From Victor Davis Hanson’s site comes a couple of essays debunking the received knowledge of the hard left, both in the military situation and the notion of media objectivity:
When Cynicism Meets Fanaticism:
Opponents of the war in Iraq, both original critics and the mea culpa recent converts, have made eight assumptions. The first six are wrong, the last two still unsettled.
- Saddam was never connected to al Qaeda, the perpetrators of 9/11.
- There was no real threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
- The United Nations and our allies were justifiably opposed on principle to the invasion.
- A small cabal of neoconservative (and mostly Jewish) intellectuals bullied the administration into a war that served Israel’s interest more than our own.
- Saddam could not be easily deposed, or at least he could not be successfully replaced with a democratic government.
- The architects of this war and the subsequent occupation are mostly inept (“dangerously incompetentâ€) — and are exposed daily as clueless by a professional cadre of disinterested journalists.
- In realist terms, the benefits to be gained from the war will never justify the costs incurred.
- We cannot win.
Pictures Worth a Thousand Lives:
In the media war, Israel has three disadvantages. The first is an open society, which allows reporters (and filmmakers and activists and human-rights observers) the freedom to roam, record, and interview in first-world comfort. This has saddled Israel with what may be the world’s highest per capita concentration of reporters. Jerusalem is host to 350 permanent foreign news bureaus, as many as New York, London, or Moscow; the volume of reportage on Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank is 75 times greater than on any other area of comparable population. This obsessive attention necessarily distorts, by casting the Israel-Palestinian war in a theatric, world-historical light.
In the last decade, around 4,500 Israeli and Palestinian lives have been lost to the fighting. The Russo-Chechen war has killed 50,000 (11 times as many), the Darfur crisis has killed 180,000 (40 times as many), and the Congolese civil war has killed 3.5 million (778 times as many). But very few Americans can call to mind images of the ghastly violence in Chechnya, Sudan, or Congo—or even identify the warring parties—because these are places so dangerous that the New York Times simply cannot responsibly send a reporter there, much less a bureau.
If freedom is disadvantageous, this goes double when you happen to abut a shameless, propagandizing Arab dictatorship. According to Gutmann, the Palestinian Authority under Arafat used “the combat theatre (the West Bank, Gaza, and inside Israel) as a kind of soundstage.†Those famous scenes of Palestinian boys with rocks confronting soldiers, for example, are usually choreographed. Palestinian youths, exhorted by parents, teachers, and their televisions to pelt Israeli soldiers, are so conscious of the media presence themselves that they often don’t start in with the stones until photographers arrive. Israeli soldiers are actually forewarned of clashes when film crews suddenly materialize. (Coalition forces have experienced the same phenomenon in Iraq.)
Hi – check out All Things Beautiful; covers the same article from Hanson and has as usual great pics. Found your site via Technorati searching for blogs covering Hanson’s recent article. Well done for noticing it. It’s already a classic.