Posted on 08/27/2009 7:58:15 AM PDT by Tolik
The anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan headed this week to Martha’s Vineyard, where President Obama is vacationing. Once again she is protesting our two wars abroad.
But Sheehan is a media has-been. ABC’s Charlie Gibson used to cover her anti-Bush rallies in Crawford, Tex. Now he says, with a sigh, of her recent anti-Obama efforts, “Enough already.”
The war in Iraq is scarcely in the news any longer, despite the fact that 141,000 American soldiers are still protecting the fragile Iraqi democracy, and 114, as of this writing, have been lost this year in that effort.
But after the success of the surge, there are far fewer American fatalities each month — eight in July, five in August. Former anti-war candidate Barack Obama is now also President and Commander-in-Chief Obama — with Democratic majorities in the Congress.
Public opinion and media attention about Iraq were always based largely on two factors that transcended whether Americans felt the removal of Saddam Hussein was wise and necessary — or misguided and wrong.
First was the perception of costs to benefits. In May 2003, after a quick, successful American invasion, a Gallup poll revealed that 79 percent of the public supported the war — despite our not finding weapons of mass destruction. But by December 2008 — more than 4,000 American fatalities later and at the end of the Bush presidency — only 34 percent, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll, still felt the war had been worth the effort.
Second was how the changing public mood affected politics. In October 2002, the Republican-controlled House and Senate, with plenty of Democratic support, voted overwhelmingly to authorize the Iraq War.
Congress cited 23 reasons why we should remove Saddam. The majority of these authorizations had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction.
Yet as the subsequent occupation became messy and costly, prior Democratic support evaporated. In the presidential campaigns of 2004 and 2008, running against what was now George Bush’s war was seen as wise Democratic politics.
From all that, we can draw more conclusions about the present media silence and absence of public protests over the Iraq War. As long as Barack Obama is commander-in-chief, and as long as casualties in Iraq are down, there will be no large public protests nor much news about our sizable Iraq presence. The cost and the attendant politics — not why we went there — always determined how the Iraq War was covered.
Afghanistan is more complicated. So far this year — for the first time since our 2001 removal of the Taliban from power — more Americans have been killed there (172) than in Iraq (114). The Obama administration recently sent more troops into Afghanistan to reach our highest level yet at 32,000.
Yet so far there have been none of the public protests that we used to see in connection with Iraq. Why?
Over the last few years, we have become used to the idea that Afghanistan was “quiet.” Indeed fewer were killed there in most years than in some of the bloodiest single months in Iraq.
Democrats also ran on the notion of Afghanistan as the “good war.” It was the direct payback for the Taliban’s involvement with Osama bin Laden. It garnered United Nations support. And it had been neglected by Iraq-obsessed, neocon George Bush.
Many anti-war candidates also thought the “good” Afghan war was largely over, while the “bad” Iraq one was hopeless — already “lost” — in the words of the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid (D., Nev.).
In addition, Afghanistan — landlocked, backward, with a harsh climate and little natural wealth — was always the harder challenge for fostering constitutional government. Iraq has ports, a central location, oil riches, flat and open terrain, and an educated populace.
So now we have public confusion about both wars. George Bush’s “wrong” war is largely won and Iraq’s democracy fairly stable. But the good war in Afghanistan is becoming Barack Obama’s and heating up — more American troops, more American casualties, and little political stability.
If the past is any guide to media and public reaction, some predictions seem warranted. Obama will enjoy far more patience, since the anti-war Left and a liberal media will go easier on a kindred president.
Yet if casualties peak, the American people will sour on Afghanistan as they did on Iraq. Then even Obama, I think unfairly, will be blamed in the media for a war that Americans used to think — as in the case once of Iraq — was necessary and just.
And even reluctant Charlie Gibson might have to return to covering Cindy Sheehan’s latest pursuit of a beleaguered American president.
Obama has a completely free hand in Afghanistan and Iraq. I doubt that any president since LBJ in 1964-65 has had such a free hand. The so-called Republican Obama haters will give him everything he asks for wheil the so-called antiwar worshipers on the left will do the same. The only way that Obama will be stopped is if conservatives turn against his escalation but they will continue to be his best friends on these issues.
