Category Archives: The Middle East

exploiting the war dead for “politics”?

Beth Gillin wrote Saturday’s lead story in the Philadelphia Inquirer about peace activists who commemorate slain American soldiers in public ceremonies. She also discussed Ted Koppel’s decision to read the names of the American dead on “Nightline,” and Gary Trudeau’s naming some fallen soldiers in Doonesbury. I saw this article because Gillin interviewed me and quoted me twice, but I didn’t give her any interesting or profound ideas to use. (You have to register with the Inquirer to read the story, unfortunately.)

Many of today’s peace activists say that they are against the war but not against our troops. They want to distance themselves from that wing of the anti-Vietnam movement that vilified American soldiers of all ranks. They explain that they are deeply saddened by the loss of American lives; indeed, that’s one of their reasons for opposing the war. They want to grieve publicly and also to draw attention to our losses, as part of an argument against the invasion and occupation.

Koppel (whose program provoked massive controversy) denies having an anti-war motive, but he admits trying to make an editorial point:

The reading tonight of those 721 names was neither intended to provoke opposition to the war, nor was it meant as an endorsement. Some of you doubt that. You are convinced that I am opposed to the war. I?m not. But that?s beside the point. I am opposed to sustaining the illusion that war can be waged by the sacrifice of the few without burdening the rest of us in any way. I oppose the notion that to be at war is to forfeit the right to question, criticize, or debate our leaders? policies. Or, for that matter, the policies of those who would like to become our leaders. ?Nightline? will continue to do all of those things in the weeks and months to come. But not tonight. That is not what this broadcast was about.

Meanwhile, defenders of the war argue that it is wrong to commemorate our dead in these ways, at this time. They argue that it shows a lack of balance to emphasize casualties without providing context, such as lists of Saddam’s victims. They accuse Koppel and Trudeau of doing something inappropriate for their respective roles. (Koppel is supposed to break news; Trudeau is supposed to entertain; and a list of people killed in the past is neither news nor entertainment.) They worry that public grieving will weaken morale. Finally, they smell political manipulation. They see reciting the names of dead Americans as a way to play on citizens’ emotions, to attack the incumbent administration under the cover of patriotism. They claim that the deaths of military people are being exploited to attack the military itself.

I’m strongly in favor of these commemorations. Since I’m basically skeptical of the war itself, my stance wouldn’t surprise or persuade anyone on the other side of this particular issue. However, I think it’s worth considering a more general point. In modern America, we tend to see “politics” as deeply suspect. Thus any mixing of “politics” with journalism or with mourning and ceremony strikes us as inappropriate. But “politics” includes trying to persuade one’s fellow citizens about important issues–including war and peace. Thus understood, “politics” is a very noble and serious matter. There’s no pollution or manipulation involved in combining “politics” with other things. Indeed, one cannot create serious art, religion, or journalism in times of war without some admixture of “politics.”

Many people have made up their minds about the war. They intend to vote accordingly in November, and they believe that everyone else should vote the same way, or else the election will be a travesty. In this context, people are looking very critically at news organizations, schools, and religious congregrations for signs that leaders are trying to influence the vote. Regardless of our opinions about the war, however, we ought to be able to stomach emotional and powerful statements by people on the other side. Otherwise, we evidently lack the maturity to handle “politics” when the stakes are high.

John Kerry in London (a fantasy)

London, May 17–Senator John Kerry returned to London this morning after two days at Chequers, the Prime Minister’s private retreat. Standing with Mr. Blair outside 10 Downing Street, Senator Kerry said, “We have agreed on a range of very promising options for managing the crisis in Iraq.”

The police closed Whitehall, a broad street near the Prime Minister’s residence, to accommodate a crowd that was estimated at over 20,000. There were some hecklers, but Senator Kerry drew a roar of support when he waved through the iron gates.

The two leaders refused to elaborate on their plans, saying that the situation in Iraq was changing quickly. However, Senator Kerry’s entourage included Peter W. Galbraith, a former US Ambassador to Croatia who advocates dividing Iraq into three semi-autonomous constituent republics. Mr. Galbraith refused to comment.

Mr. Blair, pressed to say whether he was endorsing the Democratic nominee, replied repeatedly that British governments “never pick sides” in U.S. Presidential campaigns. “The choice belongs to the American people, and our government will work effectively with either party,” he said. “This was simply an opportunity for us to exchange ideas with another American political leader.”

Nevertheless, British commentators unanimously detect political advantage for Mr. Blair. Polls last week showed only 19 percent of respondents were satisfied with the Labour government, and Mr. Blair’s personal loyalty to U.S. President George W. Bush has been a major liability. While most foreign leaders would hesitate to cross the President, Mr. Blair has kept 12,000 troops in Iraq and is immune to punishment. Any criticism from Washington would be a political gift. The Sun, a conservative tabloid, declared: “Bush’s ‘Poodle’ Bites.”

