Posted on 03/16/2006 3:03:31 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
"Admittedly, this is beyond proof, but my lifetime observation of the NYT and Washington Post is that that they are quite dovish. But on this dubious enterprise, there was a green light."
You are wrong. NYT and WaPost were totally and loudly against the Iraq war. Judith Miller and David Brooks were the only NYT reporters in support. And guess what? They repudiated and then got rid of Miller. Down to one. This is my hometown paper. I follow it closely.
Thomas Freidman publicized and backed the Saudi peace plan. He is hated by people who care about Israel.
"I used to read The New Republic a lot, considering it a liberal magazine and joyously reading occasional harsh critiques of liberal interest. Now, I suppose it is regarded more as Neocon."
NR has come out strongly against the Iraq war for quite some time. It apologized for its initial support as early as 6/04. It is not Neocon at all. Peretz is the exception but it is not the official position of the magazine. Peretz publishes these views elsewhere not in NR.
If anything the leftist Jewish supporters of Iraq war, like the non-Jewish Christopher Hitchens model, fall into the same group that supported the US mission in Bosnia and Kosovo -- fight crimes against humanity.
The truth is the entire premise is mistaken although beloved by those who tout the undue influence of Israel, AIPAC and dual loyalty of US Jews.
Iraq was not seen by Israel, neither the left nor right, as the enemy. Iraq was stable as far as Israel was concerned. Israelis dreaded the Iraq war since they believed they might be hit by WMD if the US stirred them up. All Israelis were issued gas masks in the run up. Israelis saw the nuclear ambitious Iran as the much more dangerous enemy. And they are correct as we are now seeing. Iran also backs three arch enemy terrorist groups - Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and Hezbollah.
So this whole premise is wrong.
This is not anecdotal. Reform Jews are by far the largest percent of Jews in the US.
.................
"This past November, a measure that questioned the Bush Administration’s handling of the war in Iraq came before the General Assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism (URJ). Of the 2,000 delegates sitting in the ironically named George Bush Ballroom that day, only one, a rabbi from Georgia, rose to speak in opposition. A press release issued by the URJ stated that the resolution was passed “almost unanimously.”
Though easily passed on the historically liberal floor of the URJ General Assembly, the resolution sparked an uproarious debate within the larger Jewish community over the Iraq war, Jewish perceptions of that war, and the overall state of Jewish political opinion in America today.
The Reform Movement Takes a Stand
The URJ is a 1.5 million-member umbrella organization of North American Reform Jewish congregations. It has a long history of political action, and issued resolutions opposing the Vietnam War in 1965 and 1969 that are still cited as sources of pride by some members of the Reform movement.
On November 18th, six Reform congregations and the Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism submitted their resolution on the Iraq war to the General Assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism at the Union’s Biennial Convention in Houston. The resolution called on the Bush administration to present a strategy for the extrication of American troops from Iraq, and to set goals for troop withdrawal beginning after the December 15th elections. It also exhorted Congress to closely monitor the war’s cost, and condemned the torture of detainees.
http://www.newvoices.org/cgi-bin/articlepage.cgi?id=529
I agonized over the expression "green light."
I have not reviewed the editorials or Friedman's columns, although I may do so (not because of this thread....I have been wanting to take a close look back.)
My recollection is strongly contrary to your statement that the NYT and WP were "totally and loudly against the war." My recollection is that they went along, caveats notwithstanding. This was important to me at the time, because I was struggling with where ~I~ stood. I have no patience with U.N. talk, but I feared that this war would go exactly as it has. I was influenced when the dovish media did not strongly oppose it. Sure, Friedman was ducking and dodging as it got close,but none of this seemed to me to be anywhere near a red light (if I have overstated in calling it "green.") And let's not confuse the HINDsight at the NYT and WP with what they said before we pulled the trigger.
I figured if such reluctant warriors as the NYT and WP were not shoting "NO," the case must be pretty strong.
(I don't necessarily think it is fair to put up posts with only one's opinions and recollections and demand that someone else cite sources, but if you have dates and quotes handly I would be happy to see them.)
Sorry for the delay. Had to do some work for pay.
Saying No to War
New York Times
March 9, 2003
Within days, barring a diplomatic breakthrough, President Bush will decide whether to send American troops into Iraq in the face of United Nations opposition. We believe there is a better option involving long-running, stepped-up weapons inspections. But like everyone else in America, we feel the window closing. If it comes down to a question of yes or no to invasion without broad international support, our answer is no.
