This marks the five-year anniversary of the war in Iraq. Usually, I'm against the media playing up these kinds of things. After all, the five-year date is no different than the day before in Iraq, or the day after in Iraq. Troops are still under attack, some die, some are wounded every day in Iraq, and no anniversary changes that.
This year, I feel a bit different. Recent studies have shown that the news coverage of the war in Iraq has faded, buried in the back pages of the paper or in C-blocks of shows, if it's covered at all. While John McCain and George Bush talk about being on the path to victory (which is still undefined, by the way), polls show that the American people may be starting to believe it, because the news hasn't taken a look at the situation on the ground, and doesn't tell them anything different. Yet, as I noted a couple of weeks ago, troops on the ground are still reporting that their morale is incredibly low, with just 11 percent saying morale is high or very high.
So, maybe this five-year date will jog the media out of its Iraq-fatigue, and force them to confront what is happening, and report on it.
Maybe they'll can the stories on Eliot Spitzer's prostitute getting offers to pose for Playboy, and start reporting on another woman -- a woman who was awarded the Silver Star for her service in Afghanistan.
Maybe they'll report on an incredible new proposal for responsibly ending the war in Iraq, and refocusing on the real threat to America (al Qaeda in Afghanistan), put together by candidates for Congress, retired military brass, veterans and foreign policy experts. This proposal deserves an hour news program all to itself; it is so chocked full of solid plans that it deserves serious public consideration and debate.
Maybe they'll stop obsessing over preachers who endorse Obama or McCain, or Gerry Ferraro's views on race and politics, and talk about a more important split -- the growing divide among extreme radicals in the Madhi Army, some of whom view Muqtada al-Sadr as too "pro-American." Unlike politicians and preachers, this divide could ultimate unleash an explosion of violence in Iraq.
Maybe I'm hoping for too much. If the media follows their pattern, they'll take a brief pause tomorrow to remember there's a war in Iraq and war in Afghanistan. Then it'll be back to talk of prostitutes and celebrity breakdowns.
For those interested in what's really going on the in the world, though, take a look at the largest community dedicated to discussing the wars and military and veterans' issues, VetVoice.com. Unlike in the traditional media, over there today is no different than tomorrow and the day after tomorrow is no different than the day before.
UPDATE: Even more depressing. After five years of the war, Senator McCain still doesn't know the difference between Sunni and Shia, claiming it was 'common knowledge' that Iran was supplying "al Qaeda" in Iraq (Sunnis) with arms. He didn't change this statement until Joe Lieberman whispered in his ear. You know you're in trouble when you need to rely on Joe Lieberman to know about foreign policy.
Follow Jon Soltz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jonsoltz
If it does, it will be to late to benefit from the Knowledge
It is soooo sad.
del8300
ie7
After an admittedly quick perusal of this plan, I have to say that it is relatively impressive - on the surface. The authors have a lot of good things to say, including their recognition that there is no military solution to what is a very political problem in Iraq. They also rely heavily on the report of the Iraq Study Group (ISG), which also offers many solid recommendations.
However, there are some very conspicuous omissions that leave the viability of this plan wide open for debate. Missing is any recognition, as far as I could tell, of what is fueling the sectarian violence of Iraq's civil war and what is driving the struggle for power and resources between Iraq's sectarian groups and within them.
And, like the report of the ISG, the advocates of this plan appear to perpetuate the fundamentally and fatally flawed premise that a strong central government in Baghdad can emerge that would be capable of providing security and services throughout Iraq, to all Iraqis. It should be obvious by now that there is no reasonable prospect that such a government will materialize, now or in the near to medium term. And, this reality is far more a function of how that government is structured than of the personalities that may lead it at any given moment.
There is no reasonable prospect that Iraq can be governed from the center, at least at this time in its history. There simply is not enough trust in the so-called unity government by the Iraqi people and not enough capacity, or inclination, within the current government structure to ensure the security of all Iraqis or the delivery of services throughout Iraq.
I guess the question I would ask is why do the advocates of this plan feel the need to reinvent the wheel? The strategy outlined by Senator Biden, over the course of the last four years, to promote and facilitate a sustainable political settlement in Iraq has all of the essential elements that this plan offers but also recognizes the political realities on the ground in Iraq today. In addition to being a far more comprehensive and viable strategy, the Biden plan has already received support from all corners - including an overwhelming and unprecedented majority of Republicans and Democrats in Congress, the permanent members of the UN Security Council and, most importantly, most of Iraq’s sectarian leaders. And, Turkey is now on board with what Senator Biden is advocating.
Maybe those endorsing this plan need to consult with Joe Biden...and, perhaps, even give a little credit where credit is due.
As for ‘five years and fading’... I have a real bad feeling that the situation in Iraq may soon be issue #1, front and center, and in all of our faces - with or without any help from the media. Time is not on our side and it may have already run out for any strategy to end the civil war in Iraq responsibly.