For his part, Senator Kerry gains stature and offers a sense that the Iraq crisis may be solvable. Bush Administration officials scrambled to counter any advantage. Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said, “Senator Kerry is desperate to show that he is qualified to lead America. After more than 20 years of voting against a strong defense, he has to cross the ocean in search of supporters.” On the Senate floor, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) challenged Senator Kerry to reveal his “secret plan” for Iraq. However, another Republican Senator who asked not to be named said, “This hurts, because Blair is not some foreigner meddling in American politics. He used to be George Bush’s best friend.”

the proximity of evil

I?m still at Wye River, at the end of two long but productive and interesting days discussing education and democracy. It?s a beautiful place. There must be four or five square miles of property, flat farmland surrounded by placid estuaries that drift imperceptibly toward the Chesapeake and buzz with insect life. Long paved avenues, lined by evenly spaced maples, connect the various buildings; in between are pastures with grazing cows, patches of pine woods, and open meadowland. During the break I saw deer, vultures, and schools of small fish. It?s very quiet here, and there?s been little time for following the news. It?s easy to make the evil world seem far away. Yet on the Web I see pictures of a smiling, wholesome, young American woman who has been credibly charged with torture in Iraq, and I reflect that the land that looks so lush and peaceful around me must have been worked by generations of slaves, brutalized by whips, guns, and rape, and I keep thinking that we need to face our own national character squarely. We do have a far better political system and a healthier culture than many countries?, but we also have a terrible tendency to sentimentalize ourselves. We like to think we?re all Jessica Lynch, the spunky survivor. But some of the alleged American torturers look just like her.

Some Americans think that our national record is basically one of sacrifice and service. We lost thousands of young men in two World Wars, saving our allies from tyranny. Thanks to us, there is democracy and prosperity in Japan and Europe (both east and west of the old Iron Curtain). We fought in Korea and Vietnam with good intentions, to say the least. Unfortunately, foreigners are often ungrateful for our aid and advice?perhaps jealous or resentful, or perhaps just so different from us that they can?t appreciate our help. This is what one group of Americans thinks, while another argues that our record is basically blood-soaked and imperialistic. We vaporized Nagasaki to intimidate the Soviets and to gain control over Asia; we created tyrannies in Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia, Zaire, Chile, and elsewhere; and we support current dictators for financial gain. Which version of recent history you adopt will deeply shape your view of any contemporary American intervention overseas. My own position would fall somewhere between these two caricatures, but right now I?m very conscious of our faults. Americans were victims on 9/11, but that doesn?t mean that we are a nation of innocents. Democracy and service may be American traditions, but so is brutality. If we’re going to try to improve other people’s countries, we’d better remember our own capacity for evil.

Iraq and the press: discussion

I chaired a public discussion today about the media and Iraq. The speakers were:

  • Susan Moeller, a former photo-journalist and now a Journalism professor at Maryland who has written a fine paper on media coverage of weapons of mass destruction. Susan has also taught at Harvard, Princeton, Islamabad, and elsewhere and has published two highly relevant books, Compassion Fatigue: How the Media Sell Disease, Famine, War and Death, and Shooting War: Photography and the American Experience of Combat; and
  • Christopher Hanson, also a Journalism professor at Maryland and a former reporter who covered the first Gulf War and the civil war in Rwanda from the field. Chris is interviewed here.

    • I talked about why the quality of press coverage matters, in the first place.

    It’s hard to summarize a wide-ranging and serious conversation, other than to say that everyone is deeply critical of reporting about Iraq. Everyone would like to read broader and more substantive stories, not about the daily body-count but rather about the status of Iraq’s infrastructure, or about Iraqi culture and history, or about the reasons for the diverse opinions that Arabs hold. We would at least like to know: how many Iraqis have working electricity today?

    Here are some additional points that struck me as particularly useful:

  • The policy of “embedding” reporters with military units has made them reliant on their sources, but this is nothing new–it’s the problem that usually afflicts “beat” reporters, who become close to the experts and officials in their area of coverage.
  • All the critical questions that should have been asked about the War were asked before the invasion began, but not conspicuously. They appeared once on p. 18 or p. 25, while the Administration’s line apppeared daily on the front page.
  • Reporters take their cues from conflicts among political elites. When there’s little dissent among elected leaders, the press cannot (or doesn’t know how to) create stories that are independent of the official line. Thus the lack of Democratic dissent before the War prevented the press from developing critical articles. Howard Kurtz makes the same point to the BBC today
  • When editors and reporters learn that the public is misinformed about a topic that they are covering, some reply (explicitly): “We don’t educate. Our job is to uncover new information.” They don’t take responsibility for the public’s failure to understand the “big picture.”

