Thank You Glenn Kessler
In today's Washington Post, Glenn Kessler finally does something I've long been waiting for someone in the mainstream media to do, namely, systematically debunk the President's rhetoric regarding the nature of "the enemy." Kessler does a great job:
It goes on and on like that. The key point is that Bush's description of the enemy and the nature of the overall conflict is totally divorced from reality. In his speech last night, Bush said:
But this is a totally absurd description of the actual fault lines in the Middle East generally and Iraq in particular. Sunni and Shia extremists may have equally wicked purposes, but they are most certainly not the "same wicked purposes." In fact they are working at cross purposes, which is why Iraq is rapidly descending into civil war.
Some small fraction of the Sunni insurgents are foreign jihadists and al Qaeda members who, at least nominally, are dedicated to harming America and Americans, wherever they can. The rest of the Sunni insurgency, however, are Iraqis fighting for power and control of their country. To the extent they are targeting Americans, they are doing so because they believe it furthers their goals of returning to power and protecting their interests in Iraq. As this recent report from the Guardian makes clear, Sunni insurgent leaders perceive the Iranian-backed Shia majority to be their primary enemy. They attack U.S. forces because they perceive them to be foreign occupiers who are in league with the Shia.
As for Shia extremists, what evidence is there that they "want to kill Americans" or "kill democracy in the Middle East?" In Iraq, the Shia extemists are big fans of democracy--because it ensures their continued control of the country--and are focused on killing their Sunni countrymen, not Americans. In fact, the Shia extremists are operating under the protection and support of the democratically-elected government we're trying to prop up.
I suppose you can argue that Hezbollah is now trying to undermine the democratically-elected government in Lebanon, but their grievances have almost nothing to do with America or democracy in principle. But here's what Bush said:
This is totally misleading. First of all, the only thing the president can possibily be referring to here is the 1983 marine barracks bombing in Beirut, which hardly qualifies as "recent times." Second, it has never been conclusively established that Hezbollah was responsible for that bombing. They have always denied it, and Casper Weinberger, Reagan's Secretary of Defense at the time, stated recently that the U.S. still has no "actual knowledge of who did the bombing." Regardless of whether it was Hezbollah or some other group, though, the crucial fact is that the U.S. was targeted in Lebanon because of the perception that it had intervened on behalf of the Christian majority in an ongoing civil war. The attack was not motivated by general anti-American sentiment or hatred of democracy, and it was against a military target. In short, it very different than the September 11 attacks, which, by the way, Hezbollah was quick to condemn.
I in no way mean to defend Hezbollah, which is responsible for any number of heinous acts. My point is only that groups like Hezbollah and al Qaeda have very different objectives and are driven by very different motivations. And more to the point, the majority of Sunni and Shia extremists in Iraq are not affiliated with either of these groups. They are Iraqis fighting each other over the future of Iraq, and it's beyond silly to pretend that they are somehow ideological kindred spirits united in their goal of killing Americans and undermining democracy.
To Bush's credit, though, at least his description of the conflict wasn't as ludicrous as the one put forward by Joe Lieberman the other day. At no point in the speech did Bush claim that Iran was supporting al Qaeda in Iraq. That proves that his understanding of the situation is at least slighly more nuanced than Lieberman's (which doesn't say much).
It's encouraging to see journalists like Kessler actually taking the time to pick apart this deceptive rhetoric. If more reporters had done that in 2002 and 2003, we might not be in the mess we are now.
In his State of the Union address last night, President Bush presented an arguably misleading and often flawed description of "the enemy" that the United States faces overseas, lumping together disparate groups with opposing ideologies to suggest that they have a single-minded focus in attacking the United States.
Under Bush's rubric, a country such as Iran -- which enjoys diplomatic representation and billions of dollars in trade with major European countries -- is lumped together with al-Qaeda, the terrorist group responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. "The Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat," Bush said, referring to the different branches of the Muslim religion.
