The Media Default for Escalation

In his first speech to a joint session of Congress, the new president threw down a 90-month-old gauntlet. He reaffirmed the idea that committing to war halfway around the world — in Afghanistan, and now in Pakistan, too — will make Americans safer.

That kind of quest could easily outlive all of us. It's more than mission creep — it's mission escalation to an extreme degree. But it was hard to find a high-profile journalist in the mass media who was willing to scrutinize the implications for a perennial state of war.

Hours after that speech in the House chamber, The New York Times printed the news that Obama plans to gradually withdraw "American combat forces" from Iraq during the next 18 months. The newspaper reported that the advantages of the pullout will include "relieving the strain on the armed forces and freeing up resources for Afghanistan."

The president's speech had little to say about the plans for escalation, but the few words will come back to haunt: "With our friends and allies, we will forge a new and comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat Al Qaeda and combat extremism because I will not allow terrorists to plot against the American people from safe havens halfway around the world. We will not allow it."

Obama didn't mention the additional number of U.S. troops — 17,000 — that he has just ordered to Afghanistan. But his pledge that he "will not allow terrorists to plot against the American people" and his ringing declaration, "We will not allow it," came just before this statement: "As we meet here tonight, our men and women in uniform stand watch abroad and more are readying to deploy."

In such ways, massive blunders of epochal proportions can careen forward with the help of news media. Often, the assistance comes in the form of silence about the real dangers; instead, the quibbles are tactical and the cheerleading is routine.

That's how the Vietnam War escalated, while individuals and groups muted their voices.

It's happening again, but you wouldn't know it from members of Congress. Or then again, maybe you would. After all, the antiwar voices on Capitol Hill were few and far between as the deployment of U.S. troops in Vietnam went beyond 100,000 in the mid-1960s.

Then, as now, with few exceptions, the reporters and the pundits were tasteful and professional enough not to be conspicuous or raise a stink about the acceleration of the war machinery in a faraway land. Then the imperative was stopping "communism." Now it's "terrorism."

The reasons why the war in Afghanistan can't be won are directly connected to why the war is wrong. In essence, people do not like their country occupied for years on end, especially when the occupiers are routinely killing civilians (whatever the rationale).

Monochrome words like Taliban and "terrorists" might seem tidy and clear enough as they appear in media coverage, or as they roll off a president's tongue. But in the real Afghan world, the opponents of the U.S. war are diverse and wide-ranging. With every missile strike that incinerates a household or terrorizes a village, the truly implacable "extremists" can rejoice at Uncle Sam's assistance to their recruiting efforts.

The president is now combining his anti-terrorism rhetoric with his avowed commitment to ratchet up the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan. Very few journalists are questioning the way that he is equating the protection of America with the escalation of the Afghan war.

Many people will suffer grave consequences for a long, long time.

But, in the United States, journalists seem to be waiting for elected officials to raise an alarm. And elected officials seem to be waiting for the media to raise an alarm. It's not happening.

Norman Solomon wrote the book "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death," which has been adapted into a documentary film of the same name. For information, go to: www.normansolomon.com

COPYRIGHT 2009 DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.