Stardate 20040112.1553

(On Screen): The International Herald Tribune (which is owned and operated by the NYT) publishes a relatively short editorial. It is only at the end that they indicate that it actually came from that paragon of non-partisan journalistic quality, Arab News. And it makes a lot of claims which caused me to say, "Yes and no, but mostly no."

As demonstrated by the low-key U.S. press coverage of a recent report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the lack of real evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction is no longer an issue for U.S. voters. Now that Saddam Hussein has been captured, Americans are comforting themselves with the concept of a just war to overthrow an evil regime. The rising death toll among U.S. servicemen in Iraq no longer matters as much, especially with the June deadline for a power handover to the Iraqis, which many Americans assume will also be the time for U.S. military disengagement. How President George W. Bush will handle this issue in the last five months of his campaign to stay in the White House is going to be crucial.

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is hardly a non-partisan group; just from its name you can tell that it has a very distinct agenda and political outlook. One of the reasons why their report may not have gotten a lot of coverage is that groups like that one have done a pretty good job of destroying their own credibility over the last couple of years.

As to the lack of Iraqi WMDs, there are some of us who sure-as-hell wish it was a major issue, but the rest aren't as concerned. For one thing, there were many reasons why we needed to go into Iraq. That was only one of them, and it wasn't even the most important one, even though it occupied center stage in certain discussions for various reasons.

Overthrowing an evil regime was a benefit of the war but was never one of the primary reasons we went it. As to the "rising death toll", that's another case where some did their best to try to put it front-and-center politically and largely didn't succeed. I don't think many are sanguine about our casualties in Iraq, but they recognize that compared to the anticipated benefits, short and long term, the price has been quite low by historical standards.

It may be that some think we'll disengage entirely and flee from Iraq after June, but that's not justified from a reading of administration announcements, nor would anyone who has actually looked at the situation believe it. An NBC/WSJ poll in November asked Americans how long our troops should be in Iraq, presenting them with a three way choice. 20% said our troops should be withdrawn as soon as possible. 28% said they should be withdrawn within 18 months. 51% said American troops should stay as long as necessary to complete the process, even if it takes as long as five years.

So it's true that "many" Americans think that June is exit-day, but "many" doesn't mean "all" or even a majority.

So the only statement in that paragraph which I fully agree with is the last one: the last few months before the election will be critical.

The writer laments:

Voters are still rejoicing in a job well done in overthrowing an evil dictator. Little thought is being given to the other part of the Carnegie report, which is deeply critical of the Bush policy of pre-emptive invasions. Despite the rising casualties, Pax Americana is at present going down well with voters. Bush's aggressive foreign policy has brought Libya's weapons of mass destruction program to an end, and may be about to do the same thing with North Korea while also having an effect on Iran.

Little thought is being given to the other part of the Carnegie report because we've heard it all before. It was pretty much a foregone conclusion that CEIP would be "deeply critical of the Bush policy of preemptive invasions". That's "dog bites man".

And the writer ruefully offers a list of reasons why we mostly aren't paying attention to those who have been "deeply critical": "Bush's aggressive foreign policy" seems to be having significant and tangible effects already in the larger war.

Who cares what weak intelligence is cobbled together to justify an attack? The important thing is that U.S. military muscle seems to be working. That this simplistic analysis ignores so many subtler and fundamental issues, not least the Palestinian plight, is the reason why a second term for President Bush is such a thought-provoking prospect for anyone who is not American.

Not to mention the fact that this writer has himself missed so many subtler and fundamental issues, not least the fact that we're fighting this war because we were attacked, and we're trying to remove the danger to us.

As to the Palestinians, my well of sympathy for them ran dry a long time ago. There are many parents responsible for their plight, but at this point I place the majority of the responsibility squarely on the Palestinians themselves. They have had plenty of chances to improve their situation, and have turned away from all of them.

The writer ends this paragraph with a statement with which I fully agree, just as he did the other two. There is no doubt that the very high probability of Bush being reelected, and of his party making other gains next November, should be provoking thought elsewhere in the world. Were I one of them, I'd be thinking pretty hard, too, not only about the fact that it will give Bush another four years to continue his policies, but also about what his reelection will indicate about the attitudes of the "American Street".

Update 20040113: Robert Hinkley writes to tell me that Stefan Sharkansky has noticed that the same expert who now says we didn't need to invade Iraq because it didn't have any WMDs warned that we could not invade because Iraq had WMDs and would use them.