Truth in War Posted by Suzanne Nossel

A persistent trope in the Iraq War coverage for months now are the conflicting accounts about how the fight is really going.   Top officials of the Bush Administration have invariably put a brave face on things.  Underneath, military officials occasionally depart from the party line, including in a newly public January, 2006 report on conditions Iraq’s provinces that is bleak indeed. 

Meanwhile the press reports daily on rising sectarian violence, thwarted reconstruction efforts, and the stalemated the formation of a new Iraqi government.  Politicians who credit these negative facts get tarred for being unpatriotic and undermining of the troops.

Some haze is inevitable in a conflict as complex as Iraq’s.  But the deliberate efforts of the Bush Administration to spin the war cloud the picture.  At the same time, its hard not to acknowledge that in wartime there may be a need to present facts in a way that bolsters morale and instills confidence even when things aren’t going well.   If one believes, as many in the Administration surely do, that remaining in Iraq is essential to the U.S.’s national interests, then arraying facts to facilitate public support for that position is defensible.

At this point, contradictory information is a primary cause of the national confusion and paralysis about what to do next in Iraq.  If President Bush is right, our efforts are paying off and we stay the course.  If you believe Ayad Allawi or Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak civil war is here and our troops are in harms’ way even though the nightmare scenario we hoped to prevent has already materialized in spite of our best efforts.

At what point does the government’s legitimate need to spin give way to the public’s right to a clear-eyed assessment of the costs and benefits of war, and the competence with which a military mission is being conducted?

Its an interesting question and I don’t have a comprehensive answer.  But some thoughts:

-         At a certain point, and we got there on Iraq many months ago, public mistrust of government portrayals means that sunny assessments aimed to buttress resolve only backfire.  Bush has nodded to this truth once or twice in brief acknowledgments of Iraq’s challenges.  But he hasn’t become any more forthcoming in addressing, for example, the dismaying facts in this now public internal military assessment.  The failure to do so can no longer be justified as necessary to buoy morale.  In an age of 24 hour news, the government’s ability to effectively spin is lessened.  When government spin cannot achieve its intended goal, the justification for it is weakened.  Continued spinning can undermine public confidence more broadly, creating mistrust even in areas where the truth is being told.

-         There’s a genuine danger that the perceived imperative of boosting spirits may color internal military and political debates about the nature of a conflict and what to do next.   Its widely known that the Rumsfeld Pentagon does not invite dissent within the ranks.  As was illustrated in Vietnam, the result of the unwillingness to let the public know what’s really going on is that members of congress and military leaders don’t know either.  That guarantees flawed decision-making.

So what do we do about this?  Here are some thoughts:  1) let’s have the top 20 commanders from Iraq come to Congress to testify in closed door session, with the proviso that while all their remarks will be released, nothing will be attributed to particular individuals and all identifying information will be omitted.  That way those closest to the situation can say what they know without fear of reprisal; 2) let’s require that Pentagon paper-style analyses and histories be kept for every military intervention, with each segment released, say, 5 years after the events it describes.  Knowing that the information will come out in the medium-term future might incentivize those involved in military decision-making to temper the spin.

In the meantime, it seems safe to say Iraq will continue to spin out of control.

 

Comments

[Dan Kervick]

At the same time, its hard not to acknowledge that in wartime there may be a need to present facts in a way that bolsters morale and instills confidence even when things aren’t going well. If one believes, as many in the Administration surely do, that remaining in Iraq is essential to the U.S.’s national interests, then arraying facts to facilitate public support for that position is defensible.

I simply don't believe this Suzanne. I would have thought that in a democracy, in which the people purport to be sovereign and self-governing, the public is the ultimate legitimate governing authority in all areas of national policy - including defense and security policy. It is the right and responsibility of the public as a whole to judge what is and is not in the national interest, and to generate their own confidence and resolve for whatever course of action they select. The executive is not the coach of a team on which the public are the players, falling under the executive's authority. The executive is rather the public's servant, charged with putting into action the public's decisions and policy preferences.