Similarly, Bush asserted that Shia Hezbollah, which has won seats in the Lebanese government, is a terrorist group "second only to al-Qaeda in the American lives it has taken." Bush is referring to attacks nearly a quarter-century ago on a U.S. embassy and a Marine barracks when the United States intervened in Lebanon's civil war by shelling Hezbollah strongholds. Hezbollah has evolved into primarily an anti-Israeli militant organization -- it fought a war with Israel last summer -- but the European Union does not list it as a terrorist organization.
At one point, Bush catalogued what he described as advances in the quest for freedom in the Middle East during 2005 -- such as the departure of Syrian troops from Lebanon and elections in Iraq. Then, Bush asserted, "a thinking enemy watched all of these scenes, adjusted their tactics and in 2006 they struck back." But his description of the actions of "the enemy" tried to tie together a series of diplomatic and military setbacks that had virtually no connection to one another, from an attack on a Sunni mosque in Iraq to the assassination of Maronite Lebanese political figure.
It goes on and on like that. The key point is that Bush's description of the enemy and the nature of the overall conflict is totally divorced from reality. In his speech last night, Bush said:
The Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat. Whatever slogans they chant, when they slaughter the innocent they have the same wicked purposes. They want to kill Americans, kill democracy in the Middle East, and gain the weapons to kill on an even more horrific scale.
But this is a totally absurd description of the actual fault lines in the Middle East generally and Iraq in particular. Sunni and Shia extremists may have equally wicked purposes, but they are most certainly not the "same wicked purposes." In fact they are working at cross purposes, which is why Iraq is rapidly descending into civil war.
Some small fraction of the Sunni insurgents are foreign jihadists and al Qaeda members who, at least nominally, are dedicated to harming America and Americans, wherever they can. The rest of the Sunni insurgency, however, are Iraqis fighting for power and control of their country. To the extent they are targeting Americans, they are doing so because they believe it furthers their goals of returning to power and protecting their interests in Iraq. As this recent report from the Guardian makes clear, Sunni insurgent leaders perceive the Iranian-backed Shia majority to be their primary enemy. They attack U.S. forces because they perceive them to be foreign occupiers who are in league with the Shia.
As for Shia extremists, what evidence is there that they "want to kill Americans" or "kill democracy in the Middle East?" In Iraq, the Shia extemists are big fans of democracy--because it ensures their continued control of the country--and are focused on killing their Sunni countrymen, not Americans. In fact, the Shia extremists are operating under the protection and support of the democratically-elected government we're trying to prop up.
I suppose you can argue that Hezbollah is now trying to undermine the democratically-elected government in Lebanon, but their grievances have almost nothing to do with America or democracy in principle. But here's what Bush said:
In recent times, it has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America, and are also determined to dominate the Middle East. Many are known to take direction from the regime in Iran, which is funding and arming terrorists like Hezbollah -- a group second only to al Qaeda in the American lives it has taken.
This is totally misleading. First of all, the only thing the president can possibily be referring to here is the 1983 marine barracks bombing in Beirut, which hardly qualifies as "recent times." Second, it has never been conclusively established that Hezbollah was responsible for that bombing. They have always denied it, and Casper Weinberger, Reagan's Secretary of Defense at the time, stated recently that the U.S. still has no "actual knowledge of who did the bombing." Regardless of whether it was Hezbollah or some other group, though, the crucial fact is that the U.S. was targeted in Lebanon because of the perception that it had intervened on behalf of the Christian majority in an ongoing civil war. The attack was not motivated by general anti-American sentiment or hatred of democracy, and it was against a military target. In short, it very different than the September 11 attacks, which, by the way, Hezbollah was quick to condemn.
I in no way mean to defend Hezbollah, which is responsible for any number of heinous acts. My point is only that groups like Hezbollah and al Qaeda have very different objectives and are driven by very different motivations. And more to the point, the majority of Sunni and Shia extremists in Iraq are not affiliated with either of these groups. They are Iraqis fighting each other over the future of Iraq, and it's beyond silly to pretend that they are somehow ideological kindred spirits united in their goal of killing Americans and undermining democracy.
