Independent spin
by Robert Philbin
[ opinion - november 07 ]
"We have been working closely and intensely with our international partners to prevent one of the world's most dangerous regimes from developing the world's most dangerous weapons," Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said today. "Part of that strategy involves denying supporters of Iran's illicit conduct access to the international financial system. These actors should find no safe haven in the reputable world of finance and commerce." October 25, 2007 [1]
The same propaganda run up to the Iraq invasion - "to prevent knowledge of weapons of mass destruction, limit a crazy dictator, take out terrorist groups attacking the US" - is now operative for Iran in an attempt to see if the American public will accept stronger economic sanctions, and US air attacks on Iranian infrastructure.
A strange spin week, particularly for the Middle East. As the president bumped his war funding request to $195 billion for this fiscal year, total cost to exceed $4.7 trillion, with interest on debt at $700 billion - it seems public perceptions are shifting, along with administration war strategy, into a new phase. The Harris Poll reports the number of Americans who think, "things are getting better for US troops has risen from 13 per cent in March and 20 per cent in August to 25 per cent now."
Of course this means about 75 per cent of Americans think things are not getting better for US troops, and the same poll found no change in the "wrongness" of the war or public perception of President Bush's performance:
"One thing that has not changed is the perception of President Bush's job performance on Iraq. Three in ten Americans (29%) give President's Bush positive ratings on his handling of Iraq while two-thirds (67%) give him negative ratings. These numbers have been holding steady since the spring." [2]
Reports from the Iraq Health, Interior and Defense Ministries and AP statistics also show civilian and US military deaths fell across Iraq in September and October compared to August, indicating General David Petraeus testified accurately when he said in early September that a more positive trend would soon emerge. But this doesn't mean "the surge" had everything to do with the drop in deaths, as claimed by the military and White House.
There are other critical and obvious reasons for declining death rates - like statistical error, sheer murder exhaustion, lack of available targets, and increased "ethnic and secular security." In short, assuming statistical accuracy, regional "soft partition" (not a surge goal) automatically reduces the context for civilian and military deaths. If Shiites huddle in Shiite enclaves protected by Shiite gunmen, there will be fewer Shiites killed. This process is ongoing with more than a million displaced and transient Iraqis since February, and about 2,000 now relocating every day from one enclave to another - nonetheless, reports of declining death rates are certainly good news. [3]
A second hit of positive news came when al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden signalled weakness and division among his "Islamist fighters" in Iraq. Bin Laden called on "insurgent groups" to unite: "Some of you have been lax in one duty, which is to unite your ranks," he said on tape broadcast by Al Jazeera. "Beware of your enemies, especially those who infiltrate your ranks," he added. "I advise myself and the Islamic nation not to follow individuals and countries. Everything should be seen in the light of Islam." [4]
Bin Laden is simply admitting counter insurgents have penetrated al-Qaeda, in the name of other "religious leaders or countries," and his "allies" - Iraqi war lords, for example - are taking US financial assistance and US Special Forces support, and attacking Al-Qaeda Iraq. A strong indication that the Iraqi people, like the vast majority of Muslims, are rejecting the stupid and brutal "rule of Sharia" as a premise for modern government. Again, bin Laden merely reinforced Gen Petraeus's September testimony about "disorienting" and "disrupting" al-Qaeda operations in Iraq.
So public pessimism about "conditions for US troops" may have stabilized for the moment and this is the result of two perceptions I think: the appearance that Iraqis are driving events on the ground, (if they're doing it, they won't need us to do it); and second, public anticipation of a clear endgame (systematic troop withdrawals through the end of this administration) as outlined by Gen Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. If these perceptions change, so too will public opinion, in my view.
If troop draw-downs are slowed to boost faltering military conditions; or the Iraqi government crumbles or lacks sovereignty, US public opinion, which strongly opposes the war and the conduct of the administration, will tip overwhelmingly negative well before next November, and the continued appearance of a congress out of sync with constituent opinion will only bode worse for all incumbents in 2008, regardless of party. A largely Republican war will become a Democratic war - that is, a Washington war, in public opinion, and marginal candidates will fall.
