Mugger: Iraq Is Not Vietnam
Maybe you saw the March 28 Pew Research Center poll showing 42 percent of Americans are suffering from "war fatigue" by watching too much television about the rapidly unfolding events in Iraq. In addition, 58 percent find the coverage "frightening." Nevertheless, an overwhelming majority of those surveyed by Fox News claim they tune in at least two hours daily, a certain sign of masochism that one hopes will abate quickly.
The medias blitz of sensationalizing the Iraqi invasion–which obviously boosts ratings and sells newspapers, even more than an abducted child–is not unexpected and crosses ideological lines. But with the exception of MSNBCs Lester Holt, Ive lost all patience with the cable stations, and just cant stomach the sight of Aaron Brown, Shepard Smith, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Wolf Blitzer, Bill OReilly, Larry King and the hundreds of retired generals and colonels who pop off with conflicting analyses.
ABCs Peter Jennings is beyond the pale, even more offensive than NBCs dumbo duo of Matt Lauer and Katie Couric. Jennings, whos conducting a personal vendetta against the Bush administration, ought to soil his Savile Row suit and join the throngs of hate-filled (but pro-abortion and antigun) protesters who desperately crave attention with their die-ins, puke-outs, marches and trite slogans. But that wouldnt do: Pete might miss a luncheon date with Seymour Hersh at the Four Seasons.
As for the "embedded" journalists, one has to admire their courage in traveling with allied troops. And if theyre confused by the shifting military maneuvers, sandstorms, Saddams summary executions of citizens, at least theyre actually reporting on the story rather than simply speculating. David Bloom (who wouldve imagined?), Bob Arnot, Walter Rogers and Steve Centanni are just a number of correspondents whove distinguished themselves, especially with the haunting visage of Daniel Pearl undoubtedly in their nightmares. Its too bad that CNNs Nic Robertson, kicked out of Baghdad, hasnt replaced Blitzer in Kuwait City to offset the I-Havent-A-Clue Brown.
The Pentagon cant win, naturally, with the left-wing media. In recent wars there was a persistent mewling about the lack of access. Today, theres equal sniffing that reporters are "bonding" with soldiers and not presenting an "objective" narrative, which one supposes would be that Iraqs dictator is nobly defeating the infidels who are trying to end his sovereign regime.
Last Friday, writing in the Wall Street Journal, the invaluable Dorothy Rabinowitz found all this carping from the Beltway Establishment just plain stupid.
She said: "The most interesting concern thus far...came from commentator Roger Wilkins, who mused on [Jim Lehrers News-Hour] that the journalists would get too close and feel for the military men who would seem to them, after all, to be fellow human beings.
"Now theres a serious worry: and for a certain quarter of the political culture, it probably is. Working and living with soldiers in combat could, after all, give young journalists a picture of the armed forces very different from the ones they gleaned from their universities and other centers of culture inveterately hostile to the military. The nation is likely to survive this threat."
Equally irritating is the clockwork spate of articles insisting that its Vietnam all over again, with a bumbling administration–which failed to secure Frances blessing–not living up to the illusory promise of a 12-hour war. Do any of them remember the "quagmire" of Afghanistan? Yes, I know Dick Cheney and former U.N. ambassador Ken Adelman predicted a quick rub-out of Saddam, but so did Bill Clinton. Speaking in New York earlier this month, the This-Mouths-For-Hire former chief executive, whos harming the Democratic party by relentless criticism of his successor, said, "This war is going to be over in a flash."
The Weekly Standards Bill Kristol, whos been the subject of some disgusting anti-Semitic slurs (say howdy, Mr. Buchanan), was far more circumspect about the length of the war. He said on March 16, in reaction to Clintons comments: "Well, Bill Clinton never fails to appall... He doesnt know [how long the war will take]. Its totally irresponsible to say that. Some of my fellow hawks over the last six, nine months have been saying its going to be a cakewalk. Ive always said we do not know that. And you need to prepare the American people for the possibility that things will go wrong with the war. This man [Clinton] isnt just a pundit. This guy is the former president of the United States saying the war is going to be over in a flash. Totally irresponsible... Its one thing for a commentator to say. But for the most recent president of the United States to be so flip and glib when 200,000 troops are sitting on the verge of a war front is really appalling."
Not that Bush has made such boasts. Speaking last Oct. 7 in Cincinnati, he said: "Military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures. There is no easy or risk-free course of action." And in his Jan. 28 State of the Union address, Bush was also realistic: "For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow. This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come."
Isnt some perspective in order? At this writing, the war is less than two weeks old, American and British casualties number less than 100, and yet somehow Iraq is "winning." Bush, who understands that such a massive undertaking isnt going to go exactly as planned, has purposely tamped down hopes that Baghdad will fall in a matter of weeks. But if the war does last a few months, as seems likely, will the media consider that unacceptable? Probably. In fact, such an outcome, with a minimal loss of life, would be an astonishing achievement, one that millions of people–not necessarily living in New York, San Francisco or Hollywood–will be thankful for.
