Fear Of Another Victory

When it comes to the question of what should be the next stop in the War on Terrorism -- ergo, to bomb or not to bomb Iraq -- determining where the fear factor is greater, in Baghdad or in beltway newsrooms, is a nigh impossible task.

Nor, come to think of it, which of the two sweat harder these days, especially in the face of Enduring Freedom's roaring success in Afghanistan.

Granted, their motives for opposing extending the war to Iraq naturally differ: To wit, Baghdad wishes to continue building its weapons of mass destruction 'unmolested'; while the media, 'molested' by all of those things it instinctively despises -- national unity, patriotism, flags, stratospheric presidential approval ratings, you name it -- wants this war over -- OVER! -- already, darn it. The quicker, the better.

'Ah, c'mon!', some might object: Couldn't it be out of genuine concern for the safety of our troops that the press sincerely wishes a quick end to hostilities, no?

Give me a break.

To those inclined to believe that, please answer the following hypothetical: What do you suppose the liberal "news" media consensus would be if, say, Clinton were still in the White House and Slobodan Milosevic were busy building weapons of mass destruction? Does anyone honestly doubt what the working consensus would be? Why, the press would be beating the drums of war louder even than x42 himself!

This is the same "news" media, let us not forget, which has repeatedly shown not the slightest hesitation to publish the most sensitive operational military details. To residents of Palm Beach County, this means ad revenue and ratings are far more important in medialand than our troops or their mission.

Let's face it: The press opposes taking this war to Saddam for ulterior, ideological reasons -- reasons having nothing even vaguely to do with any desire for "peace" or "concern" for our troops.

The extraordinary triumph of Operation Enduring Freedom has shattered all of their expectations. The pundits were unequivocal that Afghanistan would turn into a veritable quagmire, Bush's political Waterloo. Yesterday's cocksure confidence today has the smell of fear -- fear that momentum from Afghanistan will spill over into Iraq.

Put yourself in the shoes of the average, beltway crackpot pencil-pusher, er, "reporter": You voted for Gore last Fall; even the notion of a second Bush term absolutely terrifies you; polls showing solid support for the President, notwithstanding you and your colleagues best efforts, make you feel hopeless, silly, irrelevant.

"How could this smirking chimp's polls be so darn high so darn long!?", you wonder in utter frustration.

Neither can you stomach the images out of Kabul: Jubilant Afghans dancing in the streets; crowds of men lining up to chop off their scraggly beards; beautiful women shedding Burkas and revealing their dazzling looks, hidden till now beneath that hated symbol of life for women under the Taliban.

None of these jovial images jibe with what you were told to expect by your bosses -- the Editors -- from "Dumbya's war" in Afghanistan.

You've got to hand it to Rush -- he's absolutely right about another thing: Liberals viscerally despise anything which smacks of military success. And, in Afghanistan, you've got evidence of it galore. The outcome so far rends asunder every cherished liberal axiom and every tenet of pacifist dogma about the futility of war. People there are happy now, they've been liberated! They're starting to eat again, families -- at long last -- are reuniting, music fills the air, the future is brighter now.

None of it would have been conceivable without decisive military action.

Just as crushing the Taliban shattered expectations among Islamic fundamentalists that Allah would save the regime from ignominious defeat, similarly, American military victory in Afghanistan has thrown the liberal intelligencia into a crisis of confidence. Their "inviolable" canons of beliefs and "principles" are now under fire, pardon the pun.

From whence comes the media's clamorous opposition to taking the war to Baghdad: To wit, fear of another victory.

After all, the media might survive one decisive defeat, but two -- back-to-back?

My two cents....
"JohnHuang2"

Quote of the Day by Alberta's Child

This "coalition exist for one reason and one reason only. Afghanistan is inland and the US needs to fly over Pakistan. Not that Pakistan had a choice in the matter. Any country with a coastline is readily accessible to the US Navy and there's no need for any help. The media toadies love to think that the US NEEDS help. And that their hero Powell has craftily cobble together this fragile coalition because of course they continue their fantasy that GWB is incompetent.

And what "coalition" might that be, pray tell?

collapse the coalition - YES - that's just what we should do!

Go ahead and quit your day job, JH2. You should get paid for this.

Interesting things to come out of this article:

1. While the foreign minister is right in saying that the current coalition will crumble, that is not unexpected. Dr. Rice said as much a month or more ago. I expect we will see a non-Arab state targeted first.

2. Interestingly, this is a rather mild comment from Russia, not the defense of the coalition's position or the heavy opposition one would anticipate.

3. If Russia were very concerned about the opinion of the Arabs, they wouldn't be bucking OPEC on oil production.

4. The media is spinning this as if Russia is threatening to withdraw support. I do not think so.

5. In my opinion, Putin is one of the few who understands President Bush and his methods. Putin wears a mask of solemnity, President Bush wears a mask of cheer. Both of them understand poker quite well, and are double-teaming the press and much of the world's leaders. It is a wonderful thing to watch.

We kicked Iraqi butt in 1991 without a coalition. Why do we need them now?

Miss Marple, your points -- all 5 of 'em -- hit the nail on the head.

As usual your analysis is "right on". Let us also not forget that we are coming up on an election year and the "left" has to come up with a reason to run against Bush and the Republicans. I hope they make the "military tribunals" their center piece, as it appears they are considering. That should really reveal the political philosophy of power by the left (Democrats) that know the only way they can win and keep power is to divide the citizenry. The next two election cycles will be very telling, as if the past few weren't.

Exactly, my friend. Good morning, btw.

And thanks for the compliment, btw.

I concur with both you guys. Good writing and good analysis.

Thanks, amigo =^)

Russian prognosis is becomes conveniently bleaker when it implies its lack of support for US operations against Iraq.

Thanks =^)

Putin is one of the few who understands President Bush and his methods. Putin wears a mask of solemnity, President Bush wears a mask of cheer. Both of them understand poker quite well, and are double-teaming the press and much of the world's leaders. It is a wonderful thing to watch

I like watching a good car wreck as much as the next guy ... I just have the feeling this one's going to jump the curb and take out most (if not all) the rubberneckers on the sidewalk as well.

Watch what is done, not what is said. Oil prices in the US have dropped significantly and Russia is standing up to OPEC. (The Canadian News analyst I saw on ITN said that Russia would cave and prices would go up. Ha!)

Putin isn't a saint, although I wish I could verify whether or not his practice of Orthodox Christianity was fact or wishful thinking. He is a pragmatist, and he knows Russia's future is with the West. He has China and miitant Islam to his southern borders. I trust Putin to do what is best for Russia, and in this case it coincides with what is best for us.

Discounting whether or not I trust Putin, I do actually like him. He has a sharp wit and delights in skewering the press, which I much appreciate. He also has a far better understanding of President Bush than most of our media.