I know Iran is the total and complete focus of every media person on the planet right now, but in all honesty, I see stories like this one about the ongoing slaughter in Iraq all the time and I wonder where all the outrage and concern over this cornucopia of death and misery went? Why isn’t <a href="this story getting as much media attention as the death of Neda?
BAGHDAD — At least 24 Iraqis were killed and 78 were wounded Monday in the latest wave of violence sweeping the country, Iraqi police said.
The attacks, which were concentrated in Baghdad, came just days before the June 30 deadline for U.S. combat forces to finish withdrawing from major Iraqi cities. The attacks raise questions about the readiness of Iraqi security forces and their ability to control the recently unstable security situation.
Here’s one from two days ago:
A suicide truck bomb detonated in front of al Resool Mosque in Taza district, southwest Kirkuk at 12.30 Saturday. The tremendous explosion killed at least 67 people, injuring more than 200 others and destroying 30 houses.
Maybe because they are so ubiquitous no one here in America cares anymore, or certainly no one who reports the news on the TeeVee. But if this was happening in Iran there would be front page headlines screaming about the violence and the usual suspects questioning President Obama’s failure to do something about it. I guess everyone in the news biz has “moved on” but for the Iraqi people Bush’s Folly continues to be the gift that keeps killing them.
Just remember, there is little Obama or the international news media can do to change the course of events in Iran. But back in 2002-2003, there was a lot that our news media, our renowned journalists and institutions, could have been doing to expose the lies of the Bush administration. But they didn’t.
Instead, they acted like a bunch of glorified publicity agents, warmongers and cheerleaders. They were so effective (Yes, I’m looking at you, Mr. New York Times for enabling and publishing Judy Miller’s creative fictions) that Bush and Blair didn’t even have to resort to Plan B: a false flag operation to provoke Saddam into making the first move. No surprise then, that they have abandoned the plight of the Iraqi people. It’s merely an old reality show that’s run its course, and the ratings in the have been slipping. Much more fun to cover the new conflagration. As they say in the business, That’s Infotainment!
I’m sorry, People of Iraq. The powers that be in this country don’t think your suffering matters anymore. Not that they ever did.
Update [2009-6-22 19:22:36 by Steven D]: Also posted in Orange. Some folks over there don’t consider this a valid topic for discussion. Any help you can give me would be appreciated.
I am mildly curious, how many more months before the pond begins to hold Obama responsible? Or will it take years?
for what?
For continuing the war, having promised to get us out. See any signs of a withdraw? I don’t. Not with Dennis PNAC Ross on board.
Alice, for the small – perhaps miniscule – minority of us who paid close attention and in detail to what Obama said about his intentions in Iraq during the campaign it was obvious that he had no intention of ever making a complete withdrawal. His plan was virtually identical to Hillary’s – to reconfigure and continue the occupation indefinitely with a smaller force and less visibility. And of course neither of them even pretended to be interested in substituting an actual embassy for the Imperial Citadel (risibly called an “embassy”) on the banks of the Tigris.
The only way the U.S. will ever end the occupation of Iraq will be when the Iraqis give them no other choice.
Absolutely right.
I voted for the man. Why? Who knows, I guess the usual electoral insanity that grips progressives every single time a democrat has a chance against a further rightwing republican.
It is now Obama’s war, no doubt about it.
Yeah, well, what were the choices? At least he does not make me cringe every time he opens his mouth.
That’s right. He’s certainly a better spokesperson than Bush.
What’s that old line? Bush convinced half the population that wars of agression were ok. Obama’s role was to convince the other half.
I know, I’m being a jerk. But still . . . .
I find it very disturbing that one of Obama’s very first actions as President was to sign off on bombings that resulted, entirely predictably, in the deaths of Pakistani civilians. I also find it very disturbing that he has, in fact, broadened and deepened American military violence in Afghanistan. And as disturbing are his repeated false statements about Iran’s “nuclear weapons program”, which as far as we know is nonexistent. As for Obama when it comes to Iraq, no surprises there at all. He won’t leave until the Iraqis kick him out.
I understand that international policy is at least as much about domestic politics as anything else, but killing people for the sake of politics is a place I draw a big, fat red line.
I think one of the things for which the blogs are just as guilty as traditional news media is the focus on the story du jour. When Bush was in office it was all about the War, and then about how he screwed upo the economy, or whatever other scandal was determined by the mob (for we do behave in many ways like a collective mob) to be the most important or relevant.
With Obama, the left has focused on Iran in foreign policy, which I agree is a compelling story, and before that Pakistan, where a deadly civil war is ongoing, and Afghanistan (with a dash of North Korea thrown in for flavor). But Iraq, Darfur, Nigeria? Somalia? Israel and the Palestinians? These have fallen off the radar screen to a large extent.
And domestically we have been bouncing back and forth between the meltdown of the economy, gay rights (i.e., the lack of response thereof by Obama), Health care, and thanks to the whackos on hate radio and Fox, the continuing saga of right wing terrorism.