'snip'
President Bush has switched his own rationale for the invasion several times. Right now, the underlying theory seems to be that the United States can transform the Middle East by toppling Saddam Hussein, turning Iraq into a showplace democracy and inspiring the rest of the region to follow suit. That's another fine goal that seems impossible to accomplish outside the context of broad international agreement. The idea that the resolution to all the longstanding, complicated problems of that area begins with a quick military action is both seductive and extremely dangerous. The Bush administration has not been willing to risk any political capital in attempting to resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, but now the president is theorizing that invading Iraq will do the trick.
Given the corner Mr. Bush has painted himself in, withdrawing troops — even if a considerable slice remains behind — would be an admission of failure. He obviously intends to go ahead, and bet on the very good chance that the Iraqi army will fall quickly. The fact that the United Nations might be irreparably weakened would not much bother his conservative political base at home, nor would the outcry abroad. But in the long run, this country needs a strong international body to keep the peace and defuse tension in a dozen different potential crisis points around the world. It needs the support of its allies, particularly embattled states like Pakistan, to fight the war on terror. And it needs to demonstrate by example that there are certain rules that everybody has to follow, one of the most important of which is that you do not invade another country for any but the most compelling of reasons. When the purpose is fuzzy, or based on questionable propositions, it's time to stop and look for other, less extreme means to achieve your goals.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/statement/2003/0309sayingno.htm
War in the Ruins of Diplomacy
March 18, 2003
America is on its way to war. President Bush has told
Saddam Hussein to depart or face attack. For Mr. Hussein,
getting rid of weapons of mass destruction is no longer an
option. Diplomacy has been dismissed. Arms inspectors,
journalists and other civilians have been advised to leave
Iraq.
The country now stands at a decisive turning point, not
just in regard to the Iraq crisis, but in how it means to
define its role in the post-cold-war world. President
Bush's father and then Bill Clinton worked hard to infuse
that role with America's traditions of idealism,
internationalism and multilateralism. Under George W. Bush,
however, Washington has charted a very different course.
Allies have been devalued and military force overvalued.
Now that logic is playing out in a war waged without the
compulsion of necessity, the endorsement of the United
Nations or the company of traditional allies. This page has
never wavered in the belief that Mr. Hussein must be
disarmed. Our problem is with the wrongheaded way this
administration has gone about it.
'snip'
The result is a war for a legitimate international goal
against an execrable tyranny, but one fought almost alone.
At a time when America most needs the world to see its
actions in the best possible light, they will probably be
seen in the worst. This result was neither foreordained nor
inevitable.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/18/opinion/18TUE1.html?ex=1049002026&ei=1&en=b2f3cb3fd8858d49
FLASHBACK: On Verge of Iraq Invasion in 2003, Many Editorials Expressed Doubts
By E&P Staff
Published: March 18, 2006 5:00 PM ET
NEW YORK During the run up to the Iraq war in 2003, E&P carried out a number of surveys to chart editorial opinions around the country. Views grew more and less hawkish from week to week. Here was the final tally, published on March 19, 2003, just before the invasion began. It was written by Ari Berman and E&P Editor Greg Mitchell. It reveals that doubts about the mission--or whether it should at least be delayed--were surprisingly common.
***
For apparently the first time in modern history, the U.S. government seems poised to go to war not only lacking the support of many of its key allies abroad but also without the enthusiastic backing of the majority of major newspapers at home, according to E&P's fifth and (presumably) final prewar survey of the top 50 newspapers' editorial positions.
The doubts suggest that the editorial pages will be quick to attack President Bush if the invasion does not go smoothly.
Following Bush's 48-hour ultimatum to Saddam Hussein, newspapers on Tuesday took their last opportunity to sound off before the war starts. Of the 44 papers publishing editorials about the war Tuesday, roughly one-third reiterated strong support for the White House, one-third repeated their abiding opposition to it, and the rest -- with further debate now useless -- took a more philosophical approach.
But, in the end, the majority agreed that the Bush administration had badly mishandled the crisis. Most papers sharply criticized Washington's diplomatic efforts, putting the nation on the eve of a pre-emptive war without U.N. Security Council support -- and expressed fears for the future despite an inevitable victory.
