The MSM and the not-so-subtle art of writing the lede

The New Neo Posted on by

I could probably spend all my time on this blog just analyzing the myriad variations on one theme: how the MSM skews the news by editorializing when it should just be reporting.

Sometimes it’s done overtly. Far more often, though, it’s a relatively subtle use of language and–if you’ll forgive the expression–nuance. But once you know where/how to look–well then, like Chickenman, it’s everywhere, it’s everywhere (those who were anywhere near Chicago and a radio in the late 60s know what I’m referring to by that phrase).

Here’s today’s example from the NY Times: an article about Tony Blair (the first one I looked at when I clicked on their website) entitled “Blair Urges Europe to Stay Aggressive Abroad.” The headline is actually one of the better ones (although I’d prefer the substitution of the words “vigilant” or “militarily prepared” for “aggressive”).

It’s the lede that’s so “interesting.” Here it is:

As he seeks to define his legacy and stamp his imprint on the future, Prime Minister Tony Blair urged his successors today to maintain the warlike foreign policy that he promoted, sending troops into battle in Africa and the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq.

An excellent example of the approach the media has used for some years now, what I’ll call the “what’s in it for me?” outlook. A prime minister or president is always regarded as a self-serving, narcissistic politician rather than a statesman (is this word even in the vocabulary of the MSM any more?).

Of course, politicians do tend to be narcissists, and concerned with their own images. It goes with the territory. But to report, in a straight news article, on a speech by Blair about the central defining worldwide issue of our times–the current war against Islamist totalitarianism–as though Blair’s primary concern is his himself and his legacy (oh, how I’ve grown to hate that word!) is a profoundly cynical and destructive way of looking at things.

It would be different if the article were actually about Blair’s self-aggrandizement, or offered any evidence of it. That would at least explain the focus of the lede. But it isn’t; it’s a straight news article, or purports to be. And there isn’t even a hint of any support for the premise of self-concern, at least in the body of the article. On the contrary; Blair’s speech is a serious one that focuses on the need for Britain to maintain the ability to fight against the threats that face it today.

Does this sound like the speech of a guy obsessed with himself?:

The frontiers of our security no longer stop at the Channel. What happens in the Middle East affects us. What happens in Pakistan, or Indonesia, or in the attenuated struggles for territory and supremacy in Africa for example, in Sudan or Somalia–the new frontiers for our security are global…It has taken a generation for the enemy to grow. It will, in all probability, take a generation to defeat.

Sounds like a reasonable assessment of a sobering situation, by a man concerned with the future, yes–the future of his country, Western civilization, and the world.

Telegraphing the plan

The New Neo Posted on by

This is my question: doesn’t a speech like Bush’s, in which a strategic plan is outlined, give the enemy the advantage of knowing in advance what the approach will be, and take away any element of surprise? True, the details aren’t known; but the broad outline is.

Democracies demand such things, especially modern democracies. But it seems to be a potential problem of some magnitude in waging any war, conventional or assymetrical, does it not?

Bush’s talk: we can and will, if we can and will

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: The full text of Bush’s speech can be found here.]

Bush’s speech last night was a tight and subdued performance in terms of rhetoric and delivery. But, what else is new? Although a Churchillian sweep and grandeur would be awfully nice, it’s not going to be forthcoming, not from this guy. That’s not my main concern.

In content, it sounded okay to me. But what do I know? I’m just an evil bloodthirsty Bush-worshipping neocon warmonger, out to kill as many Iraqis and members of the US armed forces as humanly possible.

Seriously, folks (and no, the third sentence of the above paragraph of mine was not serious, although some would take issue with me on that), what Bush has proposed seems more than a simple “surge.” Those who hate and distrust him will consider his speech mere words, just more of the same old same old. And it’s true, speeches are always “mere words;” the only thing that matters is action and results.

But those of us (myself included) who believe that although Bush and his generals have made errors, such errors are not only common in all wars, but especially unavoidable in a counterinsurgency/assymetrical-warfare/nation-building situation such as that in Iraq, and will give the plan the benefit of the doubt and let it play out.

Because, make no mistake about it, it is exceptionally important that the situation in Iraq be stabilized. As Bush said, if we withdraw:

Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and…would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people.

There are some interesting possibilities hidden in the speech as almost throwaway lines. One is this:

[Previously t]here were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes.