The Nation, the far-left weekly thats now virtually indistinguishable from the New York Times, ran a lead editorial in its April 14 issue that represented the sentiments of mainstream media nitwits. Im thinking of the Washington Posts Dana Milbank, ABCs Peter Jennings, Bob Herbert and Maureen Dowd from the Times, the staff at Newsweek and editorialists at the Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe and other mass-circulation dailies. But thats a minuscule sampling. The Nations writer, reduced to ridiculing the "shock and awe" slogan of this war, said: "Empires, it seems, are eternally vulnerable to hubris."
As blogger Andrew Sullivan–whos probably worn out 18 rings of worry beads by now–would say, heres the "money" quote: "A Brooklyn musician [a soulful artist] named Kyp Malone told the New York Times that he mourns the American losses but wonders, Even if its quick and easy, I dont know that I want to live in a world where America can just roll over any country it wants. Well said."
Please forgive an obvious question: Kyp, what world do you want to live in? And, absent the discovery of an alternative planet, will you commit suicide if the U.S. "roll[s]" over Iraq, and one hopes in the near future, Syria?
Bosox Over Astros in Seven
I write periodically for the New York Sun and am delighted that the citys only upscale conservative daily has made slow but steady progress over the last year in attaining circulation and advertising goals. One could quibble with the papers inclusion of Michael Kinsleys grating op-ed column (affirmative action, newspaper-style), but thats okay considering the compelling editorials that blast Mayor Mike for raising taxes and, unlike the Times, treats Israel as a crucial American ally rather than a bullying irritant.
However, in last Fridays edition I was taken aback by sports columnist Tim Marchmans extreme hyperbole in boosting the Yankees in a two-page spread that provided analysis of all 30 MLB teams and predictions for the 2003 season. His take on the Bombers is one of the kookiest Ive read in the past week.
Joe Torre, for example, is "overesteemed," a figurehead who lets Don Zimmer actually run the games. Marchman guesses in the "best case," the Yanks "could challenge the single-season wins record," while a "worst case" would be 95 victories and a wild-card berth. In addition, injury-prone Nick Johnson is "still one of the five most promising young hitters in the game," Robin Venturas sure to hit 25 homers and Jose Contreras, the Cuban phenom who was way short of phenomenal in spring training, "could be the teams best starter by July."
Oh, and the Anaheim Angels are "the least impressive team to win it all in many, many years." Never mind that the Angels stunned the Yanks in the first round of the playoffs, leading George Steinbrenner to bust several blood vessels and take out his anger on Derek Jeter and Torre.
Allen St. John, a Wall Street Journal sports columnist, also picked the Yanks in the current Playboy, but his summary wasnt nearly as sentimental. He noted Jeters four-year decline and wondered "Is Pretty Boy history?" In an interview with Jason Giambi, St. John elicited a quote that in a consistent clubhouse would cause GM Brian Cashman to fine him for "tarnishing the Yankee tradition" just as David Wells did with his recent book. Giambi, when asked what its like to be a Yankee, said: "The thing that throws you off is you go to Baltimore and youve got 200 people in the hotel lobby at two oclock in the morning waiting for you to walk in. Youre like a fucking rock star."
Now, Im a cradle-to-grave Red Sox fan–with all the mental baggage that loads one down like Marleys Ghost–but Marchman is dreaming if he thinks his team, loaded with old and injured players to go along with its superstars, is going to set any record for wins in a single season. In fact, this could be the year that the Yanks dont make it to the playoffs. Jeters spooked, David Wells cant get an audience with his boss, Bernie Williams defense will continue to deteriorate, the bullpens a mess, and Roger Clemens, at 40, might not win his 300th game until after the All-Star break.
Im not a sports reporter like Marchman, so maybe its this columnist whos nuts. Nevertheless, heres the rundown from a fan who still believes the only food sold at ballparks should be dogs, peanuts, Cokes and beer, and that while the "Curse of the Bambino" is real, one year itll be broken. Like in 2003.
The Bosox, with an improved bullpen over last years team (which still won 93 games) and a solid bench, win the A.L. East. The White Sox blow out the Twins in the Central and the Angels take the West. The As squeak by the Yanks for the wild card slot. In the National League, itll be the Phils, Astros, Diamondbacks and the Dodgers for wild card. World Series: Sox vs. Astros, with Boston winning it all in seven dramatic games. Borrowing from John Lennon–in a much different context than the rabble on the streets these days–you might think Im a dreamer, but Im not the only one.
Send comments to [MUG1988@aol.com](mailto:MUG1988@aol.com).