The Houston Chronicle said it remained "unconvinced" that attack was preferable to containment, and The Orange County Register of Santa Ana, Calif., declared it was "unpersuaded" that the threat posed by the "vile" Hussein justified military action now. The San Jose (Calif.) Mercury News wrote, "War might have been avoided, had the administration been sincere about averting it."
"The war will be conducted with less support than the cause should have commanded," The Washington Post, in backing the attack, wrote. "The Bush administration has raised the risks through its insistence on an accelerated timetable, its exaggerated rhetoric and its insensitive diplomacy; it has alienated allies and multiplied the number of protestors in foreign capitals."
There was always a group of roughly a dozen papers that strongly supported regime change as the only acceptable vehicle toward Iraq's disarmament. They included The Wall Street Journal, New York Post, New York Daily News, Chicago Sun-Times, and Boston Herald. They continued their praise of the president this week and celebrated the fact that "the regime of Saddam Hussein is doomed," as The Kansas City (Mo.) Star put it.
The majority of papers, however, remain deeply troubled by the position the U.S. finds itself in. Even large papers such as the Los Angeles Times, The Oregonian in Portland, and Newsday of Melville, N.Y., which have long advocated (or at least accepted) using force to disarm Hussein, criticized their President as he prepared to send young men and women into battle.
"The road to imminent war has been a bumpy one, clumsily traveled by the Bush administration," The Buffalo (N.Y.) News wrote. "The global coalition against terror forged after the atrocities of 9/11 is virtually shattered. The explanation as to why Iraq presents an imminent threat requiring immediate action has not been clear and compelling."
Many papers expressed hopes that a better world could prevail. "So the United States apparently will go to war with few allies and in the face of great international opposition," the L.A. Times said. "This is an uncharted path ... to an uncertain destination. We desperately hope to be wrong in our trepidation about the consequences here and abroad."
Newsday agreed: "At this point, we can only hope that the U.S. military campaign in Iraq is better coordinated and implemented than the hamhanded diplomatic maneuvers that led to it."
The Philadelphia Inquirer detailed nine specific hopes, particularly wishing that America's new pre-emptive invasion against Saddam doesn't turn into "the first step toward an American empire that rules arrogantly and alone," further weakening the United Nations and inflaming global resentment.
Once equivocal editorial pages got straight to the point. "This war crowns a period of terrible diplomatic failure," The New York Times argued, "Washington's worst in at least a generation. The Bush administration now presides over unprecedented American might. What it risks squandering is not Americans' power, but an essential part of our glory."
Other papers were even more blunt. The Sun of Baltimore, consistently one of the most passionate dissenters on the war, began their editorial with the sentence, "This war is wrong. It is wrong as a matter of principle, but, more importantly, it is wrong as a matter of practical policy."
USA Today asked Bush to finally disclose risks, costs, and democratic government estimates for Iraq while the St. Louis Post-Dispatch wondered "what 'the peaceful entry' of 280,000 troops would look like." The Arizona Republic in Phoenix said that Bush and his "coalition of the willing," with prodding by the French, "have left the United Nations in tatters."
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002199222
I was particularly interested in exactly what Tom Friedman said so I searched Tom Friedman for the six-month run-up to the war. I ended up looking only at his 3/19/03 column entitled "D-Day" which begins as follows
President Bush is fond of cowboy imagery, so here's an image that comes to mind about our pending war with Iraq. In most cowboy movies the good guys round up a posse before they ride into town and take on the black hats. We're doing just the opposite. We're riding into Baghdad pretty much alone and hoping to round up a posse after we get there. I hope we do, because it may be the only way we can get out with ourselves, and the town, in one piece.
This column has argued throughout this debate that removing Saddam Hussein and helping Iraq replace his regime with a decent, accountable government that can serve as a model in the Middle East is worth doing -- not because Iraq threatens us with its weapons, but because we are threatened by a collection of failing Arab-Muslim states, which churn out way too many young people who feel humiliated, voiceless and left behind. We have a real interest in partnering with them for change.
This column has also argued, though, that such a preventive war is so unprecedented and mammoth a task -- taking over an entire country from a standing start and rebuilding it -- that it had to be done with maximum U.N legitimacy and with as many allies as possible.
