Choose: A Media Princess Or A Hero Colonel

National Review Online: America's Tabloid Frenzy Leaves Little Airtime For Soldier Appreciation

(National Review Online)  This column was written by Victor Davis Hanson.

---

Which of these two do we Americans know anything about?

Is it the daily minutiae of an empty-headed blond, or the enlightened action of a Marine colonel in Iraq, who helped turn once-murderous Sunni insurgents into fellow enemies of al Qaeda — in a war that might well change the future of millions in the region and of Americans here at home?

In this time of war, our news channels — with updated alerts no less that interrupt the usual IED fare from Iraq — tell us more than we wish about O.J.’s latest rampage in Vegas. But they give us almost nothing about Colonels Rick Gibbs, or David Sutherland, or J.B. Burton, or Paul Funk, or Michael Kershaw — or dozens more like Cols. J.R. McMaster and Chris Gibson, who are daily trying to incorporate former enemies in the so-called Triangle of Death into coalition forces to stabilize Iraq.

How they, and hundreds of their fellow officers — away from their families on serial tours, replete with M.A.s and Ph.D.s, and often survivors of multiple IED attacks — do this is largely lost on the American public in a way Aruba, the ghost of the drug-laden Anna Nicole Smith, and the trashy Britney Spears are not.

I don’t wish to suggest that our present titillation on the home front, or amnesia about those fighting overseas, is entirely foreign to the American war experience. In 1942 Americans kept their business-as-usual East Coast cities lit up at night, apparently oblivious that their resulting silhouetted freighters meant German U-boats would sink a fifth of the entire U.S. merchant fleet in the first year of the war, along with slaughtering 5,000 Americans, usually right off the American shoreline.

Nor should we entirely blame the increasing tabloidization on Fox News and the other less watched 24/7 all-news cable stations that in some respects offer more war coverage than do the major network stations. It is debatable, after all, whether the National Enquirer-hype of Greta Van Susteren, for so long embedded in Aruba, itself promotes the inconsequential as news, or simply reflects — in a competitive war for ratings and market share — our preexisting public inanity.

Or is the neglect of our soldiers in battle because our leaders have never asked us to sacrifice in a manner commensurate with the hundreds of thousands of soldiers who have served in Afghanistan and Iraq? Should we have paid as we fought — with a fuel tax to meet the spiraling costs of the war — or crafted a bipartisan agreement to cut spending to beef up our military, or a comprehensive energy policy of more conservation, alternate energies and oil exploration to make the Middle East irrelevant to our future survival?

Or in a postmodern war this complex, was the eloquence of a Churchill or an FDR — who pass by us once in a century — needed to galvanize the public about the insidious terrorist danger, and why we will not and cannot lose Iraq?

Whatever the debatable causes of our neglect, the effects of our preference for the trivial as our own fight and die in Iraq are that we have no idea of the real story of this war — raw history that is made even as we snooze. Remember, Iraq is not Grenada, Panama, or even the Balkans. It is a terribly dangerous, geo-strategic war that involves post-9/11 Islam, the world’s fragile petroleum supply, a rising and increasingly lunatic Iran, and the very notion that American ground forces can still fight and win a war of counter-insurgency in which all their conventional assets of firepower and superior training can be nullified by cheap IEDs, the lies of Al-Jazzera, and terrorist killers hiding among civilians.

It seems instead that one of two things is going on that explains why only a fraction of the American people follows our soldiers. Either Iraq has become a taboo subject, evoked only to cast blame ad nauseam about what went wrong or who erred in 2003-5, or we as a people have become crasser, in our leisure and influence — more glued to good-looking empty-heads than the hearts and souls of those who defend us. But, of course, a society that does not fathom who keeps them safe in order that it might stare at Oprah and fixate on Brad and Angelina, eventually will be a society not kept safe either to so stare or fixate.

