Page 103 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

The Media 's War 93

newspapers like the Chicago Tribune, which contended that "The eventual
withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq threatens to be disastrous," although "evi-
dence is mounting that invading that beleaguered country was a grandiose mis-
advent~re."'~~ O'Hanlon and James Steinberg added in a Washington Post col-
umn that, "there is no guarantee that indefinite continuation of the current
mission will produce victory," although they rationalized the democratic argu-
ments made in favor of U.S. intervention by denouncing critiques of American
imperialism: "The perception of coalition forces as latter-day imperialists is, of
course, fundamentally unfair and wrong. ..we should not plan to withdraw our
forces entirely by any set date. . . admittedly, foreign military forces are still a
necessary part of the solution in Iraq. Without them the country would probably
wind up in civil war."'08 Such appraisals seem intended to create an impression
of the U.S. as an unwilling participant in violent conflict, as a power that is
dragged into a prolonged occupation, without which Iraq would fall into civil
war. Such framing is intended to convince Americans that the U.S. has no
choice but to remain in Iraq indefinitely, despite the fact that withdrawal has
been promoted by majorities in the U.S., and is supported by the Iraqi public and
much of the world.'09 The assumption that there is no alternative to occupation
is false, as continued presence in Iraq is only one of a number of policy choices
available to U.S. planners.

The Indexing Effect:
Support for U.S. Regime Change

By the 2004 Presidential election, elite opinion throughout the mainstream me-
dia-short of some significant exceptions like Fox News-had largely turned
against the Bush administration, but for reasons other than those given in the
Independent-Left press. As the election neared, criticisms of the Bush admini-
stration's mismanagement of the war steadily increased, often endorsing a re-
gime change in favor of a new Presidential candidate, the Democratic hopeful
John Keny, who it was felt could better conduct the war effort.
Justifications for a change in American political leadership at the time of
the election derived much of their strength from pragmatic criticisms of the
Bush administration; numerous news outlets sought to abandon what many saw
as the Bush administration's sinking ship. The Washington Post helped lead the
way in terms of its opposition to Bush's reelection. The paper's editors sup-
ported "a change in management" of the war, endorsing Presidential hopeful
In
John ~eny."~ an opinion piece labeled "Keny for President," the paper at-
tacked Bush for his administration's failure "to better prepare for post-war re-
construction" and because the administration "repeatedly rebuffed advice to
commit sufficient troops" to Iraq."' Rajiv Chandrasekaran reported for the
Washington Post on the "intensifying campaign of insurgent violence that con-
trasts sharply with assessments by Bush administration officials.. .that the insta-
bility is contained to small pockets of the ~ountry.""~ The Washington Post of-
ten framed the growth of Iraqi guerillas as a result of the administration's failure