President Bush has failed to build that framework before going to war. Though the Bush team came to office with this Iraq project in mind, it has pursued a narrow, ideological and bullying foreign policy that has alienated so many people that by the time it wanted to rustle up a posse for an Iraq war, too many nations were suspicious of its motives.
The president says he went the extra mile to find a diplomatic solution. That is not true.
* * *
So what to make of all of this? It still seems to me that my (revised) traffic light metaphor calling MSM editorial opinion a “yellow light” is fair enough – it was a mixed signal.
Contrary to what I said, your left-column NYT editorial was unequivocal in opposition, at least on the eve of the fighting.
OTOH, your article from E&P mentions the Washington Post as “backing the attack,” although quibbling about diplomacy and timetable. I believe that this contradicts, by half, your comment that NYT and WaPost were totally and loudly against the Iraq war.
The Tom Friedman column that I quoted above is harshly critical of the administration’s management of the run-up to the fighting. But the weasel is entirely okay with “removing Saddam;” he would just like the president to have put together more of a coalition. But, at bottom, he was okay with a war in Iraq. He just wanted to get all nuanced about it when the time actually came to put an end to talk.
[DIVERSION: Like everyone else, I would have preferred the coalition to have been stronger, although I always thought that the incessantly critical media seriously understated its breadth. It is true that the war was never popular in European public opinion, but we usually count these things by the positions of governments. Looked at that way, I would say that it was France and Germany who looked like the odd ducks rather than G.B. and the U.S.A. But most of the American public was convinced by negative reporting that a 30-nation coalition including the U.S.A., G.B., Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark, Poland, Chez Republic, Japan, Turkey, and South Korea amounted to nothing but Bush and his poodle. Of course, most of these countries, Spain and Turkey come especially to mind, really did not have the stones for a tough job. But we did not need any help winning the war anyway. How helpful would France and Germany have been in winning the peace? My opinion is that we have a better (not good) shot a success in this venture without them. They would have been a continual, carping nuisance and finally would have walked out anyway after they got hit with a few IEDs.]
Back to your main point that “the whole premise is wrong.” I am not sure exactly which statement of “the premise” that you are referring to but what I am defending is my version, which was The American Jewish community, typically a source of much of the pacifist and internationalist sentiment in foreign policy, was surprisingly cordial to vigorous military action on this occasion. Their approval was crucial, IMO. (My version is slightly less broad than Moran’s, although I made it in support of his comment.)
It is certainly true, as you have pointed out, that Jewish sentiment on the war (even leaving the Neocons out of it), has been sharply divided and sometimes bitter. I believe that there was an angry and widely publicized (I may have read it here on FR) indictment of the Jewish community by an important left/liberal religious leader making exactly this point -- that Jews were busy quarrelling among themselves rather than occupying their traditional place as a strong voice of liberal “conscience” in the public discourse. (I am sorry that I can not cite it properly.)
I persist in the opinion that leading up to the war, MSM opinion was more cordial than I would ordinarily expect for a discretionary war. It is a subjective read. Believing that, I ask myself why. The special attachment of important Jewish opinion makers to the fortunes of Israel seems to me a compelling explanation, although I realize that what was once a highly predictable community of opinion has become rather chaotic.
I agree with your comment that this war may, in fact, may increase the jeopardy to Israel rather than enhancing its security. I don’t think that the recognition that a sympathy for the war on behalf of Israeli interest might not have been wise in any way discredits it as an explanatory motive.
You also made disapproving reference to the dual-loyalty thing. Although I didn’t mention it, it is a reality. It is an extremely delicate point, and I do not wish, by commenting on it here, to disparage anyone’s loyalty to the U.S. It is quite a special situation which has no parallel that I can think of. But it would be silly for anyone to even think of claiming that many American Jews have not had a profound concern for the fortunes of Israel (although, as I have conceded, many secular Jews now seem closer to British and French view on a whole array of interests including PLO sympathy). My sense is that the concern for Israel, in the hearts of many more traditional Jews, is, in fact, equal to or greater than the concern for the U.S., which is not to say that both sides of the “dual-loyalty” are not heartfelt loyalties. I hope this does not sound inflammatory; I do not intend it in a critical way. To me it is entirely natural and understandable that people would feel this way.
