May 14 2009, 6:00PM
Dumbing Us Down
This is not about Pakistan. There's plenty being written and said these days about Pakistan. But back in 2002, as it was selling the Iraq war "product", the Bush administration advanced three criteria for invading a country like Iraq: it had harbored terrorists, it had WMD, and it had threatened or invaded its neighbors. Even then, it was possible (thanks to the published statements of intelligence analysts Greg Thielmann in the US, Dr. Brian Jones in the UK and Andrew Willkie in Australia) to know that the WMD part wasn't true.
So, I began to wonder, to what country did all three criteria actually apply? Bingo. Pakistan. Had nukes, had cross-border wars with its neighbor India and--most chillingly--its ISI intelligence service had long nurtured the Taliban, long after we stopped funding the mujahadeen in Afghanistan. Except, by declaration of President Bush, Pakistan was our friend in the GWOT, and so wouldn't be subjected to the dire consequences of the Three Criteria.
Yet, in the ongoing argument about the Iraq War, now almost sure to outlast the war itself, both supporters and opponents have been complicit in one great illusion: the insistence on discussing Iraq in isolation. No comparison to other countries, like Pakistan, no discussion of consequences for neighboring countries, like Iran (except late in the game). The only hint in the whole discussion that other countries mattered in this matter was the airy assurance of the neo-cons that "victory" in Iraq would "democratize" the Middle East. Presto, vote-o.
Highly complicit in this compartmentalization of Iraq was the Washington-New York press corps. They bought the Administration's focus on Iraq as the center of the known universe, and fought--when they did fight--the rhetorical battle on that constricted field. Critics allowed onto the air or the op-ed pages struggled to downplay Iraq as the center of the GWOT with occasional glancing references to forgotten old Afghanistan, but none to Saudi Arabia or Egypt or, for that matter, Hamburg---areas far more central to the history of 9/11.
Pakistan, when it was mentioned at all, was our hardy, if momentarily undemocratic, ally in the war.
A few newspapers have long since apologized for the addled credulity almost all the media displayed over the Administration's kabuki intel. None have apologized, and none will, for buying into the Administration's world view, because that narrow focus played to journalism's own tunnel vision. They overcompensate for that error now with hyperventilating over the sudden discovery that Pakistan has no intention of moving a large part of its huge army away from the Indian border to fight against a Taliban that large parts of its intelligence and military apparatus still support.
At the same time, back in Iraq, the former Sunni insurgents--with their American paychecks running out and the promised melding into the army and police forces not forthcoming--are increasingly reverting to insurgency. The place is de-surging.
One way the modern American media dumb us down is by their insistence on being able to focus on only one story, one country at a time. Pakistan is this week's missing white girl.
Have you seen Zardari?
Harry Shearer
Congratulations Harry on the new gig. We corresponded when I worked on a congressional Katrina investigation. I look forward to reading your posts.
Best,
Charlie
It's been ten days (TEN DAYS!) since you claimed your post would be coming "soon". Is ten days your idea of "soon", Mr. Shearer? Honestly?
Sorely disappointed, and yet exactly what I would expect from a left wing elite like yourself.
The wings are nutting!
I met you on that hot-ass summer day overlooking the Ninth Ward from the Brand! New! Effective! flood wall. Anyway, I'm going to make a photo book of the pictures I've been taking there for five years. I'm so grateful to you for keeping attention on my beleaguered New Orleans.
Can't wait to read your Atlantic blog, Harry. Take care!
Harry,
This ain't no huffingtonpost. This is The Atlantic. If you can't do 4-5 posts 5 days a week, you'll soon go the way of Barbara Wallraff. I'm looking forward to seeing if you've got what it takes in the digital wild wild west...
The Hague! with Christophé!
The Hague!
Allright, we've lost that blog...
Harry,
Alex will not let me post on his item about Pete Seeger. So could you let him know I said this about his first post ever?
Alex,
This is my first post on First Blog where you cover Pete Seeger going strong at 90.
He has been in the peace music business and the free press business a long time.
Here you initiate some new forms of both. Thanks.
Why did the Atlantic hire this guy? He's about as insightful as Fozzy the Bear. Are they serious or is this some kind of joke, er, meta-joke?
This blog dumbs me down. Whatever stipend you're getting for this probably forces two under-thirty journos to go hungry. Congrats.
Since I'm getting no stipend, this is probably forcing two hundred under-thirty journos to go hungry. You're welcome.
Well, I'm not here to hope you'll make me feel good by recognizing me or acknowledging a brief encounter, nor am I here to make an unintelligent and unprofitable complaint about your blogging habits or opinions.
I would, however, like to compliment you on your focus on Pakistan. I read Steve Coll's book "Ghost Wars" last year, which opened my eyes to much of Pakistan's complicity in al Qaeda's ability to operate freely in Afghanistan and Pakistan itself. Certainly a country that deserves to be under our microscope.
The worst part of the whole scandal (and it IS a scandal) is that mainstream organs like NYT and WaPo have NEVER told us why the wars are truly being fought. See [url=http://original.antiwar.com/engelhardt/2009/05/12/pipelineistan-goes-af-pak/]Pepe Escobar's latest[/url] and try not to go apoplectic.
". . . the Bush administration advanced three criteria for invading a country like Iraq: it had harbored terrorists, it had WMD, and it had threatened or invaded its neighbors."
Based upon those criteria, we should have invaded ourselves.
We've harbored (or supported) terrorists (anti-Castro Cuban Luis Posada Carriles, the mujahideen, the Contras, etc.), we have WMD (all three -- nuclear, biological, chemical) and have used them, and have threatened or invaded our neighbors (Mexico, a plan to invade Canada, "Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan -- Red", and an actual invasion in the War of 1812, Cuba at least twice, Grenada, Panama, etc.).
US out of North America, NOW!