In order for citizens to exercise their governing responsibility, they must acquire all the information that is relevant to the decision before them, make their policy selection on the basis of that information, and communicate their general policy preferences to their representatives in the legislative branch. The legislative branch then enacts the selected policies in their detailed form, and turns them over to the executive to be carried out.

And in order for the public to continuously monitor and adjust national policy, in accordance with their preferences, they require the most accurate and comprehensive view of current circumstances that is available. Where the flow of information is concerned, the job of the government (that is, our job) is to furnish the public (that is, ourselves), with the best information we can get, so that we can can properly exercise our solemn obligation to govern our country.

We all have the right, indeed the obligation, to share any relevant information we have with our fellow-citizens. Where we think a good argument can be made for some course of action, we should present that argument and try to persuade our fellow-citizens through evidence and argument. But if we intentionally deceive, distort or omit relevant evidence - that is, "spin" - then we break faith with our fellow-citizens, substitute our judgment for their own, and usurp their equal right to participate in the collective project of self-government. And the desire to be spun is beneath the dignity of self-governing people. It is the habit of a child or a slave.

Of course, this is all theory. The miserable national security state of which we are subjects - which is run in part by secrecy-obsessed technocratic elitists, and in part by scoundrels and corrupt common liars, who govern according to the desires of themselves and the few they represent - is a travesty of democracy.

At what point does the government’s legitimate need to spin give way to the public’s right to a clear-eyed assessment of the costs and benefits of war, and the competence with which a military mission is being conducted?

Right at the beginning, I would say, since this supposed "legitimate need to spin" does not exist. Many people in government may have a desire to spin, and the deire may be based on the noblest of reasons. They may believe they are wise, and the public's choice is ignorant. And perhaps they are right. But that's not their call. There is no such legitimate need.

[Cal]

Hear hear, Dan! Stop ruling us for our own good.

"Foreign policy decisions," concluded Gunnar Myrdal after two decades of study, "are in general much more influenced by irrational motives" than are domestic ones.

-- Barbara Tuchman, March of Folly

[Souldrift]

There's a difference between putting things in a positive light and spinning the truth--people are not going to support a conflict just because they're told to.

[J Thomas]

Sure, but you can't run a war democraticly. You have to deceive the enemy, and to do that you have to deceive your own people. So when a significant war starts, we lose democracy for the duration. We still have elections, and people can vote to show how much faith they have in the current president. Traditionally wartime presidents get re-elected, but it didn't work for Truman with korea or Johnson with vietnam.

So now we have the farcical extention of that. We can't tell american citizens truth about the war because the insurgents might find out, and we can't tell citizens the truth about the WoT because the terrorists will find out. Suspected terrorists don't get habeas corpus, and it goes on from there.

Clearly it's a bad thing for democracies to get into elective wars.

[Buzz Patterson, Lt Col, USAF (Ret)]

"So what do we do about this? Here are some thoughts: 1) let’s have the top 20 commanders from Iraq come to Congress to testify in closed door session, with the proviso that while all their remarks will be released, nothing will be attributed to particular individuals and all identifying information will be omitted. That way those closest to the situation can say what they know without fear of reprisal; 2) let’s require that Pentagon paper-style analyses and histories be kept for every military intervention, with each segment released, say, 5 years after the events it describes. Knowing that the information will come out in the medium-term future might incentivize those involved in military decision-making to temper the spin.

In the meantime, it seems safe to say Iraq will continue to spin out of control."

Suzanne,

What amazes me is that in this time, this war, that we as a nation voted for, we are so quick to "opt out." Your conclusion that Iraq is "spin(ning) out of control" is at ground truth recklessly inaccurate. There have been countless hundreds of "commanders" testifying and Pentagon "papers" leaked. That is not the problem. This is the most commonly and publically fought war in the history of the world.

