Krugman highlights the tools Bush is employing to attain victory in Iraq: talking points, platitudes and slogans. It’s literally embarrassing to see the world’s greatest power grasping at such tenuous straws to keep its head above water.
Bullet Points Over Baghdad
By PAUL KRUGMAN
The overthrow of Saddam Hussein was supposed to provide the world with a demonstration of American power. It didn’t work out that way. But the Bush administration has come up with the next best thing: a demonstration of American PowerPoint. Bullets haven’t subdued the insurgents in Iraq, but the administration hopes that bullet points
will subdue the critics at home.
The National Security Council document released this week under the grandiose title “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq” is neither an analytical report nor a policy statement. It’s simply the same old talking points – “victory in Iraq is a vital U.S. interest”; “failure is not an option” – repackaged in the style of a slide presentation for a business meeting.
It’s an embarrassing piece of work. Yet it’s also an important test for the news media. The Bush administration has lost none of its confidence that it can get away with fuzzy math and fuzzy facts – that it won’t be called to account for obvious efforts to mislead the public. It’s up to journalists to prove that confidence wrong.
Here’s an example of how the White House attempts to mislead: the new document assures us that Iraq’s economy is doing really well. “Oil production increased from an average of 1.58 million barrels per day in 2003, to an average of 2.25 million barrels per day in 2004.” The document goes on to concede a “slight decrease” in production since then.
We’re not expected to realize that the daily average for 2003 includes the months just before, during and just after the invasion of Iraq, when its oil industry was basically shut down. As a result, we’re not supposed to understand that the real story of Iraq’s oil industry is one of unexpected failure: instead of achieving the surge predicted by some of the war’s advocates, Iraqi production has rarely matched its prewar level, and has been on a downward trend for the past year.
What about the security situation? During much of 2004, the document tells us: “Fallujah, Najaf, and Samara were under enemy control. Today, these cities are under Iraqi government control.”
Najaf was never controlled by the “enemy,” if that means the people we’re currently fighting. It was briefly controlled by Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army. The United States once vowed to destroy that militia, but these days it’s as strong as ever. And according to The New York Times, Mr. Sadr has now become a “kingmaker in Iraqi politics.” So what sort of victory did we win, exactly, in Najaf?
Moreover, in what sense is Najaf now under government control? According to The Christian Science Monitor, “Sadr supporters and many Najaf residents say an armed Badr Brigade” – the militia of a Shiite group that opposes Mr. Sadr and his supporters – “still exists as the Najaf police force.”
Meanwhile, this is the third time that coalition forces have driven the insurgents out of Samara. On the two previous occasions, the insurgents came back after the Americans left. And there, too, it’s stretching things to say that the city is under Iraqi government control: according to The Associated Press, only 100 of the city’s 700 policemen show up for work on most days.
There’s a lot more like that in the document. Refuting some of the upbeat assertions about Iraq requires specialized knowledge, but many of them can be quickly debunked by anyone with an Internet connection.
The point isn’t just that the administration is trying, yet again, to deceive the public. It’s the fact that this attempt at deception shows such contempt – contempt for the public, and especially contempt for the news media. And why not? The truth is that the level of misrepresentation in this new document is no worse than that in a typical speech by President Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney. Yet for much of the past five years, many major news organizations failed to provide the public with effective fact-checking.
So Mr. Bush’s new public relations offensive on Iraq is a test. Are the news media still too cowed, too addicted to articles that contain little more than dueling quotes to tell the public when the administration is saying things that aren’t true? Or has the worm finally turned?
There have been encouraging signs, notably a thorough front-page fact-checking article – which even included charts showing the stagnation of oil production and electricity generation! – in USA Today. But the next few days will tell.
1
By Shanghai Slim
What was the primary reason for this? Corporatization of the American press? Tactics employed by the Bush League? Another?
December 2, 2005 @ 8:28 am | Comment
2
By Troy Worman
To-date, I have been reluctant to comment on politics, but the antics of the Bush Administration grow more and more absurd each day.
December 2, 2005 @ 11:01 am | Comment
3
By Ann
This is the usual Krugman smear job, with no facts but plenty of accusations. How has the Bush administration misled us? His main example is Iraqi oil production, where Krugman says (if you read closely) that the claims of the Bush administration are true but aren’t organized or emphasized in the way that Krugman would prefer. His examples on the security situation in Iraq involve former insurgents now participating in the democratic process there – is that supposed to be bad?
