So that's what he meant by nattering nabobs

Once even a ditherer like me has passed the tipping point and resolved (playing shamefaced catch-up with a bunch of soldiers one-third my age) that however high-handed and error-ridden its history, our effort to secure and stabilize and democratize Iraq now will succeed because it has to succeed, it's amazing . . . how negative the media sound.

I'm talking specifically about CNN. It's not just that they had terrible news to report -- the lunchtime attack in Mosul. It's the deathbed tone Aaron Brown's "Newsnight" took toward that news last night (December 21):

That this happened just days before Christmas colors, in some respects, a story that it happened just one day after the president took a more sober tone on Iraq than he had during the campaign, colors it, as well. So, too does the fact that polls now show most Americans believe the war was a mistake. Today's tragedy is not likely to make them feel any better.

[By the way, what the media mean by "most Americans" is 54%. To me, that's not "most" Americans, any more than "most" Americans voted for Bush. It's "more than half of Americans." "Most" Americans to me would require the dimensions of a landslide -- two-thirds or more.]

We hear from recently returned Boston Globe reporter Thanassis Cambanis about "the utter collapse of the police system more dramatically in Mosul than we've seen anywhere else in Iraq," and that Mosul, because of its volatile ethnic mix, is "very much part of the potentially dark future of Iraq." The overwhelming sense you came away with was that the effort is trending toward failure, that the insurgency is likely to succeed in sabotaging the elections:

Retired Army Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis: "Well, I think elections have to be legitimate. And legitimacy comes from having Sunnis participate in the elections. And adequate Sunni voter turnout is absolutely necessary to have legitimate government post-January 30.

"And, of course, the insurgents are going to do everything they can to derail that political process. And they will target election centers, polling booths. And, of course, even Sunnis who want to come out and vote might not do so because they fear for their lives.

There's not one word of this that isn't "true." But there almost seems to be a kind of doleful glee that events are confirming the view that the whole thing was a mistake from the get-go, and that, in the words of White House correspondent John King, Iraq is "the cloud over this administration."

The facts right now are grim and we have to face them. But knowing, as we do, that perception not only reflects but shapes events -- that telling a patient he's going to die can kill him -- isn't this tone of (am I imagining it?) schadenfreude downright dangerous? Couldn't it become a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Or am I -- having cast my lot -- now in denial, compelled to switch to Fox in order not to hear what I don't want to hear?

I'm learning something new (to me, that is*): that denial can be a necessary part of resolve.

- amba

*Funny I say that, having walked all over town backwards in front of my husband for two years before admitting that he needed a wheelchair.

Comments

[David Leftwich]

I'm with you on this one. At first, when my more hawkish friends, complained about the "liberal" media's coverage of the war, I tending to defend the media. Now, more and more, I think they are right. The media's coverage of war almost seems to insure failure. You have to wonder if there was daily coverage of WWII, a much deadlier conflict by far, on par with the coverage of Iraq, would the greatest generation have shown such amazing resolve. In addition, I think there is very little historical context presented by the media. If you look at the other two major post-WWII conflicts, Korea & Vietnam, the casualties (dead & wounded) were much higher for the US & its allies, enemy forces, and the civilian populations than Iraq, and much less was accomplished. Korea was a stalemate at best, and we lost Vietnam. At least in Iraq, we have toppled Saddam and are moving toward elections and, hopefully, establishing a more liberal & pluralistic government. I think Bush can be blamed for some of this, because he either mislead the public, or was himself misguided, about the cost of this war, and he failed to present the war as a national sacrifice, but instead encouraged us to just go about our daily lives. (I think Bull Moose is correct in his most recent post that they should cancel the inaugural parties). I am not sure if it is the media’s fault or Bush’s fault or a combination of both, but I think the public lacks a general understanding of war, the costs of war, and the historical context of war. In today’s New York Times there is front-page article, detailing the public’s opinion. One guy was quoted as saying, “It leads me to believe we have less control when we can’t guarantee their [US Soldiers] safety.” Unfortunately, it is a war zone. If the criterion for using the military is that we guarantee the soldiers safety, then we might as well disband the military now. I don’t mean to rant on like someone over at Townhall.com. I much prefer a nonviolent solution, but once we have committed to using the military then we have to show resolve. Pursuing half-measure may be the worse option of all, it drags out the destruction and cost for everyone. I would hate to see us give up now and guarantee that the US and Iraqi deaths were in vain.

[Spear Shaker]

Aaron Brown reminds me of a strip mall chiropractor without the credential. . . . . . Shaking Spears . . . nice post.

[Mike]

Great post! Now you know how so many of us feel. I have no doubt that we can defeat the terrorists if we keep our resolve; therefore, the only way we can be defeated is to have that resolve undermined. The MSM is the worst offender of this.