In my last two posts I focused on the tendency of ideologues, especially on the Left, to use splitting to facilitate their arguments (in the sense that "our" side is always all-right and "their" side is always all-wrong) and the way the discussion of the recent NIE has been side tracked by ephemera. Both of these aspects come together in a post by Arianna Huffington today (linked at Real Clear Politics.) In her post, In the Name of Objectivity, Media Clouds the Reality of Terror Report, Huffington decries the tendency of the MSM to offer balance when it is so obvious that there is no balance; rather she sees indisputable facts:
Here we go again. Another devastating report being spun as a mixed bag -- with the spin dutifully echoed by the media. Another administration brain tumor being "offset" by shiny hair.
This time it's the new National Intelligence Estimate report on the threat of terrorist violence against America that is being given the utterly ludicrous "on the one hand... and on the other hand" treatment.
A prime example of this came on AC 360, where Anderson Cooper reported that "both sides in the Iraq debate are spinning [the NIE] to support their case." To prove his point, he rolled a video clip of Bush making the case for staying the course in Iraq. Back on camera, he said, "The Democrats, of course, see it differently."
Huffington is troubled by the fact that the CNN report offered three different and distinct points of view on the NIE. One view (Michael Ware) has it that al Qaeda is a minimal presence in Iraq and the entire venture is misguided. Another view (Peter Bergen) has it that while al Qaeda represents a small number in absolute terms, they have had a disproportionate effect by virtue of their ability to inflict mass casualty attacks and facilitate sectarian conflict. The third view (retired U.S. General David Grange), a bit of an amalgam, holds that by attracting Jihadis to Iraq we are in a better position to confront and kill them, even while the war has "multiplied" the number of terrorists.
The situation in Iraq, of course, is extremely complex and multi-faceted and there are elements that support each position. However, Arianna can not tolerate the ambiguity and uncertainty that such complexity produces:
So there you had it -- a typical media sampler. One saying "it's A", one saying "it's B," and one saying "it's a little of each".
Fair, balanced, objective. And utterly confusing for the very public they are trying to inform.
There are such things as facts. There is such a thing as reality. And refusing to see those facts and report that reality -- undiluted by an "on the other hand" mixer -- isn't a sign of objectivity, it's a sign of intellectual laziness and journalistic muddled thinking.
The NIE report represents the consensus view of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies and is a stark and unambiguous repudiation of the Bush administration's counterterrorism strategy and its contention that the war in Iraq has made us safer.
Indeed, the report suggests that it's just the opposite -- that the war in Iraq has fueled a growing hatred of America, spread Islamic extremism, and spawned an expanding crop of newly inspired jihadists around the globe. And it eviscerates the Bushies' bedrock notion that we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. It turns out that the odds of us having to fight them over here have greatly increased precisely because we are fighting them over there.
The report also highlights the "regenerated" strength of al-Qaeda. So not only have we failed to capture bin Laden and destroy those that attacked us on 9/11 -- we have, thanks to Bush's tragic actions, actually helped keep al-Qaeda strong and deadly.
There is little to be gained by arguing with Arianna Huffington's depiction of the Left's conventional wisdom relating to the war on whatever it is they think we are fighting. I would even be willing to entertain the possibility that her opinion on the war is more closely aligned with the reality than my own. Maybe the Iraq War has been a tragic error, compounded by disastrous mismanagement.
However, even if everything she claims is true, her conclusions are insupportable and based on nothing more than conjecture. As I have written, we are facing an ideological enemy who is extremely skilled at using our own technology against us in a war in which the information component is far more significant than the kinetic component. In such a setting, there is no way to conclude that we are more or less safe at home because of the invasion of Iraq. One could just as easily conclude that if we had never invaded Iraq, al Qaeda would have set up shop in the neighborhood, maintained their de facto alliance with Saddam Hussein, and continued to grow as their trained cadres expanded and became more adept, some of them by training with the worst elements of the Hussein Sunni-terror supporting intelligence apparatus.
The idea that the menace from al Qaeda would have dissipated had we not gone into Iraq is simply unsupported by any evidence, and since we do not get a Mulligan on Iraq, a meaningless argument.
The virtue of the Left's primary arguments is that they are so simple that even the typical voter most disparaged by he Democrats can understand them. "Bush lied" is inaccurate but since there were no stockpiles of WMD found in Iraq, it is an easy way to encapsulate our intelligence failure. It protects Democrats like Bill Clinton and bureaucrats, like George Tenet, and places the entire burden of the war they all supported on the present administration. In the same way, describing our current Gordian knot in Iraq as simply a question of Bush failing to keep us safer is so uninformative as to be purposely misleading. Arianna sys:
The president vowed to keep us safer and, according to 16 intelligence agencies, he has failed. Period. End of story.
The only reasonable response is that since 9/11 we have not been attacked successfully by al Qaeda. This proves neither that we are more or less safe today than yesterday. However, it is quite clear that on July 18, 2007 we were safer than on September 10, 2001. Everything else is conjecture.
The desire to simplify complex, anxiety-producing situations is ubiquitous. When we simplify a complex situation we feel that we have a better understanding of what frightens us; such illusory understanding makes us less anxious. If the Hunffingtons of the world can successfully convince themselves that George W. Bush is the source of all our troubles and that all threats emanate from his behavior, they can minimize their anxiety over a world that is increasing in complexity and feels increasingly out of control. Simply get rid of Bush and all problems will be more manageable.
The corollary is that once Hillary is elected, we can return to the halcyon days of the 90s and get back to the party that was interrupted on 9/11. How lovely that will be.
Recent Comments