Without actually using the phrase “rules of engagment,” it sounds as though these restrictive and controversial rules have been–or are about to be–expanded and changed. This is huge, if it happens.

What’s different about the counter-insurgency methods? According to Bush, now we will have enough forces to stay and hold after clearing neighborhoods; before we could not. (After the speech, I watched Major-General Bob Scales explain details of force ratios, and why this plan has a decent chance of succeeding where previous ones failed.) There was also a suggestion by Bush that troop levels will be increased across the board, not just in Iraq.

For me, one of the strongest parts of the speech was this:

This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations, or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering.

Sadly, he is correct there. The strength of our enemy is that it has realized our deep susceptibility to casualties and media reports of bloodshed. We are a compassionate society, not a hardened one, and such sensitivity is ordinarily a good thing. But in this war against an enemy that cares not one whit about such bloodshed and even feeds on it, these emotions on the part of Western society are cynically exploited and turned against us. Our compassion has become (to borrow a phrase from Churchill) our “soft underbelly,” the very best way to attack us.

Bush asks for patience and resolve on the part of the nation. I doubt he’ll get it, especially from those Democrats bound and determined to oppose him and withdraw ASAP. Consequences of such an abandonment? They don’t need no steenking consequences.

After the speech, I was watching a Fox News interview with Newt Gingrich, not one of my favorites for his role as Speaker in the 90s. But I liked this: when asked “What part should polls play in military strategy decisions?” Newt answered (correctly, I believe), “None,” and cited appropriate historical references (Lincoln, for example). He then went on to say that, when the people are fed a steady diet of despair, they respond to what they’ve heard; and that, if this approach brings victory, a year from now the polls will be quite different.

Bush’s speech was sobering and comprehensive: he acknowledged mistakes, made it clear how important success is, described details and strategy, was realistic about the long hard fight ahead, attempted to define success, and declared limits on what we’ll give Iraq if they don’t cooperate. But, as Bill Kristol said in an interview later (paraphrasing here): the plan is more important than the speech, and the implementation of the plan is more important than the plan.

As for me, I deeply wish Bush had done this before. What took him so long? Why did it require the Republican loss of the election to motivate him to hatch a new plan? That’s one of Bush’s biggest flaws. Call it loyalty, call it stubbornness, call it whatever you want–he waited too long. I hope the wait has not been fatal to victory; it certainly has hampered and delayed it.

One of Lincoln’s strengths was that he was able to change a strategy that was not succeeding. His grasp of military matters was apparently unusual for a civilian. Like all wars, the Civil War differed in some respects from those that had gone before it, and innovations were required to meet new challenges. But it was still essentially a conventional war, with armies arrayed on battlefields, and territory lost and won.

The current war, featuring assymetrical warfare against this particular enemy, seems as though it may be more profoundly different than what’s gone before in the long sweep of history, although in some ways it does resemble other long-drawn-out conflicts such as Vietnam and Algeria (especially in the terrorist tactics of the enemy). Those who expect an easy or textbook victory will be disappointed and angry, ready to pull out and abandon Iraq as good riddance to bad business. As Bush said:

It can be tempting to think that America can put aside the burdens of freedom… Now America is engaged in a new struggle that will set the course for a new century.

And then he added:

We can and we will prevail.

We will, if we have the will to do so.

Sophia’s available: now get in line, all you guys of a certain age

The New Neo Posted on by

Sophia Loren’s husband Carlo Ponti has died at the age of 94 (hat tip: Pajamas Media).

Sophia made my list of ten all-time favorite movie stars back in May of 2005. She was (well, I suppose she still is, but I haven’t seen a movie of hers in decades) that rarest of rara aves: a sex symbol, a comedienne, and a serious actress, all in roughly equal measure.

Apparently she’s an intelligent and witty woman, as well. Her marriage to Ponti–one most people would not have bet on for longevity, back when she was 23 and he, at 45, had left his first wife and defied Italy’s restrictive divorce laws to wed Loren in Mexico by proxy–withstood the test of time.

Ponti and Loren were one of those odd couples whose attraction to each other was somewhat opaque to outsiders (that is, of course, hers to him. His to her was plain enough). He must have been a charming and charismatic man, however, at the very least.

I especially liked the Loren-Mastroianni cinema combination. In “Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow,” as well as the wonderful-but-virtually-unobtainable-on-video “Marriage, Italian Style,” she showed her comedic talents as well as her physical assets.

