There is more at stake than meets the eye.
In response to my column yesterday about bias...
By jkelly
Irish Pennants
...and ignorance in reporting from Iraq (which you can read here), I received this email from Charles Vessey. It's very well reasoned and well written, so I thought I would share it with you:
<<< One of the critiques heard ad nauseam about Iraq is that too many people have died since the invasion by the United States. Not only have Americans died, but thousands of innocent Iraqis at the hands of the imperialist Americans.
Estimates have put the number of Iraqis killed by the regime of Saddam Hussein at somewhere between 300,000 and one million during his 24 year reign of terror. Since officially taking power in 1979, Hussein's Iraq was responsible for the execution of between 34 and 114 people per day for 24 years, depending on which estimate is correct. No one seems appalled by this, yet the average death toll in Iraq today is no where near what is was under Hussein.
The media simply ignores the story. The press would have one believe that in 2005, if only the ugly Americans were not there, Iraq would once again be the Garden of Eden.
Another situation blown totally out of proportion by the press is the death toll of American soldiers. The death of one soldier grieves this writer, being a veteran, but the situation has been thoroughly distorted by the media. A quick comparison of the death rate in the Iraq war with previous American wars will show this a vacuous argument.
<<<
War Daily Combat Death Rate
Revolutionary War - 1.9
War of 1812 - 4.2
Mexican War - 2.8
Civil War - 97.5
Spanish-American War - 1.3
World War I - 93.7
World War II - 216
Korean War - 30.4
Vietnam War - 16.5
Gulf War - 37
Iraq War - 1.6
>>>
The media spins the situation in Iraq as the defense department cavalierly invading Iraq with no plan and not caring what happened to the average soldier. Consequently, the situation with the Humvees attracted so much attention earlier this year. A brief perusal of the table above demonstrates that even in the hostile battlefield of the
21st century, the daily mortality rate in combat is the second lowest of all the wars fought by the United States.
What is offensive about the media's role in this, or any other story with political ramifications, is their disregard for the facts. The American media has always pursued newsworthy events aggressively, but if today's attitude prevailed during the Revolutionary War or the Civil War, our country may not exist as the beacon of liberty and freedom.
Something is terribly wrong when America attempts to spread democracy and freedom around the world and the American press openly advocates our failure to advance their political agenda.
The media has made much of the Bush Administration's supposed
mishandling of the Iraq War. The media gives instant credibility to anyone who criticizes the Bush Administration. One of the primary arguments used by the media to discredit the Bush Administration is that through their ineptness, too many soldiers have died meaninglessly.
The media loves to quote General Eric Shinsheki, former Chief of Staff of the United States Army. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld quickly dismissed Shinsheki's suggestion that the United States would need over 250,000 occupation forces in Iraq following regime change. If Shinsheki's theory is correct and there needs to be 250,000 American soldiers for a country of 25,000,000, then the ratio should be one soldier to 100 people.
Presumably, this number was derived from a theory that one would need so many soldiers on the ground per one thousand civilians to maintain order in the country. One assumes that the ratio of forces required to occupy a nation was derived from experience in Europe or Japan following World War II.
Does that argument make sense? An analogous situation to Iraq is Afghanistan. Iraq has a population of approximately 25,000,000 people. The United States has approximately 160,000 soldiers in Iraq making the ratio of American soldiers to Iraqis of one soldier per 156 people. In Afghanistan, there are approximately 20,000 American soldiers. The ratio of American soldiers to Afghanis is one soldier per 1,250 people. Yet Afghanistan is a country with approximately 25,000,000.
Why is Afghanistan moving forward with relatively little violence, while Iraq appears in turmoil? There are far fewer American soldiers in Afghanistan to keep the peace than in Iraq. An excellent case could be made that Afghanistan is a far more dangerous society than Iraq.
Afghanistan suffered a civil war since the Afghanis' victory over the Soviets. Afghanis are known are fierce warriors and has a mostly illiterate population. In comparison, Iraq has an educated population and a subservient citizenry following a quarter century of subjugation by Saddam Hussein.
Why is Shinsheki's theory embraced as correct for Iraq, but is
insignificant for Afghanistan? It becomes blatantly obvious to an objective person that the media is using any means necessary to discredit the Bush Administration for their own political purposes.
Ronald Reagan used to call them the "blame America firsters".
Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler's propaganda minister once said the following, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." That is the idea being pushed by the American media today against President Bush.
The American media became part of the Democratic Party in 1992. Since then, they have vilified anyone who espouses conservative thought. The entire political correctness movement is meant to stifle free speech.
The media in the United States wants to criminalize politics and demonizes anyone who does not promote their liberal theology. Anyone who believes in God is described as a rube. Those who promote morals, ethics, and values is labeled is bigot, racist, or homophobe. The media decries patriots as imperialists.
The founding fathers of the Untied States were concerned that the citizenry would not take the time to educate themselves on the issues of the day. By not becoming informed, they leave themselves open to demagoguery of the media.
The American media could not defeat George W. Bush in 2000, even though they tried a last minute revelation about a drunk driving conviction on the weekend before the election. Bush's five point lead in the polls evaporated as the public envisioned another dishonest politician following the scandalous Clinton presidency.
The American media could not defeat George W. Bush in 2004, even though they used Abu Gharib, the fabricated National Guard story, and finally the untrue story of misplaced munitions in Iraq during the last weekend of the campaign. This caused Bush's lead to fall from seven points to a margin of three points.
The American media could not defeat George W. Bush in these elections, so they are now attempting to force him from office through the Bush lied invective emanating from their left wing extremist elements of society. If the Democrats are able to wrest control of Congress in the 2006 elections, Bush will be impeached.
The founding fathers believed in freedom of the press with a free and objective press. What they did not envision was a press that would become part of one political party. This does not bode well for freedom in this country and Americans should wake up to this reality. There is more at stake than meets the eye.
irishpennants.com
realclearpolitics.com |