To Bush's credit, though, at least his description of the conflict wasn't as ludicrous as the one put forward by Joe Lieberman the other day. At no point in the speech did Bush claim that Iran was supporting al Qaeda in Iraq. That proves that his understanding of the situation is at least slighly more nuanced than Lieberman's (which doesn't say much).
It's encouraging to see journalists like Kessler actually taking the time to pick apart this deceptive rhetoric. If more reporters had done that in 2002 and 2003, we might not be in the mess we are now.
posted by A.L. at 1:19 PM
7 Comments:
For my part, I appear on this site solely to gloat lewdly over the hapless performance put on thus far by Patrick Fitzgerald and his feckless crew. Oh, there's dismay on the nutball left about this one!
Glenn Kessler? Somebody sits down at a keyboard and types endlessly about someone named Glenn Kessler? Geez...
There's nothing really new about Bush grossly oversimplifying the situation in the Middle East, but good post.
One- to two-age memos and verbal briefings can only do so much to inform someone who came to the presidency knowing embarrassingly little about the world beyond our borders.
Even the alleged recent catch-up consultations with a supposedly broad range of knowledgeable people can only go so far in giving Bush a clue. He is, after all, a president who ordered the invasion of Iraq unaware of its Sunni, Shia and Kurd makeup. It's been reported that to Bush, they were all just Iraqi Arabs.
And, at his elbow, from whom does Bush draw advice and counsel? Why, Dick "Final Throes" Cheney, who just today insisted Iraq is winniable and how the U.S. has racked up a long list of sterling accomplishments there.
But perhaps the real bottom line is that Bush, Cheney and this whole rotten lot don't need knowledge and insight based on other people's reality, for they make their own reality.
This is totally misleading. First of all, the only thing the president can possibily be referring to here is the 1983 marine barracks bombing in Beirut, which hardly qualifies as "recent times." Second, it has never been conclusively established that Hezbollah was responsible for that bombing. They have always denied it, and Casper Weinberger, Reagan's Secretary of Defense at the time, stated recently that the U.S. still has no "actual knowledge of who did the bombing." Regardless of whether it was Hezbollah or some other group, though, the crucial fact is that the U.S. was targeted in Lebanon because of the perception that it had intervened on behalf of the Christian majority in an ongoing civil war. The attack was not motivated by general anti-American sentiment or hatred of democracy, and it was against a military target. In short, it very different than the September 11 attacks, which, by the way, Hezbollah was quick to condemn.
Hezbollah WAS responsible and was proven in a US Court of Law. What Weinberger said or didn't say is of little merit, because of his actions during the Marines presence in Lebanon. Weinberger, criminal that he was, urged Reagan to withdraw the Marines directly after the barracks bombing, leading to the current impressions of Bin Laden as to America's will to stand up to Terriorism.
Hezbollah WAS responsible and was proven in a US Court of Law.
The burden of proof in a civil action is just 'preponderance of evidence', i.e., more likely than not. I think it's perfectly fair to say that 'more likely than not' Hezbollah was responsible. And even if it was another group, that group was almost surely sponsored by Iran as well, so I guess it doesn't matter so much.
And I wasn't defending Weinberger's policies, just quoting him on as to a factual claim. I'm sure he would know better than anyone what the facts of this matter are.
And all this was just a minor point. My meta-point was that Hezbollah and al Qaeda are very different organizations with very different objectives. I obviously wasn't defending either group.
Your meta point is very clear, you will grasp at any remote wording or out of date ex-official to prop up your view that Bush is stupid and wrong about "everything" while the world goes to hell in a hand basket taking the US along. You are a sorry excuse for a person. Legalistic nit picking is ok in debates about history quizzes on WW I, but very inappropriate when lives are at stake. You socialist elites have never grasped that this is not a game, have you?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home