A Pew study released this week found that about 41% of Americans could not name a Republican presidential candidate, compared to about 18% who could not name a Democratic contender. [5] So as higher-profile Democrats appear to support an unpopular war, the more vulnerable they become. (House Speaker Pelosi, who now polls more unfavorably than favorable, [6] for example, could quickly become a symbol of congressional dysfunction, and boost already strong anti-war opposition in her district against her.)
The "good news" this week may have prompted the Financial Times (London) into exuberant giddiness: "A well-placed bomb in Baghdad's Green Zone could change everything," The Times noted, " but, for the time being, the war in Iraq has ceased to be the US's hot political issue." [7] An overstatement at best, with no supporting data, but indicative of the shift in public attitude Harris found. It's more plausible in my view to suggest the bump in optimism (not a cessation of priority) is the result of a deepening public realization that the Iraq war is winding down.
I say this because I think the American public is now shaping perceptions based on four general premises: 1) the administration isn't going to change its Middle East strategy no matter how failed or unpopular (hence continued low polling); 2) the US military invasion of Iraq is over - our troops are doing virtually all they can do, and they will draw down in the foreseeable future (hence rising optimism for their safety); 3) a strengthened government in Iraq is holding a "soft partition" in place with apparent "sovereignty" (again lowering pessimism for troop conditions); and 4), administration sabre-rattling against Iran (largely with congressional acquiescence,) may indeed expand the US war in the region.
The same propaganda used in the run up to the Iraq invasion - "deny them knowledge of weapons of mass destruction, bring down a crazy dictator, stop terrorist groups attacking US forces" - is being floated now to see if the American public will "buy into" not only stronger economic sanctions to injure the Iranian people, but US or Israeli air attacks on Iranian infrastructure. This could be a second run-up to military action, or merely administration posturing and fear mongering, but the American public cannot know which. So Iran is on the table.
As the Financial Times also noted: "We are having the same debate over Iran as John Bolton [the former pro-war administration official] and Colin Powell [the former pro-diplomacy secretary of state] had about Iraq in 2002 – with the Democrats as Powell and Republicans as Bolton," says Kurt Campbell, head of the Centre for a New American Security. "That's the dividing line that matters."
It's doubtful Americans will stand further military action in the Middle East, but public opinion has never mattered to the US Middle East war agenda, so it becomes increasingly imperative politically for Democrats and moderate Republicans to push back at every point of contact with the administration, or suffer the consequences of further acquiescence next year.
Notes
1 Bush administration tightens sanctions on Iran [Back] http://edition.cnn.com/
2 Some (Moderately) Good News for the White House on Iraq [Back]
3 "While US death figures appear to be in sharp decline, the number of Iraqi civilians and security forces show a less dramatic drop. And any significant attack - by insurgents or civilians caught in the crossfire - could quickly wipe out the downward trend. The current pace of civilian deaths would put October at less than 900. The figure last month was 1,023 and for August, 1,956, according to figures compiled by The Associated Press. The AP tally is compiled from hospital, police and military officials, as well as accounts from reporters and photographers. Insurgent deaths are not included. Other counts differ and some have given higher civilian death tolls." Sharp Drop Seen in US Deaths in Iraq [Back]
4 Bin Laden Calls for Unity Among Iraq Insurgents; Purported new bin Laden audio airs [Back]
5 PEW: Democratic Candidates Better Known, Even Among Republicans [Back]
6 Data from nationwide surveys of Americans 18 & older: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-California) [Back]
7 "There has been an effort to change the subject," says Zbigniew Brzezinski. "It is not so much that Iraq has been replaced by Iran as that the Bush administration has successfully broadened the Iraq debate to include Iran."
Iraq fades as a hot political issue and
