Charles Kaiser on the Forever War in Iraq, and this week's media winners and sinners

The Forever War

I've seen this movie before. It ends badly.

Anyone old enough to remember 1975 recognizes more parallels between Vietnam and Iraq every day. In both cases, America was supporting deeply corrupt governments with limited control over their countries—although the South Vietnamese government had far more control over its country in 1973 (two years before the war ended) than the Iraqi government has today.

This time, the role of General William Westmoreland is played by General David Petraeus. Petraeus is, unfortunately, a more convincing witness than Westmoreland was. But he is just as misguided as his role model—in exactly the same way. Neither Westmoreland nor Petraeus (nor Lyndon Johnson, nor George Bush) has ever understood the most important fact about each of these wars: At no stage has the United States ever had enough troops on the ground to influence the final outcome. The most we can do is to continue to fight and die (and kill more and more Iraqis) for no reason, other than the fact that the man in the White House has neither the brains nor the courage to end our involvement there.

This is why the Alice in Wonderland testimony given by Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker this week—and most of the commentary about it—was so overwhelmingly depressing. The comments of Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold to the two witnesses were some of the only words spoken reflecting the truth:

I hope you won't take it personally when I say that I wish we were also hearing today from those who could help us look at Iraq from a broader perspective. The participation at this hearing of those charged with regional and global responsibilities would have given us the chance to discuss how the war in Iraq is undermining our national security. It might have helped us answer the most important question we face—not "are we winning or losing in Iraq?" but "are we winning or losing in the global fight against Al Qaeda?"

Our huge, open-ended military presence there is not only undermining our ability to respond to the global threat posed by Al Qaeda, but it is also creating greater regional instability, serving as a disincentive for Iraqis to reach political reconciliation, straining our military, and piling up debt for future generations to repay. ... Long-term prospects for reconciliation appear to be just as shaky as they were before the surge. In fact, the drop in violence could have serious costs, as it is partly attributable to the deals we have struck with local militias, all of which could make national reconciliation that much more difficult. ... The presence of about 140,000 troops in Iraq will exacerbate the conflict, not stabilize it, and it will certainly not contribute to our overall national security. Some have suggested that we should stay in Iraq until reconciliation occurs. They have it backwards—our departure is likely to force factions to the negotiating table in an attempt to finally create a viable power-sharing agreement.

It was the same story on the chat shows. On Charlie Rose, former New York Times Baghdad correspondents Dexter Filkins and (especially) John Burns droned on about the impressive progress we're making. And neither they nor Rose ever discussed the possibility that withdrawal is more likely to lead to reconciliation than our continued presence there. The only moment of implied wisdom came when Rose asked Filkins to give the title of his forthcoming book. It's The Forever War. One reason both reporters seemed a little out of touch: Filkins ended his tour as a full-time correspondent in Iraq in the summer of 2006; Burns came out in the summer of 2007.

Much more wisdom was available on the NewsHour With Jim Lehrer from retired General William Odom, who is a genuine national treasure:

"The uncomfortable truth is beginning to dawn on them," said Odom. "The surge has sustained military instability and achieved nothing in political consolidation. Allowing these sheiks in the Sunni areas and other strongmen to sign up with the United States to be paid, where we protect them from Maliki's government, diffuses power, both political and military ... Maliki, against the best advice of both Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus, went ahead, rushed down, and got into a fight in Basra, which he lost ... So things are much worse now. And I don't see that they'll get any better. This was foreseeable a year, a year and a half ago. And to continue to put the cozy veneer of comfortable half-truth on this is to deceive the American public and to make them think it's not the charade it is."

Winners: 60 Minutes producers Michael Rosenbaum and L. Franklin DeVine, and correspondent Steve Kroft, for a complete evisceration of one of the war's architects, former undersecretary of defense Douglas Feith. High points included Feith's inability to remember key points in his own book—the one he was on air to promote—and Kroft telling Feith how General Tommy Franks really feels about him: "He called you basically the dumbest guy on the face of the planet."