In a nutshell, every slice of the polity has its particular interests, and Israel is a special interest for many Jews. Jews also have, it seems to me, a huge influence in MSM (earned by intelligence and hard work). That influence has, on balance, weighed in opposite to a muscular, non-internationalist posture in foreign affairs. The MSM seemed to me to have pulled its punch in the lead-up to the Iraq war, although it is working overtime now. This all adds up, in my mind, to making the premise that a Jewish concern for Israel was a critical factor in letting this war go forward is, at least, a plausible supposition.
I have found this discussion interesting and have been influenced by things you have said, dervish. And I particularly thank you for your research.
I haven't read your entire response and will do so at leisure later.
But my thumbnail analysis in this small study of two leading newspapers is this:
Washington Post, owner Graham family, Protestant, supported the Iraq War
NY Times, owner Sulzberger family, Jewish, opposed Iraq War
As to Tom Freidman it looks like his ultimate position was contra Iraq War for unilateralism and Bush failure to build a coalition. If you have a link to that I'd appreciate it so that I can read in its entirety. Thanks
If you want some Jews vociferously against the Iraq War I can supply many names starting with Paul Krugman of NYT.
Do you do a religion/ehtnicity analysis on all issues? I find that the probelm is that many people pre-suppose Jewish dual loyalty, and then move from there to finding proof for their supposition.
Ironically the opposite side of this debate are the many conservatives who can not for the life of them understand why the majority of Jews vote Democrat when the Republicans support Israel more.
The answer to both sides is really quite simple. Jews are no more monolithic than any other American religious/ethnic subdivision.
Actually, I prefer not to cut it this thin. Ownership is not everything. And editorial sentiment is, as you know, is developed by consensus. Sure, the publisher has the last word, if he wants, but he does not live in an intellectual vacuum. For the record, The WP was bought by Katherine Meyers Graham's father and came to the Graham family through marriage. I believe that the Meyers family is Jewish.
Do you do a religion/ehtnicity analysis on all issues?
Pretty much, yes. Actually, I usually think of it more in terms of "culture" but these things track pretty much together.
I am obsessed with the French. One reason is that you can make a lot of very valid generalizations about them. Seeing the possibility of a different way of being, illuminates one's own style in a way that is otherwise often invisible.
A generalization that I love about the French (fist pondered after reading Adam Gopnik's Paris to the Moon) is that they are amazingly committed to "theory." This at first sounded to me like a ridiculous abstraction but the more you watch them the more you see this, even in their way of speaking such as their self-conscious references to "the French social model." I am thinking about this because last night I happened across a quip in which a French diplomat is claimed to have said about military action in Kosovo, "Well, it seems to be working on the ground but will it work ~in~ ~theory~?" This is so ridiculous and so French. It is why they are only now distancing themselves from the Stalinist dreams -- they were so entranced by Marxist ~theory~ that they just could not see tens of millions of mass murder victims. My point here is that a lot of group generalizations/sterotypes contain a lot of truth, as un-PC as it is to say so.
A very engaging book that I read some years back was The Italians by Luigi Barzini. This very literate Italian dude takes a wonderful romp through Italian culture and history explaining these people. (It was such a success that he later did a book call The Europeans, giving a chapter each to the French, English, Germans, etc.)
So, yes, I do look at everybody this way.
"I am obsessed with the French. One reason is that you can make a lot of very valid generalizations about them. Seeing the possibility of a different way of being, illuminates one's own style in a way that is otherwise often invisible."
I too find that interesting about the French. In a strange way I admire them.
Jaques Chirac sent the philosopher Bernard Henri-Levy as his envoy and political analyst to Afghanistan after the US action to assess the situation. Astonishing.
By the way Katherine Graham died before the Iraq war and the company was run by Philip Graham then and now. Katherine Graham had an Episcopal funeral service.
As to ownership not being everything I had always heard Katherine Graham and Sulzberger made very indelible political stamps on their enterprises. But the default position at the NYT is Bill Keller.
The NYT was owned by Ochs Sulzberger a prominent and founding member of Reform Judaism in the US. The Reform Jewish movement opposed the creation of the State of Israel. The son and current owner is Arthur Sulzberger who is an Episcopalian as was his mother. There are books written on the NYT burying the genocide of the Holocaust. In 2001 the NYT acknowledged the truth of that allegation and apologized.
It is not always a simple matter to see into the motives of what people do.
In the pro-Israel community both the NYT and the WaPo
are strongly disliked.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.