creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Norman Solomon
3 Oct 2009
Rediscovering the Real Columbus

Columbus Day is a national holiday. But it's also a good time to confront the mythology about the heroic … Read More.

26 Sep 2009
A Farewell Column, But Not Goodbye

Seventeen and a half years ago — at a time when a little-known governor named Bill Clinton was running … Read More.

12 Sep 2009
The Devastating Spin for War

For those who believe in making war, Kabul is a notable work product. After 30 years, the results are in: a … Read More.

Media's Seal of Approval for Best and Brightest

Comment

Near the end of a year riddled with claims that he lacked enough experience to be commander in chief, the president-elect focused on an urgent need to assemble his foreign-policy team. For the young and charismatic senator, the time had come to choose wisely.

It was December 1960. "The old was going out and the new was coming in, and the new seemed exciting, promising," journalist David Halberstam was to write more than a decade later in his book "The Best and the Brightest," chronicling the policy disasters of the Vietnam War.

In the last weeks before he became president, John F. Kennedy trusted the guidance of old hands.

Two former top officials at President Harry Truman's State and Defense departments, Robert A. Lovett and Dean Acheson, urged JFK to choose a fellow named Dean Rusk for Secretary of State.

As for the civilian head of the Pentagon, the recommendation from Lovett — himself a former Defense secretary under Truman — was emphatic when he visited the president-elect at his Georgetown home on a cold day in early winter. "They discussed men of intelligence, men of hardware, men of the financial community, men of driving ambition," Halberstam wrote. "The best of them, said Lovett, was this young man at Ford, Robert McNamara, the best of the new group. ... Lovett had worked with McNamara in government during the war, and he had been terrific: disciplined, with a great analytical ability, a great hunger for facts."

All eras are unique moments in history. (Certainly, in 1960 it would have been very hard to imagine a race for a major-party presidential nomination coming down to a choice between a woman and an African-American.) But some parallels are worth pondering. The man set to become president on Jan. 20, 2009, seems eager to draw from the well of the most recent Democratic administration or from like-minded currents of the mainstream foreign-policy establishment.

The media coverage of those appointments — including the selection of Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State — has been overwhelmingly favorable.

On the subject of a war effort that the president-elect says he wants to strengthen, the wisdom is conventional.

But is it really wise?

The way things are going, we can expect that none of Barack Obama's top appointees will dispute the standard rationales for upping U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan.

No less than in Vietnam several decades ago, the prospects for a military victory in Afghanistan are extremely slim. Much more likely is a protracted version of what CBS anchor Walter Cronkite famously called "a bloody stalemate" in February 1968. Far more important than whether the Afghanistan war can be won, however, is the question of whether it should be fought.

Right now, the basic ingredients of further Afghan disasters are in place — most of all, a lack of wide-ranging media debate over options.

In an atmosphere reminiscent of 1965, when almost all of the esteemed public voices concurred with the decision by newly elected President Lyndon Johnson to send more troops to Vietnam, the tenet that the United States must send additional troops to Afghanistan is axiomatic in U.S. news media, on Capitol Hill and (as far as can be discerned) at the top of the incoming administration. But the problem with such a foreign-policy "no brainer" is that the thinking has already been put in a lockbox.

These days, a source of fresh thinking on Afghanistan may be the president of that country, Hamid Karzai, who on Nov. 16 offered safe passage to Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar for peace talks. The Kabul government sounds interested in pursuing a negotiated settlement of Afghanistan's steadily worsening war. In contrast, the next U.S. president seems to be assembling a foreign-policy team with approaches to Afghanistan that have remained inside the box. Journalists should help to pry it open.

Norman Solomon is author of "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death." The book has been adapted into a documentary film of the same name. For information, go to: www.WarMadeEasyTheMovie.org.

COPYRIGHT 2008 DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.



Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
Sir;... It is hard to imagine anyone more gutless in the conduct of war a foreign policy than the democrats...Kennedy was warned out of Vietnam by the best General we had, and on his death bed... Why give the enemy interior lines... And Kennedy might have taken good advice, but he had to get re-elected first... It does not matter that no one has beat the Muslims... It does not matter that the Afghans occupy a land for all appearances forgotten by God... Read some accounts of the original pundits, and Britains conflicts in Central Asia. The Russians could hang on there, but who could match the cruelty and madness of the Russians... So, expect for Mr. Obama to be gutless in Iraq and Afghanistan, just so he does not lose any votes of people who will likely never vote for him anyway... The republicans run foreign policy, and can push the democrats through their butt holes because they never care what it is, and only care what they can make it look like...Nobody could have saved China, but they asked who lost China, and no one but Nixon, after calling every liberal pink, could have opened up China... He did not do anything great...He only did what no democrat could possibly do because no republican would have let him- without the most scurilous, and unworthy attacks... I don't think the republicans give a damn if the country goes to hell as long as they are driving... It is a terrible thing to say, that the party of flag wavers is the party of treason; but they have hurt us, and when they do, it is dumm ass grunts who have to die to make them look tough... Does anyone believe that our victories over defensless people, the killing of women and children, of making wars on a people for the crimes of a dictator is not going to make enemies for us for all time??? It is not right, not smart, and not far sighted, but the democrats let them do that to them, going along to get along instead of coming out swinging... They should tell it like it is, because so long as they allow themselves to be manipulated they will never provide leadership... Ever...Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Sat Nov 29, 2008 7:34 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Norman Solomon
Oct. `09
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
27 28 29 30 1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Betsy McCaughey
Betsy McCaugheyUpdated 15 May 2013
John Stossel
John StosselUpdated 15 May 2013
Roger Simon
Roger SimonUpdated 15 May 2013

4 Jul 2009 The Numbing Quality of Journalism

29 Sep 2007 The Striking Media Absence of Class War

21 Feb 2009 The Media Quest for the Right Bipartisan Stuff