    • Whenever I hear that there is a lack of substantive news coverage (for instance, about the state of the Iraqi infrastructure today), I always wonder what factors are to blame: the cost of researching such stories; the (perceived) lack of audience demand for substantive news; a lack of skills in the press corps; or some kind of editorial bias among editors and publishers.

    why do we care about press coverage of Iraq?

    There’s a very hot debate about the quality of news about Iraq. Some colleagues and students and I have created a special website with a lot of relevant information on that topic. I think the first step is to ask what’s the purpose of press coverage. Here are some answers that seem to be implicit in the current debate:

    1. A citizen’s main responsibility is to decide whether the Bush Administration has done a good job so far, and to vote accordingly this November.

    Some people feel passionately that the Bush Administration has been awful–either wicked or incompetent–and that the election results in November should reflect this verdict. For them, it is very disturbing that a majority of Americans still believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or a major WMD program) on the eve of the invasion, and that world opinion is largely favorable toward the war. (See this PIPA report.) They believe that each of these beliefs is false, that the contrary positions make the case against Bush, and that the press is responsible for failing to convey the truth.

    Other people (for example, these folks) have the same view of the press’ function (to inform citizens who are going to vote yea or nay on the Administration’s performance to date), but they believe that Bush is a decisive, visionary leader. To them, it is deeply frustrating that the press emphasizes casualties and conflicts in Iraq, rather than America’s work in rebuilding the country. Many of them were incensed when the press reported setbacks in the initial ground war, which quickly turned into a rout of Saddam’s forces.

    In my own view, citizens need to do much more than vote retrospectively on a president, once every four years. I agree that a president’s performance in his first term provides some evidence about how he would behave in the next four years, although this evidence is very imperfect. But if all I’m supposed to do is make a retrospective judgment of competence, and it takes a lot of my time to get adequately informed, and there are many other important issues besides Iraq, and 100 million other adults will also vote, I’m not sure it’s worth my trouble to follow the war closely. Furthermore, I don’t see a reason to care about the quality of news coverage if each citizen’s role is so limited.

    2. We are morally complicit in what our government does, so we should understand the results and feel appropriate emotions.

    People who implicitly hold this view believe that we are part of a democratic community, so we are morally required to associate ourselves with the actions of the US Government. If Americans are brutally killed by terrorists, we should know all the details and feel a desire for vengeance. If American soldiers are killed, we should grieve for them and their families (and perhaps vent anger against the leaders who sent them into danger, if we think that the war was unnecessary). If our bombs kill Iraqis or Afghans, then we should see pictures and read accounts of what has been done. If people rage against the US in Baghdad, Athens, or New York, we should read what they say so that we can either take patriotic offense or come to share their judgment. Looking away from any of these events is a dereliction of our moral duty.

    For their part, news organizations have an obligation to describe events in all their emotional power. Thus it was right to show the bodies of American contractors in Falluja; and we should all view the coffins of the American dead.

    There are potential criticisms of this position, although I haven’t seen anyone argue against it explicitly. Perhaps we shouldn’t engage too emotionally with current events, because our job is to be sober and judicious judges of policy. Or perhaps we have no obligation to read upsetting news or see upsetting pictures, since we aren’t very complicit in this war. We are not intentional participants in the group that’s fighting. I might say: I didn’t vote for Bush, nobody consulted me before they decided to invade, and I don’t need to wallow in the bad news that has resulted. Finally, one could argue that the focus of our emotional engagement shouldn’t be Iraq. Sadness about deaths thousands of miles away is cheap; we should spend our time worrying about the local homeless, because we can help them.

    3. Policymakers will respond to polls, so poll results should reflect good judgment.

    This is actually a variant of #1 (above), but it adds an important wrinkle. We don’t just vote in November; in addition, we are polled at frequent intervals. Perhaps poll results shouldn’t matter, but they do influence policy. If 90% of the public wanted us out of Iraq, we’d probably be heading out. Thus it’s important that people pay attention and base their opinions on good evidence and careful consideration of alternative views. Unfortunately, the American people deserve no better than a “B” for knowledge and effort, according to this study.

    It’s undeniable that surveys matter. But it’s not clear that they should. Nor do I have a very strong obligation to inform myself and to participate in discussions about Iraq just in case a pollster decides to call me. It would be better to draw a random sample of Americans, tell them that their opinions will really count, and demand that they do their homework so that everyone else can get on with their private business. This is the Deliberative Polling idea–somewhat utopian, but worth thinking about as an alternative to our current system.

    4. The press is a watchdog or whistle-blower.

    According to this thesis, it doesn’t much matter what average Americans think or know about Iraq. The purpose of the press is to “blow the whistle” when the government really messes up or does something unethical. The audience for such stories need not be especially large. It may be various elites. In extreme cases, the only people who have to read an investigative news report are Members of Congress and officials in the Justice Department, who will use the data in their legal actions against the administration.

