I have been criticized, with some justification, for focusing too much on the Media and the Democrats, whose behavior so often seems to undermine our efforts in the War on Islamofascism, sometimes inadvertently and sometimes by design. The counter arguments from the left, often stated with absolute conviction, is that the most important story is the incompetence and/or evil of the Bush administration. All of which reminds me of the story of the Blind Men and the Elephant.
In John Godfrey Saxe's ( 1816-1887) version of the famous Indian legend, 6 blind men approach an elephant and try to describe it by touch alone. One touches its flank and declares an elephant ifs like a wall; the second touches its tusk and declares an elephant is like a spear. After all six proclaim their sense of what an elephant is, the poem concludes:
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!Moral:
So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!
It seems to me that much of our Media commentary on the war in Iraq suffers from a form blindness that is akin to the blindness of the 6 Indian men.
Journalists who stay in the green zone in Baghdad only see a small part of what is happening in Iraq yet report their iron clad conclusions that the meme of the week is being supported by the carefully edited version of reality they allow their minds to recognize. In a similar way there are almost certainly supporters of the war who miss salient data that conflicts with their need to see the war as closer to success than it actually is. From my reading of the situation, the Iraqis are working out their differences in a political process that includes a substantial, but decreasing, amount of violence. Evidence is accumulating that attacks are down, IED attacks are down, American and Iraqi casualties are declining, Iraqis are increasingly standing up for themselves and repudiating the al Qaeda and ex-Baathist insurgents; obviously, it all could be derailed if the current political wrangling fails. Clearly some Iraqi groups (the Sadr brigades, for example) do not yet see their interests lying in compromise. Bill Roggio has suggested that we are closing in on the end game of the "pre-government" phase; watch what happens to Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari for clues to the next phase:
Previously, the calls for Jaafari's resignation came from different factions within the UIA, including SCIRI's AbdulMahdi and Jalal al-Deen al-Saghir, Mohammed Ismail Khazali of the Fadhila party, and independent UIA member Kasim Daoud. Now that Sistani has openly withdrawn support, Jaafari's time is short. Jaafari's Dawa party must decide if it will support him to the bitter end, in defiance of Sistani's council and the united factions outside the UIA. Will Jaafari and Sadr stand against Iraq?
Sadr must decide if it will bring the Mahdi Army to the streets of Baghdad, Najaf and Karbala and force a showdown with the U.S. Army and Marines, and the Iraqi security forces. Iranian plans to gain influence via Jaafari and Sadr are close to being in shambles. The real questions are will Iran risk an open confrontation with the Coalition and Iraqi government by backing an open insurrection by supporting Sadr's Mahdi Army and elements of the Badr Brigades said to be under their control, and will they risk losing their most influential and powerful pieces on the Iraqi chess board?
While the Mainstream Media is rapidly losing market share and influence, a very few highly influential players (The New York Times, Washington Post, major network news casts) tend to set the agenda for local news casts and local newspapers, from which most people still receive most of their information about the world. The Media is essentially our eyes to the world (though the Blogopshere is making some headway in offering new eyes that can look at other parts of the elephants out there) and when the Media doesn't report news because it doesn't fit their "story line" they are not doing their job of illuminating the entire elephant. Here are two other eye-openers about Iraq that do not, by any means, present a complete picture of what is happening over there. The first is a story by Franklin Raff at WorldNetDaily.com, who writes about an Iraqi officer who asks a plaintive question in I have seen the enemy ... : [HT: Mark in Mexico]
Why do you people not tell our story? Why do you not say what is going on? Why do you come to our country and see what is happening, you see the schools and the hospitals and you see the markets and you eat with Sunni and Shia soldiers – everybody eats together, everybody works together –you see that Saddam is gone forever and we are free to speak and complain.
You see we are working and eating together and fighting together – Sunni and Shia – you see what we are building here, you see the votes we make as one people. Then you say to the world about a great war and horrible things and how we are all killing each other? We are not animals! We are Iraqis. Look around you! Look!
And, Bruce Kesler makes a necessary point about so much of the hand-wringing going on in our Media and among defeatists of all stripes:
The simple fact on the ground is that we’ve certainly accomplished our minimal, although major, objectives in Iraq: Its potential for WMD’s, for sponsoring terror, for threatening its neighbors is ended, and for centralized Sunni repression and murder are ended. The Iraqis have been given the time, guidance and resources to forge their own, more benign and beneficial future. Its neighbors similarly, plus the spurring example of the necessity to more equitably modernize.
If we leave tomorrow, Iraq will take years and millions of lives before it can return to being a terrible threat to us; the cost to our nation of allowing a blood bath by prematurely leaving, would be incalculable. Bruce adds:
Everyone knows the United States will reduce its forces in Iraq.... Most agree that includes a move toward 100,000 troops by end of 2006, and toward 25-50,000 by 2008.
The most salient Vietnam comparison is that when we deserted our allies in South Vietnam and the Democratic Congress cut off funding support for their military, they were doomed, and anywhere from 1-3 million in Vietnam and Cambodia died as a result.
A few Democratic politicians recognize the danger of irresponsible, reflexive oppositionalism, but the Democrats' problem is included in his comment from the New Yorker article THE LESSON OF TAL AFAR:
“There’s an old saying in politics: when your opponent’s in trouble, just get out of the way,” Senator Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat, told me. “In political terms, I don’t think that Democrats are obligated to solve Iraq for the Administration.” He added, “I think that, for the good of the country, we’ve got to be constructive in figuring out what’s going to be best. I’ve taken political hits from certain quarters in the Democratic Party for even trying to figure this out. I feel that obligation. I’ll confess to you, though, I haven’t come up with any novel, unique answer so far.”
The base of the Democratic party is being controlled by those who still act as if the greatest danger in the world is George Bush and the use of American military power. They may not be representative of the average Democrat, but until their inordinate influence is countered, the Democrats can not be trusted with national security, which leaves many of us unhappy with the Republicans on many fronts but more distressed by the alternative.
Recent Comments