By Norman Solomon
Overall, judging from the U.S. mass media, you might think that there’s not much to debate about U.S. military escalation in Afghanistan.
At first glance, President Obama’s recent announcement that he’ll send 17,000 additional troops to that country — with more deployments expected by the end of this year — seemed to spark little controversy.The New York Times reported on Feb. 27: “Despite some grumbling on the left and right, Mr. Obama’s pullout plan generated support across party lines ... indicating an emerging consensus behind a gradual but firm exit from Iraq.”
And the word “consensus” reappeared later in the article, as the Times went on to refer unequivocally to “the consensus behind Mr. Obama’s plan.” Evidently, the consensus emerged so fast that within a few paragraphs it went from an “emerging consensus” to, flat out, “the consensus.” In the process, the media narrative ignored the voices of those who continued to criticize the Obama plan for withdrawing troops from Iraq too slowly and with too many loopholes for continuation of the US war effort there.
As for Afghanistan, while the news media provided scant reporting on perspectives that were sharply critical of Obama’s escalation plans, such voices were readily available to editors.
Notably, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert came through with a March 3 piece that directly challenged the faulty logic of the president’s move toward doubling U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan by next year. Herbert pushed the usual envelope toward greater clarity as he warned that “instead of cutting our losses, we appear to be doubling down.” With foresight that is likely to be all too prophetic, Herbert wrote: “I can easily imagine a scenario in which Afghanistan and Iraq both heat up and the U.S., caught in an extended economic disaster at home, undermines its fragile recovery efforts in the same way that societies have undermined themselves since the dawn of time — with endless warfare.”
The bad news is that Herbert was conspicuous as a high-profile pundit who directly contradicted the assumptions behind the escalation in Afghanistan. But lower-profile commentators are widely available as they critique and often demolish Obama’s announced plans for the Afghan war.
Former Times war correspondent Chris Hedges — writing a March 2 piece headlined “It’s Obama’s War, Now” on the Truthdig website — offered a devastating analysis. He recounted the history of previous foreign invaders, most recently the Soviets, who found it impossible to keep occupying Afghanistan. And Hedges pointed out that the current war has all the signs of deepening catastrophe.
“An additional 30,000 troops will do little to prop up the detested and corrupt regime of Hamid Karzai,” wrote Hedges. “Our attempt to buy off Afghan tribal groups with money and even weapons has collapsed, with most slipping back into the arms of the Taleban insurgents. The UN estimates that the Taleban are now raking in $300 million a year from the expanded poppy trade to fund the resistance.”
Hedges added: “The Taleban controlled about 75 percent of Afghan territory when we invaded eight years ago. They have recaptured about half of the country since its initial defeat, and its reach has expanded to the outskirts of major cities such as Kabul and Kandahar.”
All this has a sadly familiar ring to it. The evidence of disaster in Vietnam was available at the time, more than 40 years ago, but the US news media — and the dominant politicians in Washington — gave it short shrift. And the war went on. And on. And on.(Creators Syndicate)
-- Norman Solomon is the author of “War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death,” which has been adapted into a documentary film of the same name. For information, go to: www.normansolomon.com.
Source: Arab News
No comments:
Post a Comment