But it was her Oscar-winning performance in “Two Women” (produced by Ponti, as were so many of her films) that was a revelation. I saw it when I was very young–perhaps too young. But I couldn’t help but be awed by the deeply emotional and yet utterly naturalistic performance of Loren as a mother trying (and failing) to protect her daughter from the chaos of war.

At any rate, the statuesque Loren and the diminutive Ponti had been married for nearly fifty years when he died, a record unusual for anyone these days, and almost unheard of for a star. One thing is certain: Loren’s loyalty to Ponti wasn’t for lack of opportunity: Cary Grant fell head over heels in love with her, to name just one of many.

But I think this sums it up best, found at Loren’s Wikipedia biography:

The Archbishop of Genoa once said that although the Vatican opposed human cloning, “an exception might be made in the case of Sophia Loren.”

[ADDENDUM: By the way, when I was looking up Mastroianni I discovered in the Wiki article that he himself was married close to fifty years, to one woman. However, in classic marriage, Italian-style, he had a longtime mistress, with whom he had a child. The name of said mistress? Catherine Deneuve. Poor guy.]

“Some Iraqis Express Doubts About New US Strategy:” why, who woulda thunk it?

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s a wonderful headline that caught my eye, from, of all things, the Voice of America: “Some Iraqis express doubts about new US strategy.”

Why, goodness gracious me my, they do? I’m so astonished I hardly know where to begin. But I’ll try.

I’ve noticed lately (and by “lately,” I don’t mean in the last few days, I mean during the last decade or so) a growing propensity for the media to chew, swallow, digest, and excrete a story before it has even happened. A good example of the genre was the ISG report–remember that? Heard much of the report lately? No; despite the pre-report hype, it died a merciful death shortly after its release because it was so–to be blunt–profoundly stupid and misguided in its suggestion of negotiation with Iran and Syria, the biggest of a couple of whoppers that didn’t sit well most segments of US public, political, or pundit opinion.

And now it remains to be seen whether Bush’s new plan for Iraq, when announced tonight, will be the same one the media has been discussing endlessly. My guess, by the way, is that at least the broad outlines will be similar; I’m not sure about the details. Maybe it’s just me, but wouldn’t it be awfully nice to wait and see what the man actually says before we get incessant, 24-hour a day, worldwide coverage of the reaction to it?

In addition, this particular story struck me as especially meaningless, and transparently so. It is the quintessential “dog bites man” story–after all, a certain segment of a population is going to have an opinion pro or con virtually anything. Just listen to the late-night program “Coast to Coast” (I seldom do, but every now and then I turn it on for a moment) to get an idea of how many people believe, oh, in just about any wacky theory anyone can dream up.

Now, don’t get me wrong. Having doubts about the new US strategy is most definitely not akin to thinking the earth is flat, that we never got to the moon, or that Jesus was a mushroom (the latter was the subject of one especially flabbergasting “Coast to Coast” segment I happened to flip onto late one night. Ten minutes were quite enough, thanks you, but they were memorable.)

And as for doubts–well, even I have doubts about Bush’s strategy, whatever it might be. Doubts are part of human existence, especially in war. I’ve quoted Helmuth von Motke the Elder’s (love that name!) famous dictum before, but I’ll do it again: No battle plan survives contact with the enemy.

And I am certain that the average Iraqi has plenty of doubts at this point about a plan he/she doesn’t know the details of yet, that hasn’t been implemented, and that follows so many dashed hopes raised by previous campaigns and promises. This is news?

The Voice of America article hits some sort of reporting low–at least, I hope it’s a low. It quotes three average unnamed Iraqis as expressing some rather reasonable-sounding reservations, then mentions the official Iraqi government line that states the plan will succeed (surprise, surprise!).

Why am I picking on this particular obscure story? Well, for one thing, I found it in the first place because it was highlighted by Google as one of its top stories for today, so it’s getting an awful lot of attention relative to any merit it might have. For another, even though it’s an extreme example, it shows the naked media tendency towards shaping the news in a negative and often meaningless way: write a headline that makes it look as though Iraqis have already rejected Bush’s plan (and perhaps they have, but you wouldn’t know it based on the evidence in this story), do a cursory job of interviewing a couple of people who subscribe to the views you’re seeking, and call it a day.

