Newspaper logo  
 
 
Bookmark and Share
Local News & Opinion

Ref.: Civic Events

Ref.: Arts & Education Events

Ref.: Public Service Notices

Travel
Books, Films, Arts & Education

02.12 FiveBooks Interviews > Lorraine Adams on The Truth Behind the Headlines

Letters

Ref. : Letters to the editor

Health Care & Environment

02.10 LET’S REMAKE THE WAY WE MAKE THINGS

02.09 Obama shouldn’t compromise on birth control with GOP, religious leaders or an unpopular Congress - video

02.09 Cancer rates triple among New York police officers who responded to 9/11

02.08 The seed emergency: The threat to food and democracy

02.07 Bill Gates backs climate scientists lobbying for large-scale geoengineering

02.04 Your Day at the Beach Could Soon Lead to a Night at the Hospital

02.03 Obama Won't Touch Climate With a 10-Foot Pole

02.03 Komen reverses decision to cut Planned Parenthood funding

02.03 Reforming EU Deep-Sea Fisheries Management

02.02 Obama’s Support for Natural Gas Drilling "A Painful Moment" for Communities Exposed to Fracking- video

02.02 By defunding Planned Parenthood, the Susan G Komen Foundation betrays women

02.02 Ohio Tries to Escape Fate as a Dumping Ground for Fracking Fluid

Ref. Dollars for Doctors - How Industry Money Reaches Physicians

Ref. 2010 Comparative Price Report Medical and Hospital Fees by Country - Graphics

Ref. Health at a Glance 2011 - OECD Indicators

Ref. : Why is Healthcare Absurdly Expensive in USA (Part 2) [Graphics] (Part 1 is here)

Video Health Care Systems in Less Corrupt Countries

“News” Media

02.07 Did Obama make the economy worse? Not according to most statistics

02.03 Media Watch: CNN's Erin Burnett regurgitates right-wing talking points to scare retired people - video

02.02 ABC's Iran Propaganda

02.02 The Ongoing “Foxification” of the Wall Street Journal

Daily The Daily Howler

Justice Matters

02.05 Why the AGs Must Not Settle: Robo-signing Is Just the Tip of the Iceberg

02.04 THE CAGING OF AMERICA

02.03 Senate Votes To Ban Its Members From Insider Trading... Kind Of

US Politics, Policy & Culture

02.12 Even Critics of Safety Net Increasingly Depend on It - Interactive Map: Where Americans Most Depend on Government Benefits

02.12 CPAC attendees more focused on the economy than their right-wing leaders - video

02.10 The Cancer in Occupy

02.10 How Opus Dei Influenced Rick Santorum

02.10 People Are Not Leaving the Labor Force

02.09 Obama, Explained

02.09 OPED: The White Underclass

02.09 EDITORIAL: A Terrible Transportation Bill

02.09 THE OBAMA MEMOS

02.06 Are Conservatives More Fearful Than Liberals?

02.04 Soaking the Poor, State by State

02.04 Reddit Co-Founder Alexis Ohanian's Rosy Outlook On The Future of Politics

02.03 SUPERBOWL XLVI: Are You Ready for Some Football???

02.03 Buffett rules: Sheldon Whitehouse introduces the Paying a Fair Share Act - video

02.02 Secrecy Shrouds ‘Super PAC’ Funds in Latest Filings

02.02 Steve Israel condemns GOP Keystone XL ‘stunt,’ cheers Democratic Drive to 25 to reclaim the House - video

02.01 Rich Patrons Are Major Source of Romney’s Cash

High Crimes?
Economics, Gov't. & Business

02.10 This is no bailout for Main Street America

02.10 Why the Foreclosure Deal May Not Be So Hot After All

02.10 Matt Taibbi assesses the $26 billion settlement designed to aid victims of foreclosure fraud - video

02.10 Foreclosure Deal to Spur U.S. Home Seizures

02.08 Banks Paying Homeowners to Avoid Foreclosures

02.07 App Stores Create 500,000 U.S. Jobs

02.07 The Payroll Tax Fight

02.07 Obama super PAC decision: President blesses fundraising for Priorities USA Action

02.06 How Privatizing Government Shovels Cash to Parasitic Corporations and Undermines Democracy

02.05 We’re More Unequal Than You ThinkGraphic: Unequal rise in income

02.03 PRIVATE INEQUITY

02.02 The New American Divide

02.02 American Airlines proposes to end all four pension plans

02.01 Economics 101

Ref. We’re More Unequal Than You ThinkGraphic: Unequal rise in income

International

02.03 What the Occupy movement must learn from Sundance

02.02 US plans to halt Afghan combat role early surprise Kabul

We are a non-profit Internet-only newspaper publication founded in 1973. Your donation is essential to our survival.

