War in Iraq Facts: When

War in Iraq

Facts: When a knowledgeable person hears the statement "the war in Iraq," most informed observers now see that there is a civil war in Iraq between the Sunni and Shiite Muslims. This is a bitter ethnic rivalry that has existed for centuries. The Kurds are another ethnic minority in this stew. It is also clear that there are numerous al Qaeda extremists in Iraq that have been recruited, trained, and sent to Iraq to kill Americans and conduct terrorist-style suicide bombing incidents that slaughter and maim scores of innocents.

This paper is focused on the American's five-year involvement, during which the true cost of the war approaches $2 trillion (health care for injured; interest on money borrowed to finance the war), over 4,000 U.S. troops have died, and unknown tens of thousands of Iraqis have perished. An opinion poll by CBS News (March 15-18, 2008) (www.pollingreport.com) reflects that 65% of American adults "disapprove" of the way George W. Bush is handling the war. Some 59% say the U.S. "should have stayed out..." Of Iraq in the first place.

In the meantime, the approaches of two journalists to the war in Iraq will be reviewed in this paper - Stephen Biddle in the journal Foreign Affairs, and Matt Taibbi, in Rolling Stone.

Stephen Biddle: His article, "Seeing Baghdad, Thinking Saigon," was written two years ago, in March/April 2006, about three years after Bush launched the invasion of Iraq. Biddle's tone is formal in comparing the Vietnam War with the current conflict in Iraq. He uses no slang or jargon; he uses phrases like "ill-adapted" to describe the policies being used by Bush in Iraq. His language is polite but it has the diplomatic tone of forceful restraint when he uses phrases like: "As it is in 2006, in 1969 Washington's strategy was built around winning hearts and minds" while handing off responsibility for fighting to indigenous forces.

As evidence that his analysis is correct Biddle makes calculated comparisons between strategies then (Nixon) and now (Bush). He says Bush's strategy is "remarkably similar" to - even "indistinguishable" from - Nixon's with Vietnam. Biddle even compares Bush's rhetoric with Nixon's rhetoric; Bush says, "As the Iraqi security forces stand up, coalition forces can stand down"; Nixon said, "As South Vietnamese forces become stronger, the rate of American withdrawal can become greater." Later in his narrative Biddle states that the Vietnam War was a "Maoist people's war" and Iraq is a "communal civil war."

He uses strong historical and political evidence to support his contention, and finally he states that "recycling the Vietnam playbook in Iraq" is "useless and counterproductive" because of the different nature of the two conflicts. His evidence appears to be objective, not biased. The influences that effect the way he thinks are: one, his job as a reporter for a prestigious scholarly journal requires him to have done his diplomatic and political homework; and two, he understands recent history (Vietnam, Nixon) because he has studied it and written about it too. His perception of the war is that he knows it is a failed policy but he must be unbiased and present both sides, offering his best, most carefully thought out viewpoint for the conclusion.

Matt Taibbi's narrative approach is the exact opposite of Biddle's approach. Taibbi is vulgar, he uses slang with a bitter tone that reveals his rage, and he also uses propaganda to make his points. His main issue is that the Democrats in Congress, who were elected in 2006 in such great numbers that they became the majority, have not been able to force Bush to end the war. Taibbi calls the Democrats in Congress "spineless creeps" because they could not succeed in their attempt to cut off funds for Bush's war effort. Taibbi refers to the Senate Majority Leader (Democrat) Harry Reid as "...one of the biggest pussies in U.S. political history" because he is not insisting that his party continue to create legislation to end the war.

Using slander such as "spineless creeps" and "pussies" is not only bad style; it shows a lack of professionalism and maturity. He uses other terms that are blatantly offensive (he says the Democrats have gone "limp-dick" each time the Bush administration "raises its voice"), and it is clear Taibbi could have found more appropriate words to express similar emotions. He turns some readers off with his vitriolic attacks. Further, his attacks are is blatant propaganda. Why? Because while Taibbi does mention that the Democrats already crafted legislation more than once - setting timetables for withdrawal and tying those timetables to funding, bills that Bush subsequently vetoed - he uses quotes from unnamed "congressional aides" to solidify his assertion that the Democrats just wanted to "score political points without ever being serious about bringing the troops home."

Taibbi does use evidence that there are anti-war leaders outside of Washington who are discouraged and bitter. But he fails to build a case for his most radical assertion, that the Democrats "hijacked the anti-war movement itself" in order to play to the voters, and that the Democrats filled the "ranks of peace groups with loyal party hacks." This is pure propaganda, and the evidence he provides is very thin. He doesn't name some of the most prominent peace groups against the war, including veterans' groups, student groups, and others. His beat is Washington, D.C., and he fails to address people and issues outside the nation's capitol.

Influences: Moreover, Taibbi is influenced by his anger about the war; it possesses him, he's steaming mad at Bush, so he writes vicious attacks against the Democrats. In another Taibbi article ("Rudy R.I.P.") he claimed that "the best day" in Rudy Giuliani's life was 9/11, as "thousands of Americans were roasted like marshmallows" (in the World Trade Center) and "hundreds more leaped from half a mile up into piles of burning steel." This kind of sick writing is contemptible and unconscionable. He is saying the terrorist attacks made Giuliani something of a media folk hero, and that this incident helped launch Giuliani's presidential campaign.

Perception: His perception is that somehow the democrats have plotted against those who elected them and don't care about ending the war is based on his irritation that the war has not ended sooner. Like millions of others, he perceives that the American occupation of Iraq is morally wrong and strategically unwinnable, but he cannot restrain himself from using the basest language that can be printed in a magazine like Rolling Stone. He ends his piece with language that cannot be used in this research paper.