Shifting Moods in the Mis-Information Age

A story in today's Washingtons Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37812-2005Mar15.html) says, "Two years after President Bush led the country to war in Iraq, Americans appear to be of two minds about the situation in the Middle East: A majority say they believe the Iraqis are better off today than they were before the conflict began -- but they also say the war was not worth fighting in the first place, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll." I wonder what might make Americans so confused about the situation.

Is it possible that, in the lead up to the Invasion of Iraq, the major "news" media in this country failed to ask or answer tough questions about the basis for war that the Bush Administration was putting forward? Did the opportunity to become part of the story through the seduction of the "embedded reporter" policy cause them to become simple propaganda machines for the ne-cons and their agenda? I still find it worth noting that, according to the polls at the time of the Iraq invasion, support for the invasion never reached above 50% until the day the boots hit the sand and then it became almost impossible to separate "support our troops" from "support the policy". It is well known that to attempt to divorce the two was simply un-American.

According to the current ABC/Washington Post poll (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/polltrend_031405.html), "Fifty-three percent of Americans said the war was not worth fighting, 57 percent said they disapprove of the president's handling of Iraq, and 70 percent said the number of U.S. casualties, including more than 1,500 deaths (1518 to date), is an unacceptable price. " However, "The poll also shows that more Americans believe the war has improved the chances of democracy spreading in the Middle East than believe it has diminished those prospects. ...........with a clear majority of Americans (56 percent) saying they are now confident that Iraqi leaders can create a stable government -- a dramatic turnaround since just before the elections."

Americans are notoriously optimistic but I can't help but wonder on what this "majority" is basing their optimism for the situation in the Middle East. So far as I can tell, we have witnessed an election at gunpoint in Iraq where almost an entire section of the population refused to participate and where hundreds of "candidates" appeared anonymously on the ballet for fear of reprisal. We have been seeing so-call popular uprisings in Lebanon and, to a lesser degree, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. I wonder when the media will think to remind their readers and viewers that the most recent popular uprising in that part of the world led to the installment of Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran or that the last change of government in Iraq, which was also supported by the US led to the installment of Saddam Hussein? Are the American people willing to remain endlessly involved militarily and economically in that region of the world to ensure "successful" conclusions to these uprisings? Do we need to be reminded of the thousands of years of cultural and political turmoil in that part of the world?

I believe it is better to be optimistic than pessimistic but I also believe it is best to be realistic and even skeptical while waiting for an outcome. There are many questions still be to be asked and answered about the situation in the Middle East. One of the most important questions still left unanswered (unchallenged?) is what are the true motives of the Bush Administration with regards to our involvement in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East.

It is admirable to promote democratic change where there has been oppression. However, there is a big difference between promoting change and simply poking a stick in the hornet's nest.

Chad (The Left) Shue