“But Sheehan is a media has-been. ABC’s Charlie Gibson used to cover her anti-Bush rallies in Crawford, Tex. Now he says, with a sigh, of her recent anti-Obama efforts, “Enough already.””
#####
War is difficult, frustrating and messy.
Gibson is not covering Sheehan’s insanity because, NOW, the protracted and difficult War on Terror is on the messiah’s plate. There is no political capital to be gained in the ObamaMedia by harping on the anti-war theme any longer now that the Left is running things.
Just a partial list. Much more at the link: http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/victordavishanson/index
Ping !
Let me know if you want in or out. Links:
FR Index of his articles: http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/victordavishanson/index NRO archive: http://author.nationalreview.com/?q=MjI1MQ== Pajamasmedia: http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/ His website: http://victorhanson.com/
“The Obama administration recently sent more troops into Afghanistan to reach our highest level yet at 32,000.”?????
I read an AP article that puts it at 60,000...this year Obama sent an additional 21,000, so the 30,000 number does not make sense!
MORE IMPORTANT:
Afghanistan: Obama’s new rules for engagement:
#1 “buzzing rather than bombing the enemy”
“The first thing we do is fly over head, and the bad guys know airpower is in place and oftentimes that’s enough. That ends the fight, they vamoose,” said Hostage, who will direct the air battle over Iraq and Afghanistan. “The A-10 has a very distinct sound. The cannon on an A-10 is horrifically capable and our adversaries know it. When they hear the sound of an A-10, they scatter.”
Hostage says the Air Force can easily drop bombs with pinpoint accuracy. But in some cases, it may be better to fly over enemy forces with noisy warplanes to get them to disperse first, then try more force if that doesn’t work.
http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87881
#2 KABUL - The top U.S. general in Afghanistan will soon formally order U.S. and NATO forces to break away from fights with militants hiding in Afghan houses so the battles do not kill civilians, a U.S. official said Monday.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31492098
The Obama administration recently sent more troops into Afghanistan to reach our highest level yet at 32,000.
Yet so far there have been none of the public protests that we used to see in connection with Iraq. Why?
You have the answer in your sentence.OBAMA
If that said Bush Administration, there would be widespread MSM driven protests.
If it said McCain Administration there would be widespread MSM driven protests.
It says OBAMA Administration. No way that the MSM is going to drive any protests against their handpicked President....
Five years after Japan and Germany surrendered were we still calling our troops being over there a “war”?
As far as casualties, those losers are strictly amateur hour when it comes to killing people. A young man of military age is safer stationed in Iraq or Afghanistan than living in one of our major urban areas. We kill more people per capita during peace than many nations do during upheaval or rebellion.
My theory is 0bama has stopped calling them “wars,” so when he withdraws the troops in defeat, he’ll think he’s able to say he didn’t lose a “war.”
As for Afghanistan, placing extreme restrictions on enemy engagement has heavily turned the tide in favor of the Taliban. Couple that with the fact we don’t do aggressive interrogations, along with no longer calling the conflict a “war” — well, what the hell? Sounds like incremental surrender to me.
Actually, and maybe I’m nitpicking, but I’d say Nixon had a freer hand than LBJ did. LBJ escalated the war and watched it go sour as well as the American people hating him. Nixon came in promising to end the war with honor. It’s very similar to Bush-Obama I believe, possibly with Pakistan playing the role of Laos and Cambodia.
There never really was a war. Iraq’s army was absolutely no match for ours or threat, and Afghanistan didn’t have an army so much as pockets of militias. We have a military built to devastate with the best trained men and the most advanced technology the World has ever seen, yet we play global peacekeeper. It’s like putting Mike Tyson in the ring with a guy from the local YMCA, and telling Tyson to play rope-a-dope for 15 rounds instead of just knocking the guy out.
And yes, our military is top notch.
When I said we were champs at killing people I also meant our civilian population. As I said, a young man of military age is safer stationed in a “war” zone than in one of our major urban areas.
My father pointed out to me during the “war” in Northern Ireland that their per capita death by violence rate was far lower than Los Angeles. And those pikers were trying to fight a war? We were just conducting business as usual in the crack cocaine trade.
The occupation began basically as soon as we invaded.
Or Juarez Mexico. Just across the border from Ft Bliss.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2325655/posts
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.
