1115.org

Ever since Iraq’s “mission accomplished” transformed from a statement of accomplishment to the punchline of a hundred unfunny jokes, war supporters in the government and pundit class alike have tried to shift the focus toward the media. The argument, which is still used today, goes a little something like this: The news media is biased, and only reports stories that show Iraq as a failure—suicide bombings, body counts, governmental corruption and the like. They never bother to report the improvements and progress made in Iraq, of which there are numerous examples (insert comment about “building schools” or “spreading freedom and democracy” here).

As the number of flag-draped coffins continued to rise and the public’s approval of the war soured, the “they’re building schools!” happy-face rhetoric seemed to somewhat fade away. But not completely. The media remains a favorite target for war supporters who really have nothing else to project blame onto—people like Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe:

Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma blasted U.S. media coverage of the war in Iraq, saying that it focused mostly on bad news, and said he hoped Smith could “somehow shame the press” into providing more positive coverage.

In an ironic yet depressing twist, Inhofe decided to say this on the very day the American death toll crested over 2,000.

The person who Inhofe hopes will whip the press into a proper subservient position is Dorrence Smith, the President’s choice to be the Pentagon’s chief public affairs official. Smith has a long history of toiling in the trenches of public opinion; he was one of the guys responsible for setting up Iraq’s Al-Iraqiya television channel, whose broadcasting motto could be loosely translated as “all the news the Americans see fit to approve”. You might also remember his contribution to the Wall Street Journal opinion page, where he not only condemned the Al-Jazeera network (and, by extension, the government of Qatar) for aiding terrorism, but also accused American news organizations of following suit.

So for someone like Inhofe, Smith is probably the right person for the job. But it’s incredibly doubtful that he’ll be able to shame the media into anything right now—when “landmarks” like an election or a constitution pass by with no decrease in the amount of violence, or when previously-upbeat government officials concede that the war will be a long-term project stretching into the years, it’s hard to be enthusiastic just because Iraq’s money no longer has Saddam’s face on it.

Iraqi schools and purple fingers are nice and all, but pale in comparison to the amount of blood and money that have been poured into this war of convenience, a war built on shifting rationales and faulty evidence. 2,000 soldiers dead. Hundreds of billions siphoned from the American economy. A country on the brink of an all-out civil war. An increase in the amount of global terrorism. And a military that is stretched too thin to adequately respond to any problems that may come up in the years ahead.

No amount of shame is going to find the silver lining in that.