They say there’s no bad publicity: Pajamas makes the Times (sort of)

The New Neo Posted on by

In this story about how bloggers won’t let go of the controversy over the existence of quoted AP source Jamil Hussein, Maria Aspen writes (in the business section of the NY Times):

In a reference to a memorable swipe that Jonathan Klein, CNN’s head of domestic operations, once took at bloggers who work from their living rooms, Ms. Wagner wrote in an e-mail message: “Our reporters are not ‘pajamas media.’ ”

She added, “Our reporters tell what they’ve seen and heard to editors who ask tougher questions than many of these bloggers might imagine.”

Oh, I dunno; I can imagine some pretty tough questions, although not maybe NY Times-tough or AP-tough. “Have you stopped beating your wife?” for example. Or even, “Do you have independent corroboration of this source?”

Be that as it may, I have a sneaking suspicion that, unbeknownst to Ms. Aspen, Ms. Wagner’s reference was a double one–not just to Klein’s original memorable (and sexist!! Let’s not forget sexist!) statement (“You couldn’t have a starker contrast between the multiple layers of check and balances [at ’60 Minutes’] and a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas writing.”) , but to the media group of which I’m a proud member, Pajamas Media.

They say there’s no bad publicity, but unfortunately, Ms. Aspen doesn’t seem to have heard of Pajamas; my guess is that Ms. Wagner has.

Now, here’s a Democrat who makes sense

The New Neo Posted on by

I like Joe Donnelly’s style.

Who’s Joe Donnelly? A very freshman US Congressman from Indiana, one of the Blue Dog Democrats (in fact, being a freshman, Donnelly might better be called a “blue pup”–and no, I didn’t make the term up, as you’ll see if you follow the link).

Donnelly isn’t all that pleased with Nancy Pelosi. Nor is he–despite his “pup” status–all that awed by Ms. Speaker:

If Pelosi “goes too far one way or another, we’re not coming back,” Donnelly says. He sees his party’s victory in the November elections as less an endorsement of its agenda than a rejection of Republican rule: “People just got real tired of this bunch, and they fired them.”

It turns out that there are thirty Blue Dogs in the House right now. And it also turns out that the Democrats outnumber the Republicans there by a margin of thirty-one. So you don’t need to be a math wizard to see that those Blue Dogs are the key to the whole thing for the Democrats.

In recent decades it seems that, more and more, each party’s leaders tend to come from the more extreme wings of their respective parties. And it’s the nature of such politicians to look on any victory as a mandate for their point of view. But–as I’ve said before–ignore the law of thirds at your peril.

Pelosi may be in the act of making the Newt Gingrich error. Coming on so strong against whatever plan Bush announces for Iraq might not only be counterproductive in terms of the war itself, and the world’s perception of our will and our ability to keep our word–but it may even be counterproductive in terms of what Pelosi really seems to care about, victory for the Democrats in ’08.

I’ll let Donnelly, no Bush sycophant (Donnelly refers to the war in Iraq as a “disaster”), have the last word on this one:

[Donnelly] doesn’t support the fixed timetable for withdrawal proposed by Pennsylvania Democrat John Murtha that Pelosi, 66, has endorsed. Instead, like Bush, he opposes any withdrawal until Iraq is “stabilized.”

“My goal is to help the president,” he said in an interview. “I am not going to rip him to shreds. If he does a better job, then our soldiers can be more successful, Iraq can be stabilized and our troops can come home.”

Works for me.

“A Jewish veneer for the annihilation of Jews”

The New Neo Posted on by

They’re a fringe, it’s true–but a fringe that detractors of Israel have made much of.

I’m speaking of the ultra-orthodox religious Jews who are anti-Zionist. That’s their prerogative, of course; eveyone’s entitled to his/her opinion, yada yada yada.

But some of them go further then that; in fact, it turns out that six of the delegates to the mid-December 2006 Iranian Holocaust denial conference were such Jews. Collaborating with an Iran bent on the destruction of Israel and Jews is quite a stretch.

And, amidst the hatefest that the conference represented, you can be sure that those Jews were not ignored by the press. In fact, they were highlighted in many instances. Granted, it’s a sort of “man bites dog” story, inherently both fascinating and shocking–but still.

For example, several British papers had articles on the conference that featured only one photo illustrating the event. What visuals did they see fit to show? You guessed it; only the anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews (see this, for example).