You can also mail a check to:
Baltimore News Network, Inc.
P.O. Box 42581
Baltimore, MD 21284-2581
Google
This site Web
  Iraq & Washington's Systemic Failure
Newspaper logo

COMMENTARY:

Iraq & Washington's Systemic Failure

by Robert Parry
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney may deserve the most blame for the Iraq War, but a core reality shouldn’t be missed: the four-year-old conflict resulted from a systemic failure in Washington – from the White House, to congressional Republicans and Democrats, to an insular national news media, to Inside-the-Beltway think tanks.

It was a perfect storm that had been building for more than a quarter century, a collision of mutually reinforcing elements: aggressive Republicans, triangulating Democrats, careerist journalists, bullying cable-TV and talk-radio pundits, aggressive and well-funded think tanks on the Right versus ineffectual and marginalized groups on the Left.

“Tough-guy-ism” from Washington's armchair Rambos had become the capital's controlling ideology, especially after the 9/11 terror attacks. In part, the Iraq War could be viewed as a macho parlor game of one-upmanship gone mad, with very few daring to be called unmanly or un-American.

The war that has killed some 3,200 U.S. soldiers and possibly hundreds of thousands of Iraqis also can be traced to conflicting self-interests, pitting what makes sense for Washington insiders against what’s best for the broader American public and especially military families.

For the politicians and the think-tankers who wanted the invasion, the war was a win-win-win. They amassed greater power and influence; they had the vicarious thrill of dispatching armies into battle; their friends lined up for the gravy train of war profits and the chance to buy up lucrative oil fields.

While cashing in politically and financially, the insiders knew, too, that the human price would be paid by other people’s children and the dollar costs would be passed to future generations.
While cashing in politically and financially, the insiders knew, too, that the human price would be paid by other people’s children and the dollar costs would be passed to future generations. In Washington, a pro-war stance in 2002 and early 2003 was nearly all upside, almost no downside.

However, for those who were sent to fight and for their families, the balance sheet was different.  They suffered the casualties, the fear, the uncertainty, the heartbreak. But these two groups – the war’s architects and the troops – rarely crossed paths, representing two disparate social classes.

While American soldiers and their loved ones worried about actual death, what mattered most in Washington was political self-preservation.

Even if the war went badly, there would be very little danger of career-threatening recriminations because too many important people were in the same position. There was safety in numbers.
Even though many in Washington understood the grave risks behind Bush’s invasion, it made more sense to join the pro-war herd. Even if the war went badly, there would be very little danger of career-threatening recriminations because too many important people were in the same position. There was safety in numbers.

The worst that might happen is that you’d have to make a muted mea culpa a few years later while shifting the blame away from yourself onto someone – say, Donald Rumsfeld – for his incompetent execution of the plan.

Ugly Names

By contrast, there was a risk if you stood up to Bush’s pro-war juggernaut in 2002 and early 2003. You’d get called ugly names; your career would suffer; you’d be treated like a pariah. Just ask the Dixie Chicks, former weapons inspector Scott Ritter and Al Gore.

It’s noteworthy on this fourth anniversary of the war how few Washington insiders dared ask tough questions.
Though fear of ostracism didn’t compare with the dangers faced by the troops, it’s noteworthy on this fourth anniversary of the war how few Washington insiders dared ask tough questions – and how few of those who helped mislead the nation into this foreign policy catastrophe paid any serious price.

President Bush may be a lot less popular but he’s still in the White House, as is Vice President Cheney. Bush’s national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was elevated to Secretary of State. Other war architects, such as Elliott Abrams and Stephen Hadley, got promotions within the National Security Council.