What is going on in Iraq is quite remarkable in a number of historical ways that should have earned our rapt attention. We entered Iraq to remove Saddam, did that brilliantly, and then found ourselves in a complex second war to stabilize the new democracy, one in which almost everyone in the Middle East upped the ante — Syria to ensure that Iraq failed and did not undermine by example its own autocracy; Jordan and the Gulf monarchies to thwart nearby Shiite-dominated rule; and Iran to become regional hegemon by weakening its historical rival Iraq and bogging down the United States. The result is that we found ourselves not just in a war for Iraq, but one for the entire Middle East — the rewards of success and the penalties for failure far beyond what was imaginable in March 2003.

Nor have we appreciated the radical changes of the last three months on the ground in Iraq. For a variety of reasons — Sunnis’ hatred of al Qaeda thugs, their general weariness and attrition by U.S. forces, fear of Shiite militias, and kindness shown them by American soldiers — American colonels and their staffs in Anbar and Diyala provinces have been able to enlist former Sunni insurgents into common cause against al Qaeda. This is startling, since if the transformation were to succeed, then al Qaeda would need to fail — and with it almost all Sunni resistance to the coalition.

Critics here at home argue that we invested too heavily in Iraq at the expense of Afghanistan. But the truth is that al Qaeda went for broke in Mesopotamia — the oil-rich heart of the ancient caliphate — and if defeated there will feel the losses from the Hindu Kush to the Philippines. And if the attacks from the Sunni extremists were to cease, then there would be far less reason to be for the Shiite militias, allowing the United States to turn its full attention to the plodding Maliki government to reach out and fuel Sunni efforts at reconciliation and reconstruction. That ordeal to get the elected Shiite-government to muzzle Shiite militias and to fairly distribute state monies and services to Sunni provinces is considerable — but it is manageable and not the same as the entire Sunni provinces in revolt, taking arms alongside al Qaeda.

In other words, the global war on terror is crystallizing in Iraq; Iraq is hinging on turning the Sunni insurgents and prodding the Maliki government; and the entire gambit rests on just a few anonymous American soldiers. So we should know the names of the Iraqis and Americans who brought this change about, in the manner we knew of Bastogne and Iwo Jima.

There is a third recent story that likewise went unnoticed as we turned our gaze from the radio jock Imus’s firing to George Clooney’s motorcycle spill. Iraq is now a colonel’s war, where American officers in their early forties in large swaths of Anbar and Diyala provinces are trying to fight, reconcile, and reconstruct entire provinces larger than some American states. In peacetime they would have the military responsibilities of two-star generals, the municipal worries of big-city mayors, and the administrative tasks of state governors.

Who they are, how they were trained and educated, and what they must do to succeed is a saga that would rivet the American people. I think most of the public would like to hear of the work of a Sean MacFarland, or an HR McMaster, or a Rick Gibbs, and JB Burton, and Chris Gibson, far more than they would the ranting of Cindy Sheehan, or the vulgarity of Sean Penn.

And, as important as the turn-around in Iraq is, there is yet another largely unknown, but related development. We are creating, from the midlevel up, an entirely new American army. Most of our present senior generals came of age after Vietnam; some saw only limited action in the four days of the 1991 Gulf War, and none in the largely air campaign in the Balkans. In contrast, our present Army and Marine majors, lieutenant- and full colonels, have seen nothing but hard war for the last five years in Afghanistan and Iraq — and with it prior wisdom proved folly, and what was once considered heretical now is now validated as doctrine.

If military history is any guide to the future — and if there is justice in the Pentagon — this group of highly educated officers will soon become our generals, with a wealth of knowledge, camaraderie, and a war-hardened sense not seen since the cauldron of Vietnam. And this time they will be buoyed by being acknowledged as victors in a humane cause.

So the next six months of this war are critical, both for the Iraqis and for the very future of our country as well. Who knows, perhaps Fox News can spotlight and profile one of these rare officers each week, just one captain, major or colonel — and maybe just one less blond high school teacher frolicking with her students?

[wogerwabbit]

"the rewards of success and the penalties for failure far beyond what was imaginable in March 2003"

You neocon traitors continually tell new lies to defend old lies hoping that the sheer weight of all your lies will warp history enough to be kindly to you. Not a chance. History will revile you like the Nazi''s you emulate.

[quatrops]

Well said, WogerWabbit!