So we forget that Iraq is still out there, still a mess, still a massive problem for the safety, security and welfare of the Iraqi people, and still a problem for the men and women we send there — to do what? It isn’t to keep the peace, that’s for sure.
“ It isn’t to keep the peace, that’s for sure.“
It always amuses me when those who broke whatever peace there was insist they are there to keep the peace. Kind of goes along with “pacifying” a place by the use of massive violence.
Peace is war.
I do think that one positive of Obama’s foreign policy is the fact that he has changed the discourse on Israel’s settlement policy. It remains to be seen whether he means it or not.
Thanks for this, Steven. And there is a big piece of reporting missing that has pretty much always been missing from Iraq reporting even when it was – ummmm – not that terrible. Somehow you can always find something on the truck bombs and so on, but it’s almost impossible to find a word about how much of the violence is coming from the occupation forces and their Iraqi proxies. You’d think, looking at the U.S. mainstream media, that the occupation forces had not killed or harmed an Iraqi in years and the only real danger for Iraqis was from each other. That has never been so. American forces and their Iraqi proxies have kept right on killing and destroying every day from the air and from the ground. It never stopped.
Well, that’s no surprise, when the primary means of covering the war for most journalists there is attending press conferences given by Pentagon flacks in the Green Zone.
the majority of which turn out to be innocent, killed, more often than not at the hands of american actions.
it’s hard to add to that, it’s very well said, and fundamentally true, other than to say it’s time to go, time to learn the lessons we should have learned 40 years ago.
peace what a concept.
So, am I forgiven for my George Will post?
yeah, l wrote it off as ague from your flu.
“the majority of which turn out to be innocent, killed, more often than not at the hands of american actions.“
That has always been true for Iraq as well, but as I said above no one tells us how many bombing sorties, shoot-’em-ups, and murderous house raids “our troops” have continued to be responsible for on a daily basis.
Link
Yep. And the methodology used by IBC tends to undercount in all dimensions, particularly things like children and women, who are less likely to be reported only partly because they are far more likely to be buried permanently in the rubble of buildings or blown into tiny pieces and therefore never identified. The percentage of children and women killed by American attacks is significantly higher when you use epidemiological methodologies such as that used for te so-called “Lancet” reports.
And isn’t it interesting how well the public has been given the impression that, while American troops are carefully picking out “bad guys” and leaving civilians unharmed while those awful, subhumans the “insurgents” (a propagandistic misnomer) are always on the lookout for kids to murder. In fact, the opposite is the truth. The Americans are unspeakably indiscriminate in their attacks whereas most of the “insurgent” (sic) attacks target either occupation troops or other elements of the occupation (as reported by, among others, CSIS who did a study two or three years ago). That is one reason such a high percentage of child and other civilian killings are at the hands of Americans and their Iraqi proxy forces.
One thing you need to always remember:
Americans are always the Good Guys.
This meme will never go away, no matter what evil deed are committed by our government. Americans are taught they are part of an exceptional country. There are some exceptional achievements of which Americans can be rightly proud. Unfortunately, far too many of us assume we never do anything wrong. The reason Reagan was so popular was that he brought back the myth of America the Beautiful, the City on the Hill, after the ugliness of 60’s and 70’s: the Vietnam War, the riots, assassinations, Watergate, etc. It’s a religious myth really. The public adoration of “The Founding Fathers” is just one aspect of it.
The history of slavery, genocide and ethnic cleansing, wars against our neighbors in Latin America, the Robber Baron era which would match the child labor abuses of any country in the developing world today, if not exceed them, the use of terrorism to enforce Jim Crow, lynchings, violnece agaunbst the labor movement … There are so many aspects of our history that we are never taught, or which are elided over by teachers following the curriculum set forth by conservative school boards.
In truth, most people really can’t handle the truth about their own nation’s history. Americans are no exception to that rule.
Own group exceptionalism is an unfortunate disease of human nature, but among Americans it is more extreme more malignant and more widespread than anywhere else. It is deeply embedded in the psyche and virtually impossible to treat.
One of my biggest disappointments was that most liberal and progressive Americans are also infected to one degree or another, and with most it is so automatic and reflexive that they don’t even see it in themselves or each other. They take certain things for granted, like the assumption that “America must lead the world in [fill in anything at all here]”. It is so absurd to hear liberals and progressives say things like “for the last eight years America has not led the world well, and now with Obama as President we must step up and be better leaders” (which REALLY means we must find more palatable ways of imposing our will on the world). GAWD!
Yes, we seem to have lost our isolationist strain, except for the Ron Paul devotees.
Well, I am more interested in the idea that as humans we are all in this together, and we had better learn that very soon and start viewing ourselves first and foremost as fellow human beings. No national group is better or more worthy or more entitled than any other, and if we don’t learn that soon we’ll be in even deeper s*** than we are now.