Even the most notorious Iraq War screw-ups – former CIA director George Tenet, Gen. Tommy Franks and pro-consul Paul Bremer – got Medals of Freedom, the highest civilian honor that can be bestowed by the President.

Most pink slips went to officials who were not sufficiently enthusiastic about the Iraq War, from early skeptics like Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill to later doubters like Secretary of State Colin Powell. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld did get fired, but only after he sent the President a memo on Nov. 6, 2006, suggesting a phased military withdrawal.

The most significant accountability exacted on Washington insiders was Election 2006 when voters booted the Republicans from control of the House and Senate and replaced them with Democrats, who have restored some semblance of checks and balances. But even there, it’s not yet clear whether the change will be meaningful or just cosmetic.

The future may still be dominated by Iraq War supporters. All announced Republican presidential candidates, including Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, are backers, and Democratic front-runner, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, voted to give Bush the power to invade Iraq and still doesn’t favor a complete U.S. military withdrawal.

Hillary Clinton personifies the Democratic Party’s instinct for “triangulation,” the avoidance of principled stands in favor of nuanced positions that are calculated to be least offensive to the greatest number of people.
Hillary Clinton personifies the Democratic Party’s instinct for “triangulation,” the avoidance of principled stands in favor of nuanced positions that are calculated to be least offensive to the greatest number of people.

Whatever the Democrats who supported Bush’s war resolution say now, the most powerful motive behind their decision was the consultant-driven advice that a yes vote was the safest political choice. Indeed, a no vote was viewed by many Democratic consultants as political suicide for their clients.

In a way, Washington can be compared to a dysfunctional family with the Republicans playing the abusive husband and the Democrats the abused wife, who only recently has begun to speak up for herself.

Unaccountable Media

Yet, while Washington’s political hierarchy has changed only marginally in the past four years, the national news media has experienced even less accountability.

The disastrous Iraq War coverage has caused little shake-up in the line-up of national pundits and top journalists.
With the exception of New York Times reporter Judith Miller, whose career imploded over her WMD credulity, and Washington Post columnist Michael Kelly, who died in a vehicle accident in Iraq, the disastrous Iraq War has caused little shake-up in the line-up of national pundits and top journalists.

One could even argue that the wrongheaded Washington pundits are more deeply entrenched today than they were when the invasion was launched on March 19, 2003. Today’s “smart” pundit position on Iraq is to have supported the invasion four years ago but to now complain about poor follow-through.

The few journalists and pundits who were skeptical about the invasion have gotten little reward for their foresight and courage. Washington’s powerful insider crowd generally regards them as “ideologues” or “partisans” who were only correct because their irrational hatred of Bush brought them to the right conclusion by accident.

In the up-is-down world of Washington, it was considered an act of courage to join the pro-war herd; conformity was independence; limited second thoughts about the war are now a sign of wisdom.

The national news media also has undergone very little structural change in the past four years. The Right continues to pour hundreds of millions – even billions – of dollars into building media outlets and creating content, from print to radio to TV to the Internet. This investment gives the Right a huge advantage in defining issues and setting the agenda.

Meanwhile, American liberals and progressives have yet to make anything close to that kind of commitment in terms of media infrastructure. [For more on this phenomenon, see Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege.]

One of the few liberal broadcast initiatives, Air America Radio, already has undergone bankruptcy reorganization, and progressive Internet sites are mostly expected to somehow fend for themselves.

Yet, while it may be true that only limited progress has been made in reinvigorating the U.S. political/media structure, it can’t be denied that a significant change has occurred in public awareness of the problem.

Many Americans now understand how little the Washington insiders – whether in political office or in the news media – deserve to be trusted.
Perhaps the most hopeful sign is that many Americans now understand how little the Washington insiders – whether in political office or in the news media – deserve to be trusted. That skepticism, if it is combined with serious demands for change, could be the start of a rebirth for the American Republic.


Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.' This article is republished in the Baltimore Chronicle with permission of the author.


Copyright © 2007 The Baltimore Chronicle. All rights reserved.

Republication or redistribution of Baltimore Chronicle content is expressly prohibited without their prior written consent.

This story was published on March 19, 2007.
 


Public Service Ads:
Verifiable Voting in Maryland