15, 2007 is the deadline for the George W. Bush administration to submit a report to Congress defending its Iraq "surge strategy," an escalation of more than 30,000 U.S. troops designed to increase security in the war-torn nation.

Amid the gruesome attacks that continue to plague Iraqis—the casualty toll of last week’s bombing in a poor rural area near the Syrian border has soared to more than 500, making it the bloodiest coordinated attack since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003—and the crumbling political alliances and Sunni defections within Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s floundering government, the White House is hoping to bookend the latest chapter in the Iraq War debacle with some good news.

As usual, the Bush administration has been getting by with a little help—perhaps unwittingly—from its friends in the U.S. mainstream media.

The most recent "information surge" to pulsate through U.S. broadcast news outlets originated from the pens of Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, two self-described critics of the administration’s "miserable handling of Iraq," who, in a July 30 New York Times op-ed entitled "A War We Just Might Win," wrote that the U.S. forces "are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms."

O’Hanlon and Pollack, who are both fellows at the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy, a Washington-based think tank, were careful not to acknowledge the possibility of "victory in Iraq"—an oft-used phrase that, along with "stay the course," has been recently omitted from President Bush’s rhetoric. But they wrote that they were heartened by the morale of U.S. troops, surprised at the gains made by the "surge," and confident in its potential to produce a "sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with."

"There is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008," they concluded. In doing so, O’Hanlon and Pollack jump-started an information surge that would end up providing political cover for the administration’s war policy.

Mainstream media news outlets—perhaps more out of complacence than collusion—jumped on the bandwagon, reporting that two longtime critics of the Iraq War were conceding military progress, while ignoring the fact that both O’Hanlon and Pollack had initially been very vocal supporters of the war effort.

During a July 30 interview on CNN Newsroom, anchor Heidi Collins painted Pollack as an opponent of the war who, based on his eight-day visit to Iraq, had ostensibly changed his mind and was becoming more supportive. "You are a self-proclaimed critic of the way the Bush administration has handled this war, you wrote a book about the situation in Iraq, you shared your thoughts all over TV and in some newspapers, but yet it seems like the tune is changing a bit," she said.

Collins failed to mention the content of Pollack’s 2002 book, The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq, whose title speaks for itself, or that he heavily promoted the invasion of Iraq on Oprah Winfrey’s show in 2002.

O’Hanlon and Pollack were similarly introduced over the next few days in interviews on major U.S. news channels. As noted by Media Matters, a media monitoring organization based in Washington, on the July 30 edition of the CBS Evening News, national security correspondent David Martin incorrectly described O’Hanlon as "a critic" of the Iraq War "who used to think the surge was too little too late, [but] now believes it should be continued."

"In fact," Media Matters wrote, "while O’Hanlon has been critical of the Bush administration’s handling of the Iraq War, he supported the invasion and argued in a January 2007 column that President Bush’s troop increase was ‘the right thing to try.’"

One day after the O’Hanlon-Pollack op-ed was published, Vice President Dick Cheney appeared on CNN’s Larry King Live and extolled O’Hanlon and Pollack’s views, and attempted to add more credibility to the administration policy when he quipped that the op-ed had appeared in the New York Times, "not exactly a friendly publication."

"They have both been strong critics of the war, both worked in the prior administration; but now saying that they think there’s a possibility, indeed, that we could be successful," Cheney told King.

Curiously, in 2002, the Bush administration fed false intelligence to the New York Times about nuclear weapons in Iraq, and Cheney quoted the story in an interview on Tim Russert’s Meet the Press, part of a similar strategy to place the burden of proof on a news source, not the administration.

Yet for all the complacence exhibited by CNN, FOX, CBS, and other news outlets, the contradictions associated with O’Hanlon and Pollack’s analysis were not lost on media watchdogs.

"For sheer deceit and propaganda, it is difficult to remember something quite this audacious and transparently false," wrote Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com. "Witnessing these two war lovers—supporters of the invasion, advocates of the surge, comrades of Fred Kagan—mindlessly depicted all day yesterday by media mouthpieces as the opposite of what they are was really quite startling."

Kagan, one of the architects of the surge strategy, accompanied neoconservative polemicist Bill Kristol on his own tour of Iraq, which resulted in a laudatory evaluation of recent U.S. military efforts.

In an interview with Greenwald, O’Hanlon acknowledged that he was not exactly the Bush administration critic he was described as in numerous broadcast news interviews.

"That I’m being held up as a ‘critic of the war,’ for example by Vice President Cheney, it’s certainly fair to ask if that is a proper characterization of me. And in fact I would not even use that characterization of myself," O’Hanlon told Greenwald. "As you rightly reported, I was not a critic of this war. In the final analysis, I was a supporter."

Perhaps the most stinging rebuke of O’Hanlon and Pollack’s tacit promotion of the surge strategy came in another New York Times op-ed published on August 19. In "The War as We Saw It," seven noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division at the tail-end of a 15-month deployment to Iraq wrote that "the claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework."

Without explicitly referring to the O’Hanlon and Pollack’s op-ed, the seven authors echoed its language and challenged some of its claims.

"We are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political, and social unrest we see today," they wrote.

Yet the U.S. mainstream media did not give it the same attention, even though it was, in many ways, a direct response to O’Hanlon and Pollack’s assertions. In an August 21 analysis piece published by the Associated Press, reporter Charles Babington wrote that Democrats were "wearily anticipating" the upcoming mid-September report, "realizing that opponents will use any upbeat assessment to portray them as defeatists just as glimmers of hope appear."

Those glimmers of hope have been provided by O’Hanlon and Pollack, but the words of the seven U.S. servicemen appear to have gone under the radar. They were nowhere to be found in Babington’s report.

Khody Akhavi is a contributor to the Inter Press Service.

 

Citations

Khody Akhavi, "The So-Called War Critics," Right Web Analysis (Somerville, MA: International Relations Center, August 28, 2007).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks, and one of the prime vacillators among Republicans between objecting to and supporting Donald Trump.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and has deep connections to the Republican Party and the neoconservative movement.


The Washington-based American Enterprise Institute is a rightist think tank with a broad mandate covering a range of foreign and domestic policy issues that is known for its strong connections to neoconservatism and overseas debacles like the Iraq War.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a far-right pundit known for his hawkish policies and opposition to an Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians.


Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and considered by some to be a future presidential candidate.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share