Given that Presidential Candidate John McCain has so strongly identified his campaign with the surge’s success, it is likely that media coverage of the Iraq War will now be used to affect the 2008 general election. Consider, for example, a New York Times article by Michael Luo which recounts McCain’s campaign trail proclamation that if the surge fails, “I lose.” “Mr. McCain has, of course, staked his candidacy on his support for President Bush’s escalation strategy, which was unveiled early last year and resulted in more than 30,000 additional troops in Iraq,” writes Luo. 

And the prospects for McCain’s election are slim, if Luo’s article is to be believed. He points out McCain’s error in asserting that “the majority of Americans believe the surge is succeeding,” since the USA Today/Gallup poll alluded to indicated that only 43% of respondents believed the surge was beneficial. This is doubled from 22% in July 2007. Just in case the reader forgets how generally “unpopular” the Iraq war is, Luo points out that the poll also indicated that 60% of respondents considered the war a “mistake.” “Mr. McCain has continued to paint a far rosier picture than the Democratic candidates…about military progress in Iraq, as well as political gains,” he writes.

Luo’s article highlights two rhetorical devices that the mainstream media has effectively utilized to downplay the surge’s success: misdirection and partisan attribution. The first points the reader toward data which reinforces perceptions of a violence-ridden, unredeemable Iraq, whereas the other instructs the reader to dismiss opposing information as “suspect” and politically-motivated.

The characterization of pro-surge sentiments as unrealistic, a matter of perception, or a partisan attempt to save a failed presidency effectively stifles the debate by teaching readers to discount information provided by institutional sources. Note, for example, that Luo says that McCain is painting a “far rosier picture” than Democrats. In other words, McCain is a naively optimistic candidate.

A March 10 Times article by Erica Goode and Richard A. Oppel Jr. argues that ongoing attacks in Iraq threaten the nation’s “fragile security.” “Taken together, the two attacks underscored how fragile security in Iraq remains despite a recent drop in attacks and assertions by American military officials that Sunni insurgents are on the run,” they write (emphasis added). This statement is quite ironic, given that the authors later note an “overall drop in [Iraqi] violence” with assaults concentrated in northern Arab provinces. “Despite the overall drop in violence in Iraq, deadly assaults on American troops have continued, particularly in the northern Arab provinces, where Sunni Arab guerrillas have many strongholds,” write Goode and Oppel. The military’s assignment of troops in the Northern regions to root out Al Qaeda also might explain the shifted center of violence.

Similarly, the Agence France-Presse (AFP) published an article which claims that “violence in Iraq surged in February after falling in each of the six months to January,” from 541 total deaths to 721 deaths. “Last week the U.S. military announced a reduction in troops on the back of what it claims to be a drop in violence across Iraq,” they write (emphasis added). 

Lieutenant General Ray Odierno listed some persuasive evidence in favor of this “claim” at his March Heritage presentation. According to Odierno, Baghdad has seen a 70% reduction in violence and the improvised explosive device (IED) find and clear rate is now at 60%. “The IED found and clear rate is 60% now. It’s never been over 40%, it was always about 40%—why’s that? Because [Iraqis] are helping us. So not only have the numbers of IED’s gone down, the amount we’re finding is greater than it has ever been,” he said.

Odierno responded to another reporter’s observed Iraqi surge in violence. “I disagree with your uptake in violence. In fact, February was the lowest month we’ve had in about over a year. January there was a small uptake, because we conducted offensive operations in Mosul and up the Diyala river valley to continue to pursue al Qaeda. But it was the lowest casualties of any January since the war started,” said Odierno.

According to icasualties.org, which the AFP cites in its article, Iraqi and military deaths are much lower than at pre-surge levels. Iraqi civilian and military deaths (as reported by the media) were 554 this January and 674 this February—in contrast to, say, 1,802 deaths in January 2007 or 3,014 deaths in February 2007. The AFP describes the icasualties.org website as “independent,” although a significant portion of its findings rely on Department of Defense data.

Military casualties are also down, with icasualties.org reporting 24, 40, and 30 coalition casualties each month from December 2007 through February 2008. In the period between December 2006 and February 2007, the monthly coalition death count was 115, 86, and 85 respectively—more than double current casualty levels.

Newsbusters.org also released graphs detailing a precipitous drop in both attacks and coalition deaths post-surge, but the data only runs through December 2007.

Lieutenant General Odierno emphasized that the surge was designed not just to quell sectarian violence, but to also protect the Iraq populace and foster a better society. He said

Implementing the surge involved much more than throwing extra resources at a problem. It meant committing ourselves to protecting the Iraqi populace, with a priority to Baghdad, while exporting what appeared to be a nascent progress against al Qaeda in Anbar. It meant changing our mindset as we secured the people where they worked and slept, and where their children played. It meant developing new techniques and procedures in order to implement this concept.

By focusing media attention exclusively on the ongoing bloodshed, by ignoring the economic strides made by Iraqis, and by minimizing political progress, the media is communicating that the surge has failed.

“Mr. McCain pointed to the Iraqi Parliament’s recent passage of a budget as a sign of progress, but the major steps toward political reconciliation that the troop increase was supposed to help usher in have not occurred,” writes Luo. He continues, “Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama cite this as evidence that the strategy in Iraq is not working.”

Written in late February, Luo’s assertions ignore the January passage of the Accountability and Justice Law, which is designed to ameliorate earlier DeBaathification policies. “The agreement marks the passage of the first of the legislative benchmarks” and is a “significant achievement for the divided legislature,” writes the Washington Post. This, and other legislative victories, apparently have “not occurred”—at least for the New York Times.

Bethany Stotts is a Staff Writer at Accuracy in Academia.

Share This

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

About the author