You are the product of exactly what the administration advocates and the military charges to be. There is "truth" in Iraq and there is "perception" in the US. Having been there, having spent 20 years of my life in uniform, I can attest that the two are undeniably rift.

Iraq is only as "out of control" as dissenters at home would have it be. There is an analogy (and only one) with Vietnam. A military victory and a national interest can only be realized when the public wishes so. As we saw in the aftermath of Vietnam and we will see should we decide to abandon Iraq, the alternative is much uglier and deadly.

Be careful what you wish for...for you just might get it.

Buzz Patterson

[Jack H]

What do *I* think, you wonder? Why, we must prevail. Even the old must not grow weary. Alas, Buckley.

http://forgottenprophets.blogspot.com/2006/04/lion-falters.html

J

[J Thomas]

This is the most commonly and publically fought war in the history of the world.

This war is far, far less public than vietnam.

Part of the reason civilians are so likely to believe rumors and stories from soldiers who speak privately etc is that the media simply don't see much at all.

But there's a lot of reason to think that if the media saw what's going on it would look considerably worse still. Can't win for losing.

Anyway, retired Airforce Colonel Patterson, thank you for providing your spin. So many of the people who claim to be professional military who say that the war is going better than it looks, are anonymous, no valid email address, nothing to show they aren't just trolls pretending to be somebody they aren't. You give us a name with a website, and 5 years from now if anybody wants to bother they can look you up and compare what you say to what's been revealed at that point. You're putting your personal honor on the line here, and I have to respect that.

[J Thomas]

Ouch. Buzz Patterson retired in 2001. He didn't serve in iraq at all, he's a radio hack like Michael Savage, but not as well-known. He's a media guy now, he doesn't know anything about iraq any more than the other talking heads.

When I looked at his website I thought I was about to get another eyewitness perspective on iraq. Oh well.

[seyid]

There are certain things in life related to smoking that simply cannot :)
parça kontör
parça kontör bayiliği
parça kontör bayilik

[Entropiauniverse ped]

Since I entered into this game, I learnt skills to earn Entropia Universe Gold. My friends sometimes give me some Entropia Universe Money. Buy Entropia Universe Gold is a good way. I like to search on Internet to find where to buy cheap Entropiauniverse ped.

[cheap Perfect World Gold]

I am so happy to get some Perfect World Gold and the Perfect World Silver is given by my close friend who tells me that the Perfect World money is the basis to enter into the game.

[silkroad gold]

I hope i can get sro gold in low price.
i buy silkroad online gold for you.

[silkroad online gold]

You can play it silkroad online gold, you can buy the cheap silk road gold.

[maple mesos]

Do you like playing the game where you need to use maple mesos, when you do not have mesos,

[movado watch]

Thanks for your sharing,and you will enjoy the sunshine service. Let's abandon all the worry, omega watch and enjoy the happy shopping travel.All the are most in fashion boutique this year. show your chaming temperament. In addtin, the and the other make you mold your unique glamour this winter. The swiss have the high quality but low price. nd have all the style and cheapest price Chanel Watch Enjoying the fun of net purchase! We will supply you the perfect service and after sale support system. Our honest will bring you absolute satisfaction. Aslo and are so good for you.

[Network]

thanks for sharing Sohbet many people are pay more attention to one's swearing than before, especially a watch.Muhabbet.
Perhaps when you went to some place far away Sohbet you must borrow it from friends you can get everything you want in this game Chat money to invest in other industry which will return you good profit. Sohbet when you look at Chat
the surface of the watches viaload great any cool Exsohbet from the city you live in and thought you knew nobody there Egitim Fourth, there were various signs of political conflict among shia. If they split 3 ways or 4 ways, the sunnis and the kurds could often be the Sohbet swing votes in the politics. If they felt they had political clout out of proportion to their numbers, they could settle in Sohbet and do politics and not feel oppressed.

[backpack]

Remarkable freelance writing As i relish time for your website or blog after.May very well added doing it to get life reference point. Thanks ! swissgear backpack