Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Rose-coloured Glasses Over Iraq
Bullet Points over Baghdad
By Paul Krugman
The 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 getaway 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.
By Paul Krugman
The 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 getaway 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.
Terminological Exactness
I am a linguist by training, but History runs a close second in my list of enthusiasms. Although no surprise to linguists, the New Left emphasis on the cultural hegemony that “the Establishment” exercises has, in recent years, made the average person aware that the words we use have power to shape the way we think. The trap into which liberal thinkers often fall is to let “the Establishment” control the discourse — by using their terms we are already at a disadvantage in presenting our views.
Let me bore you with a historical aside here. When the world went mad in 1914, and nation tore into nation, each one with “God on our side,” the Imperial Russian government decreed that the Russian name “Petrograd” replace the Germanic “St Petersburg.” Lenin and the Bolsheviks, in pursuit of their strategy of Revolutionary Defeatism (getting Russia out of the war and bringing down the Tsar) continued to use “St Petersburg.” Well, as we know, the winners from the War to End Wars were neither individual nations nor god, but the international arms manufacturers and supranational capitalism — and the world had to go through it all again twenty years later.
My point here is that, in relation to the current focus on “international terrorism,” we should refuse to be corralled by the mainstream media and its attack-dogs into using the terminology with which THEY are comfortable. For example:
· In relation to the attack on the World Trade Centre in 2001, liberals really ought to resist such formulae as “September 11,” “9/11,” or worse, “Nine-one-one” (coincidentally the Emergency Number in the USA). It doesn’t matter that the attack happened in the US, or that the US was the recipient of the attack — though Bush would have us believe that the US suffered so much that the world owes it undying compassion and unquestioning allegiance. We are Australians and we should insist on using our dating system which runs DD/MM/YY, ie 11 September.
· We should try to avoid “The War on Terrorism” or even less desirable, “The War on Terror.” How do you fight an abstract noun? How do you know when you’ve won? You can fight FOR an abstract concept, but fighting AGAINST one is like trying to prove the non-existence of a supreme being (it’s harder — some would say impossible — to prove a negative proposition!). This continual battle of “Good” against “Evil’, of course, not only fits in with their philosophy of life, but is the chief means by with our Glorious Leaders keep us in a state of fear which only they can resolve. We would do better referring to “The Attempt to Capture bin Laden,” “The War to Bring Down the Taliban,” “The Invasion of Afghanistan,” “The Invasion of Iraq,” “The War to Bring Down Saddam,” “The War to Reshape the Middle-East,” “The War to Secure Iraqi Oil,” etc etc.
· Rather than “Anti-Terrorist Legislation” [recently passed by the Australian Parliament] — after all who DOES want have a bomb go off next to them — how about we call it “The Curtailment of Liberties Legislation,” “The ‘Disappearance’ Legislation,” or, more prosaically, “Legislation to Increase the Powers of the Security Services (The LIPSServices Law).”
Let me bore you with a historical aside here. When the world went mad in 1914, and nation tore into nation, each one with “God on our side,” the Imperial Russian government decreed that the Russian name “Petrograd” replace the Germanic “St Petersburg.” Lenin and the Bolsheviks, in pursuit of their strategy of Revolutionary Defeatism (getting Russia out of the war and bringing down the Tsar) continued to use “St Petersburg.” Well, as we know, the winners from the War to End Wars were neither individual nations nor god, but the international arms manufacturers and supranational capitalism — and the world had to go through it all again twenty years later.
My point here is that, in relation to the current focus on “international terrorism,” we should refuse to be corralled by the mainstream media and its attack-dogs into using the terminology with which THEY are comfortable. For example:
· In relation to the attack on the World Trade Centre in 2001, liberals really ought to resist such formulae as “September 11,” “9/11,” or worse, “Nine-one-one” (coincidentally the Emergency Number in the USA). It doesn’t matter that the attack happened in the US, or that the US was the recipient of the attack — though Bush would have us believe that the US suffered so much that the world owes it undying compassion and unquestioning allegiance. We are Australians and we should insist on using our dating system which runs DD/MM/YY, ie 11 September.
· We should try to avoid “The War on Terrorism” or even less desirable, “The War on Terror.” How do you fight an abstract noun? How do you know when you’ve won? You can fight FOR an abstract concept, but fighting AGAINST one is like trying to prove the non-existence of a supreme being (it’s harder — some would say impossible — to prove a negative proposition!). This continual battle of “Good” against “Evil’, of course, not only fits in with their philosophy of life, but is the chief means by with our Glorious Leaders keep us in a state of fear which only they can resolve. We would do better referring to “The Attempt to Capture bin Laden,” “The War to Bring Down the Taliban,” “The Invasion of Afghanistan,” “The Invasion of Iraq,” “The War to Bring Down Saddam,” “The War to Reshape the Middle-East,” “The War to Secure Iraqi Oil,” etc etc.
· Rather than “Anti-Terrorist Legislation” [recently passed by the Australian Parliament] — after all who DOES want have a bomb go off next to them — how about we call it “The Curtailment of Liberties Legislation,” “The ‘Disappearance’ Legislation,” or, more prosaically, “Legislation to Increase the Powers of the Security Services (The LIPSServices Law).”