It’s hard to know quite what to say about this one. I’ll start by simply quoting it:

[Austrian rabbi Moshe Friedman] noted, “We should focus on the reality that the behind-the-curtain individuals and financial providers as well as perpetrators of some of the World War II crimes had been Zionists themselves.” Now another Holocaust has taken place, this time involving Palestinians and Arabs — something unprecedented in history, he added.

The Austrian Rabbi also thanked Iran as the best venue for the conference on the Holocaust because it used to remain neutral during the World War II and was not involved in the event.

Friedman described Iran as a model country in dealing with and tolerating religious minorities.

I recall reading that the motivation for people such as Friedman is the idea that Israel’s establishment should only happen when the Messiah came, not through political maneuvering or the UN. So they regarded Israel as illegitimate from the very first.

And here’s a letter explaining this group, and likening them to the Judenrat in the Nazi era:

…the Muslims who thirst for Jewish blood are using the Neturei Karta [the orthodox anti-Zionist group] as the Nazis once used the Judenrat (a Nazi-organized system of “Jew Councils” staffed by local Jews and established for the purpose of liaising between the Nazis and the ghettoized Jewish population pending their deportation to the death camps) — namely, to provide a Jewish veneer for the annihilation of Jews.

A perfect way to put it: a Jewish veneer for the annihilation of Jews.

Here’s a discussion of the horrific dilemma that was faced by those tapped to become part of the Judenrat; the situation was not always a simple one of collaboration or self-centeredness. And the ultra-Orthodox anti-Zionists by no means represent an exact parallel.

These modern day ultra-Orthodox anti-Zionists are part of an ancient tradition, however, that of the “useful Jew” (somewhat akin to the “useful idiot“). It’s true that, under threat of death (as in the World War II Judenrat), the normal human desire to save one’s own skin operates in all groups. But what’s Friedman’s excuse?

[[NOTE: I was reminded of this phenomenon when I read Siggy’s post of the day, in which he likened the so-called “religious progressives” and their complicity with anti-Semitism to the Judenrat of World War II. He also discusses some of the moral complexities of the Judenrats’ dilemma.]

5 things you don’t know about me

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ve been tagged for one of those meme things by my friend Fausta, “five things you don’t know about me.”

Ah. what to divulge? I have an unusual breadth of choice, since some of the most basic facts about me are unknown on the blog (real name and specific place of residence, for starters). So I suppose I could take this as an opportunity for a huge unveiling.

I don’t think so. But I will reveal the following:

(1) Sometimes I do toy with the idea of “coming out,” and divulging my actual name and un-apple-shielded photo. Maybe some day.

(2) I am a fabulous cook, if I do say so myself (and I do say so myself). Maybe my trolls would like it if I put more recipes up here. Nope, suppose not.

(3) Doing the podcast was a big deal for me because I’ve always been a bit sensitive about my voice. Not my voice in private life–that seems okay–but as a public vehicle for getting points across. I have always been more comfortable writing; I prefer the ability to craft and to contemplate, although on a blog I rarely get the chance or the time to craft things as much as I’d like. Other times, when I’ve performed, I’ve been voiceless; a dancer. So the podcast has been a real stretch for me, but I’ve enjoyed it more than I imagined I would.

(4) I have small feet, hands, and ears. In fact, when I buy gloves, I need to go to the children’s section, and this despite the fact that I’m of more or less average height. I mourn the fact that gloves no longer come in sizes other than small, medium, large–the “small” being jumungous, as far as I’m concerned. I think I used to be a size 5, which they actually used to make, and they actually used to fit.

(5) I’m a wonderful friend. Ask any of my friends.

Oh, and here’s a sixth: a posed photo from my dancing days, just turned sixteen. I look exactly and precisely the same now, of course.

[ADDENDUM: I forgot to pass the meme baton. Take it or leave it, folks, as you wish: Sisu, Alexandra, Shrinkwrapped, Dr. Sanity, and Varifrank.

No surge, Dems urge: beware those helicopters!

The New Neo Posted on by

You think I sing a repetitious dirge
“Iraq, Vietnam; please let the two diverge!”
But here’s some news: the Democrats they urge,
“Oh Mr. Bush, don’t recommend a surge!”

And why? They say we’re surely on the verge
Of failure. It’s inevitable. A scourge
Successor Pres (a Dem?) will have to purge
As copters on the roof, they re-emerge.

Yes, you might accuse me of becoming a bit obsessed about this Vietnam/Iraq bitter end comparison. But it keeps surfacing in the news, even if I try to avoid it.

