|
Bullet Points over Baghdad
By Paul Krugman
12/02/05 "New
York Times" -- -- The National Security Council
document released this week under the grandiose title "National
Strategy for Victory in Iraq" is neither an analytical report nor a
policy statement. It's simply the same old talking points - "victory
in Iraq is a vital U.S. interest"; "failure is not an option" -
repackaged in the style of a slide presentation for a business
meeting.
It's an embarrassing piece of work. Yet it's also an important test
for the news media. The Bush administration has lost none of its
confidence that it can get away with fuzzy math and fuzzy facts -
that it won't be called to account for obvious efforts to mislead
the public. It's up to journalists to prove that confidence wrong.
Here's an example of how the White House attempts to mislead: the
new document assures us that Iraq's economy is doing really well.
"Oil production increased from an average of 1.58 million barrels
per day in 2003, to an average of 2.25 million barrels per day in
2004." The document goes on to concede a "slight decrease" in
production since then.
We're not expected to realize that the daily average for 2003
includes the months just before, during and just after the invasion
of Iraq, when its oil industry was basically shut down. As a result,
we're not supposed to understand that the real story of Iraq's oil
industry is one of unexpected failure: instead of achieving the
surge predicted by some of the war's advocates, Iraqi production has
rarely matched its prewar level, and has been on a downward trend
for the past year.
What about the security situation? During much of 2004, the document
tells us: "Fallujah, Najaf, and Samara were under enemy control.
Today, these cities are under Iraqi government control."
Najaf was never controlled by the "enemy," if that means the people
we're currently fighting. It was briefly controlled by Moktada al-Sadr's
Mahdi Army. The United States once vowed to destroy that militia,
but these days it's as strong as ever. And according to The New York
Times, Mr. Sadr has now become a "kingmaker in Iraqi politics." So
what sort of victory did we win, exactly, in Najaf?
Moreover, in what sense is Najaf now under government control?
According to The Christian Science Monitor, "Sadr supporters and
many Najaf residents say an armed Badr Brigade" - the militia of a
Shiite group that opposes Mr. Sadr and his supporters - "still
exists as the Najaf police force."
Meanwhile, this is the third time that coalition forces have driven
the insurgents out of Samara. On the two previous occasions, the
insurgents came back after the Americans left. And there, too, it's
stretching things to say that the city is under Iraqi government
control: according to The Associated Press, only 100 of the city's
700 policemen show up for work on most days.
There's a lot more like that in the document. Refuting some of the
upbeat assertions about Iraq requires specialized knowledge, but
many of them can be quickly debunked by anyone with an Internet
connection.
The point isn't just that the administration is trying, yet again,
to deceive the public. It's the fact that this attempt at deception
shows such contempt - contempt for the public, and especially
contempt for the news media. And why not? The truth is that the
level of misrepresentation in this new document is no worse than
that in a typical speech by President Bush or Vice President Dick
Cheney. Yet for much of the past five years, many major news
organizations failed to provide the public with effective
fact-checking.
So Mr. Bush's new public relations offensive on Iraq is a test. Are
the news media still too cowed, too addicted to articles that
contain little more than dueling quotes to tell the public when the
administration is saying things that aren't true? Or has the worm
finally turned?
There have been encouraging signs, notably a thorough front-page
fact-checking article - which even included charts showing the
stagnation of oil production and electricity generation! - in USA
Today. But the next few days will tell.
Translate
this page
(In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.
Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the
originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.) |