    It’s clear that the press has played this watchdog role well, from time to time. Watergate is the classic case. However, there are several drawbacks to the idea of press as watchdog. First, the only tribunal that should really judge a president is the people. So unless the people pay attention to the full range of news (good as well as bad), a president will not be fairly judged at the polls. If congressional committees, special prosecutors, and bipartisan commissions become the bodies that assess presidential performance, democracy is weaker–and we risk criminalizing policy mistakes.

    Second, the press has a legitimacy problem. No one elects the White House press corps to be Tribunes of the People. If we don’t approve of their performance, we can’t remove them. A skillful populist can discredit reporters precisely by making this point. Indeed, Bush’s approval ratings rose when reporters began to hammer him on Iraq, presumably because a lot of Americans view the president as more their representative than the networks and major newspapers. Jay Rosen considers this phenomenon in a subtle essay.

    Finally, it really doesn’t make much business sense to imagine printing a national newspaper or running a cable news network for the benefit of, 300 powerful policymakers. The news that appears on TV and in print must interest masses of people. This tends to distort any effort to investigate the details and complexities of alleged government misbehavior.

    5. Citizens Can Do More than Vote.

    People who know me have been waiting for this answer. We don’t just observe policy and render occasional judgments. We can also do “public work.” In relation to Iraq, we can choose to: organize political movements for or against the war; debate and try to develop policy alternatives for our government to adopt; follow the reconstruction effort closely to learn lessons for our own local work in battered American communities; develop relationships with individuals abroad and with immigrants in the US (in order to strengthen America’s “soft power” and make us more responsive); raise money for NGOs like the International Rescue Committee; and even enlist in the US Military.

    I like this position best, for philosophical reasons. But we need to be realistic. A lot of these forms of engagement are very hard or cannot reasonably be undertaken by most Americans. For instance, approximately 0.04% of the American population is serving in Iraq. If we increased that number tenfold, we would still only be able to include four tenths of one percent of the American people in direct work “on the ground” in Iraq.

    Getting good information about Iraq is difficult, since much of the most important data is classified or inaccessible to Americans.

    Also, a lot of movement-building, advocacy, and deliberation work really aims to change other Americans’ opinions. But what’s the point of that, other than to help them cast the correct vote next November (see #1 above)? If voting is a weak form of citizenship, then trying to change other people’s votes is not much better.

    As a personal matter, I feel compelled to watch the Iraq situation very closely and to express my views to anyone who wants to hear them. I try to be a responsible observer. I think this is because of #2 (above), a sense of moral association with the US Government. Perhaps my emotional response contains a dose of bad faith or self-indulgence or moral convenience, since I’m far from the suffering and have nothing to do about it. In any case, we need to decide what obligations we have as citizens, in order to decide what role our press should play, in order to assess the performance of the press in the Iraq war.

    [Two more answers to my original question (“Why should we care about press coverage of Iraq?”), added on May 1:]

    6. This war and occupation is a tremendous opportunity for us all to learn about profound and perennial issues.

    What better way to examine democracy, power, tyranny, military force, cultural differences, law, civil liberties, Islam, Christianity, economic development, and even human nature than to study the dramatic events taking place in Iraq? We ought to understand these issues, because they arise in our own lives and communities; because they are intrinsically interesting and morally serious; and because the views that we form in response to the Iraq war will not only influence next November’s vote–they will shape every decision we ever make about national politics. If this is true, then we should expect the press to be an excellent educator, providing diverse opinions and useful information relevant to profound and lasting issues. We shouldn’t much care why George W. Bush ordered the invasion, but we should ask what are the necessary conditions for democracy to take root. We should also be interested in such perennial questions as: Should societies use the talents of people who have committed wrongs in the past (e.g., former Baathists in Iraq)? What potential for good and evil do we see in Americans under stress, and how can we strengthen our best instincts as a people? How can a government respond when the popular press is fomenting hatred and violence?

    7. The “few-to-many” press is not important; it’s the “many-to-many” dialogue that matters.

    All my previous answers focused on the mass media: the broadcast networks and major newspapers. But today there are said to be three million blogs, not to mention countless Listservs and printed newsletters. Most of this communication is not focused on Iraq, but a substantial portion is. There may be one million people who have created public, accessible commentary about the war and related issues. Perhaps we should prize this conversation. It is intrinsically interesting, it may shape broad public opinion, and it’s so international that it may increase cross-cultural understanding. The paid, professional press still has a major role to play, providing most (although not all) of the basic information that feeds into these informal, public debates. But if we care most about the informal discussion, then we should ask whether the professional press is doing a good job in providing raw material. (I would say that it probably is.)