Sock Puppet Reporting

NPR is back treating the Bush-Snow Iraq-as-South Korea nonsense as if it were a reasonable approach to ending the Iraq disaster. Flattening history and complexity, Liane Hansen opens up with this salvo:

"There are thousands of US troops in South Korea. They’re guarding against an invasion from North Korea, as they’ve done for fifty years. The deployment has worked. This past week President Bush said the troops helped achieve an objective for all of us, and today the far east is peaceful."

It is worth noting how subtly dishonest this intro is. First, it portrays the US role as solely protective - nothing about the long years of propping up South Korean dictators and protecting US business investments from invasions of labor and human rights activists. And it simply declares that "It has worked" and that "the far east is peaceful." And as in Iraq, the opinions of the people who actually live there don't count for squat (see this Angus-Reid study or this RAND report).

Then we get to Tom Bowman who turns to Tony Snow sound clips, Secretary of Defense Gates, Brookings Institute hack Michael O'Hanlon, American Enterprise Institute rightist Fred Kagan, and former Pentagon official James Miller. No surprise that there is no serious dissent from the US project of staying in Iraq forever. Bowman himself declares that American troops would be

"training the Iraqi forces, serving as a stabilizing presence, and guarding against possible troublesome neighbors – especially Iran."

Reread it and weep: a stabilizing presence...troubling neighbors. Amazing!

Least Common Denominator Sort of Thinking

I have to swallow my pride and thank Michael O'Hanlon (click on the O'Hanlon label at the bottom of this post for more) for the title to this post! It well describes the range of coverage offered on ATC Thursday regarding the Iraq Study Group's anticipated call for some type of withdrawal of some US forces from Iraq.

Let's just look at some of the individuals and think tanks that NPR seeks out to "educate" us. In a piece from Jackie Northam we hear from the following:

• Michael Vickers, a defense analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. (His profile at CSBA states "Mr. Vickers is currently a senior adviser to the Secretary of Defense for the 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review. From 1973 to 1986, Mr. Vickers served as an Army Special Forces Officer and CIA Operations Officer, with extensive operational and combat experience in Central America and the Caribbean, the Middle East and Central Asia.")
• Retired Army Major General Robert Scales
• Anthony Cordesman with the Center for Strategic and International Studies

Not a single source from outside the pro-military, pro-US foreign policy establishment.

As if this were not enough, NPR finishes its bludgeoning by having Robert Siegel host an analysis from "American Enterprise Institute resident fellow Reuel Marc Gerecht and Michael O'Hanlon, senior fellow in foreign policy studies at Brookings Institution.

Needless to say, except for the title of this post, there was nothing in these two features that significantly questioned or challenged overall US goals and strategies in Iraq - instead there was only narrow debate about tactics and operations.

Bipartisan Militarism

Brooking's Institute hack Michael O'Hanlon (see previous post) returns yet again to NPR this morning. O'Hanlon has just published a new book, Hard Power (written with Defense Department insider Kurt Cambell) and is on NPR to chastise Democrats for not being being tough enough on "security" issues. O'Hanlon says, "our message is really more towards Democrats to say, 'Listen, Democrats got to get in this game because the country needs them to and for their own political good..."

He then goes on to laud Ronald Reagan, just stopping short of posthumously awarding him the Iron Cross: "Reagan is a very popular figure among the military -- and frankly when you look at the basic facts, it's hard to disagree even if you’re a Democrat as I am....he built up the armed forces, he gave people a lot more pride in their military, both within and outside the armed forces....you put all that together and it paints a pretty nice picture in people’s memories of what Reagan did for the armed forces...."

O'Hanlon concludes by advising politicians, "you're only going to be able to be given the trust of the American people...if you first convince the American voter you can protect them the old fashioned way. If you have strong, clear and convincing views on how to employ the armed forces...."

If you can bear listening to this piece, notice how there is not a peep of dissent from Liane Hansen. No challenge to the idea that what our country needs is a massive, agressive security state. No suggestion that our global military establishment may in fact be part of why we are so hated and targeted. Not one mention of the Reagan-led torture, drug-running, and slaughter in Central America. Not one little hint that perhaps the security state and military industrial complex are destroying our republic. And no mention that the "old fashioned" concept of security in the US included an extreme distrust of a standing army and the obvious dangers it poses to a free nation.

O'Hanlon Oh No!

NPR Morning Edition on Thursday trotted out the Brooking Institute's O'Hanlon again..this time to discuss measures of "progress" in Iraq. Please see my previous post on O'Hanlon (a very rightwing-biased fellow). This time O'Hanlon was a little more forthright on where his numbers were coming from (the US Gov. ) and he wasn't quite so upbeat on the readiness of Iraqi security forces (admitting that what they may be most ready for is fighting each other!) If you want to see the full Brookings Institute Report, it's availible in PDF format here.

Brooking No Truth

All Things Considered covered Rumsefeld's disclosure in the Senate that a draw-down of US troops in Iraq would be unlikely in 2006. For analysis NPR turned to Michael E. O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution. O'Hanlon said that "Iraqi security forces are getting better." Are they? I have yet to read any factual evidence to support this; on the contrary, it seems the Iraqi security forces are rife with torture/death squad participants with sectarian/militia allegiances. One might also assume that some of the torture/death squad activity is in fact a result of US promotion of the "Salvador Option"[see earlier post here]. He states that there are 50-60,000 "fairly capable" Iraqi troops. Again, where did this number come from? NPR and O'Hanlon apparently think that saying something is true makes it true--regardless of what reality shows to the contrary.

It really bugs me that the best NPR can find is a "military analyst" who writes for the Washington Times and appears on the O'Reilly Show to deride French student protesters and Hugo Chavez with O'Reilly's approval. O'Hanlon has no expertise on Iraqi culture or history and doesn't apparently know Arabic. God forbid that NPR turn to someone such as Robert Fisk or Juan Cole, instead of turning to the old status quo hacks at the Brookings Institution.