Norman Solomon: Spinning the troop levels in Iraq...

[marmar]

Published on Tuesday, September 5, 2006 by CommonDreams.org
Spinning the Troop Levels in Iraq
by Norman Solomon

This month began with 140,000 American troops in Iraq -- 13,000 more than in late July.

Almost 30 months have passed since Time magazine's mid-April 2004 cover story, "No Easy Options," reported that "foreign policy luminaries from both parties say a precipitous U.S. withdrawal would cripple American credibility, doom reform in the Arab world and turn Iraq into a playground for terrorists and the armies of neighboring states like Iran and Syria."

Back then, according to the USA's largest-circulation newsmagazine, "the most" that the president could hope for was that "some kind of elected Iraqi government will eventually emerge from the wreckage, at which point the U.S. could conceivably reduce the number of its troops significantly. But getting there requires a commitment of at least several more months of American blood and treasure."

As I noted in my book War Made Easy, which came off the press nearly 18 months ago, "Hedge words were plentiful: 'the most' that could be hoped for was that 'some kind' of elected Iraqi government would 'eventually emerge,' at which time the United States 'could conceivably' manage to 'reduce' its troop level in Iraq 'significantly,' although even that vague hope necessitated a commitment of 'at least several more months' of Americans killing and dying. But in several more months, predictably, there would still be no end in sight -- just another blank check for more 'blood and treasure,' on the installment plan."

President Bush keeps demanding those blank checks, and Congress keeps cutting them. What Martin Luther King Jr. called "the madness of militarism" provides ample justifications. For Bush, one of them involves couching the choices ahead in military terms -- to be best judged by military leaders. This is, in essence, an effort to short-circuit democracy.

Bush likes to tell reporters that U.S. troop levels in Iraq hinge on the assessments from top military commanders. This explanation is so familiar that it's hardly newsworthy. But journalists -- and the public -- should take a hard look at that rhetorical scam.

Civilian control of the military means that the president is accountable to citizens, not generals. But -- despite the growing opposition to the Iraq war, as reflected in national opinion polls -- the president fervently declares his commitment to the U.S. war effort. Rather than directly proclaim that he will ignore public opinion, Bush prefers to shift the discussion from domestic political accountability to ostensible military necessity.

The rest is at: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0905-20.htm