Krugman is an extreme partisan making extreme claims for his own purposes. You can get a better view of what’s going on in Iraq by listening to a respected Democrat:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007611
Joe Lieberman, Al Gore’s former running mate, has been to Iraq 4 times in the last 17 months and reports seeing real progress there. He mentions more cars on the streets, more satellite dishes and cell phones. He doesn’t mention rising real estate prices and cement usage, but those are two more of the many signs of economic improvement in Iraq. Lieberman mentions that opinion “polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today.”
The reason that liberals are getting more and more urgent in their opposition to the invasion of Iraq is because they can see that the US will win soon, if it doesn’t hurry up and surrender first. The improving situation in Iraq means that the US has to withdraw quickly, or else everyone (except the terrorists and the liberals) will be better off.
December 2, 2005 @ 12:21 pm | Comment
4
By Blowitoutyourass
Lieberman is respected by who besides Republicans? He really needs to find another party.
December 2, 2005 @ 1:17 pm | Comment
5
By Ann
I think it’s safe to say that Lieberman is more widely respected than Paul Krugman. Lieberman has been to Iraq and gave details to back up his statements, while Krugman’s reasoning and ‘facts’ are shaky at best. What evidence did Krugman give against the Bush administration in that article, except that he thought that the accurate reporting of Iraqi oil production should have been presented with a different emphasis? What basis did he give for arguing that the trend towards more widespread participation in the Iraqi political process is bad?
One would assume that Krugman used his best examples, yet he came up with virtually nothing. The worst accusation he made against the Bush administration was that they’re using Powerpoint. Shocking!
December 2, 2005 @ 1:58 pm | Comment
6
By 88
“Liberal and terrorists. Bin Laden and Saddam. Kerry and Hitler.” quack, quack.
December 2, 2005 @ 2:27 pm | Comment
7
By Johnny K
Plenty of people actually on the ground in Iraq say it is improving. Then again, plenty of people say it isn’t.
Only history will tell, I suppose.
December 2, 2005 @ 2:30 pm | Comment
8
By Johnny K
As a registered independent, I certainly have more respect for Lieberman than Krugman, who according to his own NY Times editor has gone off the deep end.
December 2, 2005 @ 2:31 pm | Comment
9
By 88
As a registered independent, I think Liberman is a joke.
I guess to use the logic going around in here: Clinton is respected by more people than Rush Limbaugh, so that must prove Clinton is right! Idiotic.
Also, ask victims of a hurricane or any disaster (for example) if they think their lives will be better a year from now. I’m sure when they overwhelmingly say, “yes,” that proves the hurricane or other disaster was good and that they’re glad it destroyed their homes.
Go back and work some more on your talking points.
For the record, Krugman is an idiot.
December 2, 2005 @ 2:43 pm | Comment
10
By Donald R
“The reason that liberals are getting more and more urgent in their opposition to the invasion of Iraq is because they can see that the US will win soon, if it doesn’t hurry up and surrender first.”
GIVE ME A BREAK! How do you define victory, less car bombs, less US casualties, (10 just killed today!). This is a no win situation, you can just pray and hoping the election can create some kind of consensus government that everyone agreed upon, otherwise, CIVIL war!
December 2, 2005 @ 5:19 pm | Comment
11
By Other Lisa
And Lieberman is of course an expert on what’s going on in Iraq “on the ground.” Because what he’s seen of Iraq is most likely: the heavily fortified Green Zone and maybe a really big Forward Operating Base where they can provide adequate security for him. Do you really think Lieberman got out there on the streets of Baghad and interacted with ordinary Iraqi people, that he actually experienced daily conditions there?
It’s starting to crack me up when people regurgitate White House talking points these days…must be nice to live in an unreal bubble where wishing makes it so…
December 2, 2005 @ 6:12 pm | Comment
12
By Ivan
Yeah, in fact the White House talking points are beginning to sound as vapidly robotic as the Communist Party.
December 2, 2005 @ 10:01 pm | Comment
13
By Michael Turton
Lieberman is a joke. As he sat there talking, the reporters listening looked around in horror, since he was describing a different country than the one they experienced every day.