For example, in the article in the NY Daily News that inspired my poem, this is the statement by Senator Joseph Biden that I found especially infuriating in light of history:

In an obvious reference to Vietnam, Biden said Bush intended to leave it to the next President to land “helicopters in the Green Zone, taking people off the roof.”

Okay, Joe, you brought it up. And, if you want to be partisan about it, Vietnam was a war in which the major escalation and commitment of US combat forces was the decision of two successive Democratic Presidents and solidly Democratic Congresses (controlled by the Democrats with substantial majorities for the entire duration of the war).

The Republican President who succeeded the two Democrats, Nixon, presided over the drawdown of US troops known as Vietnamization. Those helicopters on the roof were the direct result of the abrupt and sharp reduction of funding voted by a Democratic-led Congress, which made the defeat of the South virtually inevitable and rather sudden, as well. A new Republican President, Ford, was left holding that bag””but the bag was filled mostly by Democrats.

President Bush is a stubborn man, it’s true. He has no intention of abandoning Iraq, although if the Democrats (and some Republicans, to be sure) have anything to say about it they will force him to. But to suggest, as Biden has, that President Bush’s motivation for wanting a surge is to delay things in order to screw the new administration (Biden probably hopes and expects it to be a Democratic one) that will succeed Bush is one of the lowest statements I’ve heard in a good long while, even from a Senator.

The article in the Daily News mentions that Harry Reid has said Bush’s commanders aren’t in favor of a surge, and so he’s “shuffling them in and out” till he finds one who agrees with him. This article in the NY Times describes the situation as far more complex (of course) than Reid indicates. The military has long been divided into two disagreeing camps on that score. The new commander, General Petraeus, labeled as “articulate,” is one of the strong advocates of the surge approach. He has overseen the drafting of a recent new counterinsurgency manual, an area in which he seems to be expert.

This doesn’t mean the new effort will succeed, even if it manages to clear the Congressional hurdles being set up for it. After all, it’s a military truism that no battle plan survives contact with the enemy. But it’s not surprising that Bush has chosen a general who believes in the same approach that Bush favors, and who represents a different point of view than those who have gone before. And it’s no surprise, either, that this point of view is not in line with the defeatist stance of Democrats such as Biden, with visions of helicopters on the roof dancing in his head.

Interestingly enough, it was Saddam Hussein who presciently foresaw this course of events. As I wrote at the time of our November elections:

…no one’s ever accused Saddam of being dumb. Here’s an interesting tidbit that shows how smart he really was: in the buildup to the Iraqi war in 2003, Saddam was already making the Vietnam analogy:

In the days leading up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, television stations there showed 1975 footage of U.S. embassy support personnel escaping to helicopters from the roof of the U.S. embassy in Saigon. It was Saddam’s message to his people that the United States does not keep its commitments …

Too bad he isn’t around to see it all, isn’t it?

Could Congress pull off a 1974-1975 redux, after all?

The New Neo Posted on by

Yesterday I wrote about the limitations Congress might face in opposing a “surge” of American troops in Iraq if–as rumor would have it–such a surge is part of Bush’s new Iraq policy to be unveiled next week.

Today I read this article by E.J. Dionne, which describes some more creative solutions contemplated by Democratic leaders such as Biden.

As I wrote yesterday, at this point the only direct way to oppose the surge would be some sort of vast reduction in military funding as a whole–as opposed to the mere cutting back of foreign aid to a specific country, as was done to the South Vietnamese at the tail end of 1974, when US combat forces had departed years earlier.

But there are indirect ways, as well–for example, a Congressional resolution which could, according to Biden:

…have a powerful effect if it drew support from the significant number of Republican senators who are increasingly alienated from Bush’s policies. An anti-surge resolution might not bind the president, says Biden, but it would exert considerable pressure on him to reconsider his approach.

I’m not sure he doesn’t underestimate (or “misunderestimate”) Bush’s ability to resist such pressure. After all, as I pointed out yesterday, it’s not as though Bush is up for re-election. And I’m not sure he cares all that much, either, about the re-election prospects of those Republicans in Congress who might be anti-surge, especially when weighed in the balance against what he sees as the importance of fighting the insurgency and terrorists in Iraq.

