The costs of the Iraqi war are increasingly falling onto the back pages of our major newspapers, and into the secondary segments of the network newscasts. We need to be remembering the troops that are giving their lives for Bush's decisions, and not letting the right wing pressure the media into suppressing the truth.
November has been the second deadliest month of the Iraqi war. 135 American troops have died in November, just short of the 137 American troops that died in April 2003. For good information on casualties, go to
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm
Despite the rising death toll (and it has continued since our great "success" in recapturing Falluja), the media seems to be placing these stories on the back page. While the New York Times has done a fairly admirable job of telling the truth about Iraq, I can't say the same about most other newspapers, and these are the newspapers read by the majority of Americans. We need to be contacting these newspapers, demanding that they REMEMBER our troops, and remind the American public of the costs of war.
George Bush has not demanded a single sacrifice of the "ordinary" American as he has waged a widening neoconservative agenda of war and imperialism. The political strategists in the White House are clearly aiming for "out of sight, out of mind." And they need this to be the case. If the American public wakes up to the tremendous human toll (American military and Iraqi civilian), they will not put up with the neoconservative fantasies of the "chickenhawks" that run our government.
The election just happened, and I think it proved that we can't step around the issue of the Iraqi war. The Republicans will exploit the issue with all sort of falsehoods, unless we are willing to step up to the plate, tell the truth about the war in Iraq and neoconservatism in general, and turn the American public AGAINST these dangerous policies. Dodging the issue is not effective.
Today, the neocon-influenced editorial board at the Washington Post ran an editorial calling for MORE troops to Iraq. According to the Post, "many more police and troops -- both Iraqi and American -- are needed to ensure security around the country by the end of January." When does it end? 200,000? 400,000? A million?
At the same time that its editorial staff pontificates from their comfortable ivory tower, the newsroom devotes a diminishing amount of page space to Iraqi casualties. Today's front page featured stories on a restaurant fire in Maryland, an article on Bush's nomination of "inspiring immigrant" Gutierrez to his cabinet, and an analysis of dealing with the "nuclear ambitions" of Iran (Iraq, part II?) But not a single mention of the two American troops that were killed in Iraq yesterday. That was on page A12, behind a story on the death of an NBC executive's son (A2) and the promotion of a new editor to their Style section (A2). And the coverage in yesterday's paper was equally sparse. There was an AP article on page A13, mentioning that two marines had been killed. The Post, to its credit, does print a list of recent casualties in the front section. But reporting of casualties (and Iraq, in general) has obviously diminished in the paper over time.
Today's Chicago Tribune had a similar approach. The front page was devoted to the "rags to riches" story of Gutierrez, a feature article on the increased popularity of goat meat, mismanagement of the city's school transfer program, and a story about the Ukranian election. The deaths of the Iraqi troops was covered by a wire story (from the WaPo), buried inside the front section.
And I am looking at the best of the nation's papers here, known for their international news coverage. Things go downhill further, as you move toward regional papers.
Supporting a war is easy when you don't have to fight in it, and don't have to think about it. Or when you "think" about it by putting a yellow ribbon on your car, and congratulating yourself for being "patriotic."
The Vietnam war didn't end at the bequest of the government elite. It ended because ordinary Americans watched the war on tv, read about it in the newspaper, and got so disgusted that they FORCED the government to pull out of the country.
In our modern era of "fair and balanced" journalism, and corporate-owned media companies that would rather report on happy news than deal with real problems that might be unpleasant to their audience, we aren't going to be able to end the war unless we regain control of the media. And force them to report reality. That's the only way that the reality-based candidate will win in 2008.
So, what do we do? A start is to adopt the tactics of the right wing, and start pressuring these news organizations to report on reality in Iraq. And that means the daily stream of casualties. I am not rejoicing in the casualties, or viewing them as vindication of Bush's mistakes. But they are REALITY, they are happening, and waking up the American people is the only way that we are going to stop the needless losses.