Many colonels (our future generals) are no doubt doing a good job on specific objectives in Iraq and, reading between the lines in many commentaries, there are indications that many of these are aware of the absurdity and incompetence that resulted in their being where they are at the moment.

I would wager that most of these colonels would agree with the recent critical commentary from retired General Sanchez.

The sad fact is that no one is aware of what would constitute "victory" in Iraq. The administration''s "objectives" change with the wind.

The NRO misreads (no surprise there!) what the result will be when the current crop of colonels and junior officers become our military leaders and advisors.

There is hope!

[ioweign]

If military history is any guide to the future %u2014 and if there is justice in the Pentagon %u2014 this group of highly educated officers will soon become our generals, with a wealth of knowledge, camaraderie, and a war-hardened sense not seen since the cauldron of Vietnam. And this time they will be buoyed by being acknowledged as victors in a humane cause.


Justice in the Pentagon - as in War Crimes !

this group of highly educated officers will soon grab their retirement benefits after 20 yrs and get a high paying desk job at Blackwater or Haliburton.

Victor Hanson should stay focused on his raisin grapes .

[wogerwabbit]

"We are building a new American Century. We are going to maintain a position of Uni-polar Super-Power status, and if we have to break a few eggs to do it, then so be it."

Posted by darkmeat4

And that is exactly what is wrong with this country... know nothings who think it''s OK to rape the world as they slash and burn their way to heaven... as long as it''s someone else dying for their cause. Over-inflated ego''s using the big "we" word when they themselves have done nothing, do nothing and count for nothing. No experience, no morals, no God.

And, you fools think we won''t fight back, that we''ll let you turn our great country into a fascist state so you can feel safe? You planned this lunacy just as well you guys did Iraq. And as usual, you''ve got it all wrong again!

To sell out our country like that has to be the most craven act of cowardice in our history.

[ioweign]

We are building a new American Century. We are going to maintain a position of Uni-polar Super-Power status, and if we have to break a few eggs to do it, then so be it.

Posted by darkmeat4 at 02:09 PM : Oct 14, 2007

It is Nation Building - another Bush lie !

Nov. 6, 2000 George W. Bush
Let me tell you what else I''m worried about: I''m worried about an opponent who uses nation building and the military in the same sentence. See, our view of the military is for our military to be properly prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place.

Oct. 11, 2000 George W. Bush
Somalia. It started off as a humanitarian mission then changed into a nation-building mission and that''s where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price, and so I don''t think our troops ought to be used for what''s called nation building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow a dictator when it''s in our best interests. But in this case, it was a nation-building exercise. And same with Haiti. I wouldn''t have supported either.

Oct. 4, 2000 George W. Bush (Presidential debate, Oct. 4, 2000)
I think we''ve got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in national building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders.

[quatrops]

Darkmeat4 must be off his meds again (or ODd on them, I''m not sure which!). His sad, sick fantasies about the future of America make me wonder about the lack of constructive, well-articulated conservative feedback in the Comments section.

I can only speculate that most reasoned conservatives don''t write in because they don''t want to be associated with the neo-con nut jobs that constitute the majority of commentary from the right.

Please, folks, write in! Those of us closer to the center would enjoy a dialogue that doesn''t involve the vitriol, bile, and sad fantasies of these sickos.

[wogerwabbit]

our ultimate goal of keeping China and India our manufacturing slaves will be achieved

you''re sick!

[imnho]

More of alice in wonderland from the NRO. Iraq is a quagmire. It will keep using up people and materials until we decide to cut are losses and withdraw. The allance between our army and the Sunni''s is sure to end as soon as AQ is driven out.

We are not dealing with people who think and act excatly like us. They "march to the beat of a different drummer."

[quatrops]

"Christian masters" is an oxymoron.

[wogerwabbit]

darkmeat4, there''s nothing to prove... you''re a sick puppy, your words leave no doubt about it. You want war? Go to war an learn what it''s really about. See for yourself how "great" it is... it''s a lot different than playing with your G.I Joe dolls which you probably count as "experience".

[quatrops]

The great majority of conservatives are principled people with reasonably sound minds. Their failure to engage in dialogue in this "Comments" section (leaving input from the right to a few neo-con dingbats) is akin to that great majority of moderate Muslims who fail to actively respond to the "Islamo-fascists".

