Page 100 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

90 Chapter 4

of the George W. Bush admini~tration."~~ While Herbert's attacks should cer-
tainly be welcome in any media system that considers the intellectual exchange
of many different perspectives on U.S. goals in Iraq, they also seem a bit inco-
herent, at least in that it is difficult to distinguish a consistent pattern of criticism
of the war. If the war is imperial and immoral, designed to secure control over
oil rather than promote democracy, then why attack the administration for not
effectively fighting it? Why complain that the war is "unwinnable' or "misman-
aged" when Americans should not be trying to "win" or "manage" a repressive
imperial war in the first place?
Although Paul Krugman has also distinguished himself from other main-
stream editorialists by presenting American and Iraqi casualties as unacceptable
and by rendering Bush's "imperial officials" and "imperial administrati~n,"~~
his
columns also rely on narrow criticisms of the Bush administration for "botching
the enlisting of allies" in the Iraq war and for its failure in "training and equip-
ping local forces, and preparing for [Iraqi] election^."^' Krugman believes that
"the truth, of course, is that there aren't nearly enough troops" in Iraq, and that
"staying there would require a much bigger army" in order for the occupation to
succeed.82 In a piece titled "A No-Win Situation," Krugman explores the possi-
bility that "a democratic, pro-American Iraq has receded out of reach," the as-
sumption being that democracy is possible under American occupation and co-
erced neoliberal reforms.83 By and large, Krugman's "criticisms" of the U.S.
conform to the vision of a just and noble war in Iraq.
The Nm York Times' remaining liberal commentators fall within the same
category. Nicholas Kristof, while admitting that Iraqis have paid a "horrendous
price" as a result of the U.S. invasion, reconciles this by establishing the "good
intentions of well-meaning conservatives who wanted to liberate them [the Iraqi
people]." Kristof discounts the efforts of Americans "seeking a troop withdrawal
that would make matters even worse," concluding that the U.S. must "stay the
course" in Iraq and continue the campaign to pacify the country in the campaign
to implant democracy.84
Also presenting a sometimes progressive-radical criticism of the war is
Maureen Dowd, who initially assessed that the invasion was driven by imperial
motivations. However, this initial prescription was later compromised in favor
of mainstream interpretations of the conflict portraying the U.S. as a force for
In
good in ~ra~.'~ what amounted to a reversal of her original condemnation of
the invasion, Dowd complained that, in Iraq, there is "no visible enemy, no co-
herent plan, and no exit timetable."86 Equally revealing is Dowd's belief that a
major problem with the war effort is the inability of American troops to locate
the "bad guys" in Iraq-presumably meaning Iraqi nationalist resistance groups.
Equally revealing is Dowd's more recent reversal back to a more radical, Orwel-
lian style of critique of the war, seen when she suggested that the adrninistra-
tion's "grand schemes always end up as the opposite. Officials say they're pro-
moting national security when they're hurting it; they say they're squelching
terrorists when they're breeding them; they say they're bringing stability to Iraq
when the country's imploding."87