The Wall Street Journal Changes Views Like Chameleon by M.P. Prabhakaran

The Wall Street Journal Changes Views

As Chameleon Changes Color

By M.P. Prabhakaran

The Wall Street Journal changes its views faster than a chameleon changes its color. The paper said in a June 2, 2003 editorial that the war in Iraq was over and “we won.” But by June 26, it began to have second thoughts. “The War Isn't Over,” the lead editorial of that day said. “Large elements of Saddam’s regime are still around, pursuing almost daily attacks of sabotage.”

The June 2 editorial did more than just celebrate “the Iraq war victory.” It also accused the critics of the war of trying “to discredit Blair and Bush after they've won the war.” By June 26, however, events led to its changing the tune. It was constrained to agree with the majority in the world that the real war was far from over. The paper which had written on June 2 that “The allies liberated a country of 22 million people, rid the world of a terrorist ally…” and so on had no qualms about writing 24 days later: “Most Iraqis believe Saddam is still alive, and may well return. His allies are spreading leaflets and word about ‘the party of return,’ further scaring Iraqis from assisting any new government.”

The Journal deserves praise for one thing, though: for its willingness to change the views to reflect the changing ground realities. Which means it is willing to learn from its mistakes and grow. At the risk of sounding condescending one may add, however, that the paper will do itself a big favor in the future if it refrains from writing things that are too embarrassing to retract later.

Warnings Ignored

Those who were familiar with Saddam’s devious ways had warned of what we are witnessing in Iraq today. Even The Journal was aware of such warnings, as is evident from its June 26 editorial: “Retired Marine Colonel Gary Anderson predicted much of what is now unfolding in the April 2 Washington Post [italics added]. Saddam admires Ho Chi Minh and has studied the U.S. debacles in Lebanon and Somalia. Rather than confront the U.S. in a conventional fight they'd lose, the Baathists ‘seeded the urban and semi-urban population centers of the country with cadres designed to lead such a guerrilla movement.’” It is a pity that the paper, in its enthusiasm to claim “war victory” and lambaste the war critics, chose to ignore such warnings when it wrote its June 2 editorial. No less a person than the newly-appointed commander of allied forces in Iraq, Gen. John P. Abizaid, confirmed on July 16 that what American troops are now facing in Iraq is “a classical guerrilla-type campaign.” And he said it at the risk of earning the wrath of his boss, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld had refused to characterize the tactics the Saddam-loyalists have lately been resorting to as guerrilla-type.

It is some consolation that, belatedly though, part of the media and political opposition in the country have started speaking up. They have realized that it is their democratic duty and responsibility to point out to the leaders the mistakes they have made so their recurrence in the future can be prevented. The Wall Street Journal should know that in exposing the hype and spin the warmongers in the Bush administration indulged in, the critics are not trying to “show that liberating Iraq was a mistake.” By the way, the assertion in the editorial that Iraq has been liberated is a contradiction of the editorial title, “The War [To Liberate Iraq] Isn't Over.”

Analogous To Vietnam War

It is amusing that in stressing the need for the Bush administration to be frank with the people about the challenge that lies ahead in Iraq, The Journal should draw an analogy from another infamous war America fought, the Vietnam War. That it should write approvingly of the Vietnam War--even after its main architect, Robert McNamara, who was Defense Secretary in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, admitted that “we were wrong, terribly wrong,” in having gone into that war--is disgraceful. In a July 7 editorial entitled “Saddam’s Counterattack” the paper says: “The lesson we draw from American wars is that the public will accept casualties, even in large numbers, as long as it feels the cause warrants it and that its leaders have a strategy to succeed. As late as May of 1967, long into the war and after more than 10,300 U.S. deaths, 50% of the American public still supported the conflict in Vietnam.”

The editorial doesn't say why that support changed into anger in a matter of a few years. The U.S. death toll reaching over 50,000 and war cost exceeding $150 billion were only part of the reasons. The main reason was the shocking discovery that there was no cause that warranted the war and that the leaders had no strategy to succeed. The quagmire we find ourselves in in Iraq today proves that the hawks in the Bush administration have not learned anything from the country’s Vietnam War experience.

[Published on July 18, 2003]

[Readers are invited to comment. Send your comments to letters@eastwestinquirer.com]

            The piece on The Wall Street Journal changing its views as often as a chameleon is well-conceived. One would think that an experienced editorial staff would not paint themselves into a corner like these people did. The only explanation I can come with is that they were so certain of victory that they never thought of any alternative scenarios. In a word, hubris.
            It is ironic that in a recent survey, Americans cited The WSJ as the most credible source of news, now that they had lost faith in The New York Times because of its recent Jason Blair scandal. In my opinion, what Jason Blair did was not half as bad as the distortions, manipulations and sins of omission practiced by a large part of the media (including The WSJ) during the invasion of Iraq. There were times when The WSJ was definitely guilty of 'journalistic activism.'
            Eric Alterman's book, What Liberal Media, is timely medicine for all of us, given what's going on in the American media nowadays.