Another subject: Try this for "logic". A writer who forsees an ideal future where India, China, and others knuckle under to their "Christian masters" quotes Goldwater, "They must learn to make their views known without making their views the only alternative." ???????????

Those who fail to see that Christ''s message was anything BUT being "masters" of one''s fellow humans is a Christian in name only. "Christian masters" is an oxymoron.

"Amazing Grace" was written AFTER Newton recognized the evil of slave trading. Pointing out his authorship is hardly an argument for a world based on master/slave relationships.

[usbrit-2009]

I think we should have rolled into Iran and Syria.

We should have destroyed N Korea, one way or the likely other. The people wouldnt even know they were in a nuclear wasteland.

We should have supported the Serbs, and closed our eyes to their cleansing.

We should have allowed Saddam to take Saudi and Kuwait, and a few other countries, he hated Islamic extremists.

Posted by darkmeat4

There is more psychopathic ignorance shown in this one post than I believe I''ve seen since I started reading thes blogs six months ago.

Given your ideas, I presume that you''d rather the Nazis had completely taken over Europe in WWII on the basis that Hitler would never have allowed Muslims to survive in his Empire, thus keeping them further from the shores of the good ol'' US of A.

Evn you have to realize that "rolling into Iran and Syria" would directly lead to WWIII. a) Both Iran and Syria have far better trained soldiers thanIraq ever had (note the hard task the US has had in retraining them) and b) Russia has always sided with Irna and Syria against the USA, so Putin would feel duty bound to join in, leading to an uncontrollable conflagration.

As for your advocation of ethnic cleansing, well I hardly believe that you should even be called American.

In three words you digust me!!

[quatrops]

You''re correct, USBrit. My own reaction to these diatribes has turned from disgust to sympathy. This is not a well person!

Psychologists and psychiatrists have long recognized the difficulty of treating patients who, rather than integrating an ideology are taken over by it. It, in effect, "owns" them. To use his phrase, "who is the slave and who is the master?"

I''m in neither of those professions, just a lay observer of human nature. Let''s wish him well!

[usbrit-2009]

I agree that the Ba''ath party and the SS did combine forces in the early years of WWII against the common enemy of Great Britain. The Arabs were, however, treated as cannon fodder to occupy the Brits on the Eastern front (Iraq etc.). They were never treated as equals, and Hitler would have had little use for them in the peace time German Empire where Aryans would rule absolutely. That''s 1) history dealt with.

2) Common sense; anyone who would advocate a world war obviously has none - well by normal readings of the expression anyway.

3) Logic; "I think you libtards are mentally ill;" since it it you yourself who is obviously mentally ill as diagnosed on these very pages, your logic is obviously biased, counterintuitive, factually deficient and otherwise totally out to lunch.

4) Sanity - all I need to do here is reference point 2.

Now will you please remove your sick policies back to Faux News or Limpbore or Shammity or any other of the cretinous right wing outlets where you might be treated with dignity, and leave those with IQ''s higher than our age alone!!!!!!!

[dmgenet]

Maybe it''s because the majority of the electorate have already made up their mind about the Iraq war and are waiting for Bush to exit the White House.

If caring for the military fighting in Iraq would help then they would have been out of there by now.

[quatrops]

We liberals use a "word of the day colander" so we''ll know what day it is when draining the spaghetti.

We don''t bother to dispute darkmeat''s "facts" usually, because they are not facts. They often appear to be selected bits of disinformation from the Limbaughs et al, or, worse yet, some of that hate-filled garbage from one of those weird fundamentalist "Cristian" radio cults.

The latter, incidentally, is probably where he tries to get off calling himself a "Christian". As for his assessment that I am disinclined to debate his "facts" because that is somehow indicative of homosexual behavior, all I can respond, darkmeat, is that we have now discovered another target for your hate!

Which is why many of us write: To encourage or tempt him respond in order to expose more of himself. As one writer said, "One sick puppy!"

[quatrops]

See para. 4 at 7:55 and your 11:05.

Match

[quatrops]

ZZZZZzzzzzz . . . .