But Biden has a few more tricks up his sleeve. And in this, he’s also aided by (what else?) the ghost of Vietnam:

Biden is studying whether Congress might reconsider the original Iraq War resolution, which is now as out of date as the news stories of 2002, the year it passed. The resolution includes references to a “significant chemical and biological weapons capability” that Iraq didn’t have and repeated condemnations of “the current Iraqi regime,” i.e., the Saddam Hussein regime that fell long ago. In effect, the resolution authorizes a war on an enemy who no longer exists and for purposes that are no longer relevant.

Dionne also points out that Senator Carl Levin has high hopes for the passage of a resolution he has crafted with another Democratic Senator, Jack Reed, calling for benchmarks and a withdrawal plan.

It remains to be seen what effect such resolutions might have on this particular President. But the drawback of any such “benchmarks and a withdrawal plan” is that they would make our schedule public and transparent not only to US citizens but also to the enemy, who would be more than willing to lay low during any “surge,” wait it out, and take over after we left.

The inherent telegraphing to our enemy of our lack of intent to–in that hackneyed, overused, but still important phrase, “stay the course”–would probably be a fatal blow to any campaign we might mount at this point. To put the kindest face on it, I wonder whether Biden, Levin, and their colleagues realize how important it is to communicate motivation and resolve to any enemy.

The consequences of the pullout in Vietnam were not only huge for those who suffered thereafter in Vietnam and Cambodia, but for the perception of American will and strength in the world. Our words and our promises were considered hollow; we were now a paper tiger. The same would be true–only perhaps more so–for an abandonment of Iraq.

The sharp cutoff in funding to South Vietnam that I mentioned in yesterday’s post was only one of several efforts by Congress back then, however, to tie the hands of the US in prosecuting the Vietnam War, even after our combat troops had been withdrawn. Vietnam timelines indicate the following, as well, acts which served to clearly telegraph our lack of intent there:

June 24, 1970 – The U.S. Senate repeals the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. [Perhaps a precedent for Biden’s current plans outlined above?]

June 19, 1973 – The U.S. Congress passes the Case-Church Amendment which forbids any further U.S. military involvement in Southeast Asia, effective August 15, 1973. The veto-proof vote is 278-124 in the House and 64-26 in the Senate. The Amendment paves the way for North Vietnam to wage yet another invasion of the South, this time without fear of U.S. bombing.

This amendment was passed after all US combat troops had been withdrawn. It also would have tied Nixon’s (or any subsequent President’s) hands in any efforts to fulfill Nixon’s “secret promise” to South Vietnam at the time of the Peace Accords that the US would come to their aid militarily if the North violated the terms of those Accords in the future. Because of Congress, both the North and the South knew that was not going to happen.

Here’s another move by Congress from the timeline:

November 7, 1973 – Congress passes the War Powers Resolution requiring the President to obtain the support of Congress within 90 days of sending American troops abroad.

This somewhat controversial resolution, whose constitutionality has been debated, remains in force today. It’s an example of the constant tension between the executive and legislative branches of government on the question of the powers to wage war, especially limited actions that fall short of a full declaration of war.

If you go back to that Vietnam timeline and read about events during the year 1972, you’ll get a deeper appreciation of what was happening there as Vietnamization progressed. As US fighting forces withdrew, the South Vietnamese were not doing badly against the North. However, there were heavy Vietnamese casualties on both sides (although not US ones) and the international community was protesting.

Crucial US support at the time consisted not just of military and technical aid, but of bombing Hanoi and Haiphong and mining harbors in the North. Note, especially, that the various Linebacker operations had been fairly successful against the North. The Case-Church amendment, passed not long after as a result of outrage against the casualties involved, made it a certainty that no more such operations could be launched.

Read, also, the years 1973 through 1975. The Peace Accords represented a strange compromise that allowed Northern forces to remain in the South, against the will of the South Vietnamese, who were powerless to object because of their fear that the US would cut assistance (which, of course, ended up happening anyway). The successive acts of Congress mentioned above, even before the final financial blow at the end of 1974 (particularly the Case-Church amendment), effectively curtailed the US ability to respond, and the North and South both knew it.

The history of struggle between Congress and the President for control of war powers reached a head during Vietnam. Iraq and Vietnam are different, but they are linked in certain ways. The next few months will see a repeat, not of the specific details, but of the general principles of the jockeying for power between the two branches.

The consequences were huge back in the 70s. This time they will be even larger, no matter which way it goes.