This is the usual Krugman smear job, with no facts but plenty of accusations. How has the Bush administration misled us? His main example is Iraqi oil production, where Krugman says (if you read closely) that the claims of the Bush administration are true but aren’t organized or emphasized in the way that Krugman would prefer.
No, it is because the Bush Administration organized it in a deliberately misleading way. Had the Administration noted that it was comparing oil output with a figure that was artificially depressed, then it would have been honest. But the intent of the presentation was to mislead the listener into thinking that progress had been made, when in fact oil production in Iraq has been declining.
His examples on the security situation in Iraq involve former insurgents now participating in the democratic process there – is that supposed to be bad?
This is a mischaracterization of Krugman’s objections, which were very concrete, and debunked the notion that the government controlled the cities in question, as well as the claims about who the enemy was.
During much of 2004, the document tells us: “Fallujah, Najaf, and Samara were under enemy control. Today, these cities are under Iraqi government control.”
Najaf was never controlled by the “enemy,” if that means the people we’re currently fighting.
Najaf is not under government control, but under the control of a militia that was once our enemy, but is now allied to the government. You can see that Krugman’s point of view is far more nuanced, and far less one-sided, than Bush’s, for he sketches out in concrete detail, in context, the meaning of government control.
It’s not difficult to write in good faith — millions of us do it all the time. So why can’t the Bush Administration?
The reason that liberals are getting more and more urgent in their opposition to the invasion of Iraq is because they can see that the US will win soon, if it doesn’t hurry up and surrender first. The improving situation in Iraq means that the US has to withdraw quickly, or else everyone (except the terrorists and the liberals) will be better off.
Ann, we lost the war when we went in. The last two years has simply been spent trying to get the Bush Administration and its supporters to see the truth. We can’t win in Iraq because we’re the source of the problem. And the war isn’t just destroying Iraq, it is also destroying us. Do you think that it is good that…
…the US operates a string of secret prisons in foreign countries?
…the US detains citizens without benefit of trial or counsel
…the US tortures and murders individuals in its custody as a matter of policy?
…that the Administration defends and supports torture?
…that the US public debt is establishing new records?
…that funding for sciences, education, alternative energy, parks, and everything else that makes us great has been cut to feed the war?
…that the nation is divided over this war, with the majority now against it?
…that our army can no longer recruit and our military morale is low?
…that the illegal and criminal use of force in Iraq has delegimated the use of force elsewhere where the US currently needs it?
…that the conduct of our occupation has besmirched our national honor and gravely harmed our army and our foreign policy?
Michael
December 3, 2005 @ 12:15 am | Comment
14
By Other Lisa
Thanks, Michael.
December 3, 2005 @ 1:48 am | Comment
15
By ACB
Where you aware of the stunning new freedoms that the Iraqis now have
1) The freedom to democratically elect leaders who have been pre screened by Washington, so as to route out ‘unsuitable’ candidates.
2) Freedom of the press, including the freedom to read news articles written by the Lincon group and planted in Iraqi newspapers.
3) Freedom of speach, well so long as its not speach against the US.
4) The freedom to obey Sharia law. A form of Islamic law that was banned under Sadam Husein, but which is one of the most restrictive regimes in the world
5) The freedom for women to wear veils that some claim are used as a form of imprisonment to enslave women, which Sadam Husein also had a disliking for.
December 3, 2005 @ 7:32 am | Comment
16
By Issues Forum
Bush II; Day 392: Don’t you feel better about Iraq, now that we have bullet points?
It’s like a joke or, more accurately, a bad dream. You would think that the President of the United States would have the best minds working around the clock night and day, well, before going to war, first of all….
December 3, 2005 @ 10:50 am | Comment
17
By Admiral
Krugman, whose columns are so constantly filled with lies, can hardly be counted on as a firm ally in the anti-war movement. He’s almost always wrong! Maybe if he had been appointed to the CEA like Clinton promised him he wouldn’t be so bitter, for this is indeed the point at which he lost respectability in the economics community. And that, by the way, is why he’s writing in the NYTimes.
Platitudes? Slogans to win a war?
Great point, guys. The US has *NEVER* done that before.
Oh wait– IT ALWAYS DOES THAT. From 1776 on!! Good LORD is this the state of Peking Duck commentary?
December 9, 2005 @ 10:56 pm | Comment