Sinner: Tim Russert, for the latest example of brainless "gotcha" journalism. First Russert played this perfectly sensible sound bite from Obama: "Teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual, but it should also include—it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters, nine years old and six years old. I'm going to teach them, first of all, about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

For that, Russert berated Obama's stand-in on Meet the Press, Pennsylvania senator Bob Casey:

Russert: "Punished with a baby"—is that an appropriate word?
Casey: Well, look, you can talk about better word choices, but ... he's honest about the idea that if they—if a teenage girl has a baby, that is a terrible burden, and it's difficult.
Russert: But it's not punishment ... he should not have used the word "punished."

Note to Tim: Despite what the Pope may have told you, an unwanted child for a teenage girl is punishment. And even the people who do take communion before watching your show understand that.

Winner: Pulitzer Prize–winning historian David Garrow, for his splendid review in the Los Angeles Times of Jonathan Rieder's fine new book, The Word of the Lord Is Upon Me: The Righteous Performance of Martin Luther King, Jr. Garrow reminds us that Rev. Jeremiah Wright's "God damn America" is actually quite mild compared to some of King's pronouncements: "Consider this denunciation of U.S. military behavior abroad: '[W]e are criminals in that war. We've committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world.' Or, similarly, calling the United States 'the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today' and condemning it for creating 'concentration camps.'" Garrow's bottom line: "The real Martin Luther King, Jr., more often sounded like Jeremiah Wright than like Barack Obama."

Winner: The Washington Post, for publishing an open letter by Hu Jia and Teng Biao, which describes the incompatibility of Chinese human rights abuses and the Olympics. The letter, originally published September 10, 2007, earned the dissident a three-and-a-half-year prison sentence for "subverting state authority."

Winner: Paul Krugman for pointing out the link between Republican governance and reduced prosperity. A graph by Larry Bartels demonstrated:

1) Everyone is less wealthy under a Republican government.
2) The poor are much worse under a Republican government.

Winner: The Washington Post, for reporting that the Mortgage Bankers Association got a dose of comeuppance, as high market rates imperiled the construction of their new headquarters in downtown Washington. The association will be forced to pay millions more for the building because of the subprime mortgage crisis the brokers created.

Winner: The New York Daily News reported that souvenir sales have shot up at the now infamous Mayflower Hotel, where former New York governor Eliot Spitzer had his career-ending tryst.

Winners: Mother Jones magazine, for its comprehensive package about torture, with more than a dozen articles, including a "torture timeline"; and 60 Minutes producers Graham Messick and Michael Karzis, and correspondent Scott Pelley, for a superb piece about the "extraordinary rendition" of German citizen Murat Kurnaz, who spent four years being tortured and imprisoned by the United States government, even though there was never a scintilla of evidence that he was a real terrorist.



Winner: Mark Leibovich, for his cover story on Chris Matthews in next Sunday's New York Times magazine. Although 4,000 words longer than it should have been (it comes in at 8,109 words), it does include these attractive tidbits:

• NBC is desperate to cut Matthews' $5 million salary when his contract comes up for renewal next year.

• Chris on himself: "You can imagine what the neocons would say if I were kidnapped. They'd be like, 'See, Matthews, terrorism isn't so funny now, is it'" ... "I think I'm the only guy around who quotes F. Scott Fitzgerald on the 'Today' show" ... "By the way, have you figured me out yet? You gotta understand, it's all complicated. It's not like Tim."

• Matthews has "berated" archrival Tim Russert "to several people at NBC" and has told friends that Russert is like John F. Kennedy, while he is more like Richard Nixon.

Question for Chris: Why would you want to be known as more like Richard Nixon?

	Meet the Press (NBC–Russert)	Face the Nation (CBS–Schieffer)	This Week (ABC–Stephanopoulos)
White Men	5	2	14
White Women	1	1	3
Black Men	4	0	1
Brown Men	0	1	0
Black Women	0	0	0
Gay People	0	0	1
Arab Women	0	1	0

---

One actual news tidbit from This Week: Condi Rice now appears to be actively campaigning to be John McCain's running mate.

Reporter: Richard Vanderford
Seen Something? E-mail to alert me to anything you see that warrants high praise or high dudgeon.

---

Charles Kaiser is the author of The Gay Metropolis and 1968 in America. He has been media editor for Newsweek, a member of the metro staff of the New York Times, and a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, where he covered the press and book publishing. To learn more, visit charleskaiser.com.