Purporting to document Pollack's evolving views on Iraq, CNN left out his original gung-ho Iraq "tune"
During the July 30 edition of CNN Newsroom, anchor Heidi Collins introduced Kenneth Pollack of The Brookings Institution by saying that Pollack "has been a vocal critic of the administration's handling of the [Iraq] war, but he says that an eight-day visit has changed his outlook a bit." Collins also said that Pollack's "tune is changing a bit" with respect to the war. Pollack went on to discuss how a recent visit to Iraq has left him "more optimistic" about the war. However, while focusing on Pollack's criticisms of the "handling" of the war, Collins failed to note that Pollack was an influential proponent of the Iraq invasion before it happened, leaving viewers with the impression that Pollack was a war opponent who has become more supportive of the war. Pollack's 2002 book on the subject was titled The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq (Random House).
Describing Pollack's book in a February 8, 2003, New York Times op-ed, Times executive editor Bill Keller wrote: "Kenneth Pollack, the Clinton National Security Council expert whose argument for invading Iraq is surely the most influential book of this season, has provided intellectual cover for every liberal who finds himself inclining toward war but uneasy about Mr. Bush." From Random House's online description of the book:
Examining all sides of the debate and bringing a keen eye to the military and geopolitical forces at work, Pollack ultimately comes to this controversial conclusion: through our own mistakes, the perfidy of others, and Saddam's cunning, the United States is left with few good policy options regarding Iraq. Increasingly, the option that makes the most sense is for the United States to launch a full-scale invasion, eradicate Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, and rebuild Iraq as a prosperous and stable society--for the good of the United States, the Iraqi people, and the entire region.
Pollack believed for many years that the United States could prevent Saddam from threatening the stability of the Persian Gulf and the world through containment--a combination of sanctions and limited military operations. Here, Pollack explains why containment is no longer effective, and why other policies intended to deter Saddam ultimately pose a greater risk than confronting him now, before he gains possession of nuclear weapons and returns to his stated goal of dominating the Gulf region. "It is often said that war should be employed only in the last resort," Pollack writes. "I reluctantly believe that in the case of the threat from Iraq, we have come to the last resort."
From the 9 a.m. ET hour of the July 30 edition of CNN Newsroom:
COLLINS: Update on Iraq: Is the U.S. making progress? Ken Pollack of the Brookings Institution has been a vocal critic of the administration's handling of the war, but he says that an eight-day visit has changed his outlook a bit. He's joining us now from Washington. Ken, nice to see you --
POLLACK: Thanks, Heidi.
COLLINS: -- on the program. That's right. I mean, you are a self-proclaimed critic of the way that the Bush administration has handled this war. You wrote a book about the situation in Iraq. You've shared your thoughts all over TV and some newspapers, but yet it seems like the tune is changing a bit.
POLLACK: Right, well, this is the first time I've been to Iraq where I've come back actually a little bit more optimistic than when I went. Previous visits, I've always come back more depressed, more frustrated because things didn't seem like they were working, and this time around, what we saw, in particular in the security sector, and to some extent with local economics and political governance --
COLLINS: Right.
POLLACK: -- is better.
Oh yes, another "expert" who wanted a war and now visits the Green Zone and thinks things are better. Bet the U.S. mint that he didn't talk to any Iraqis out on the streets of Baghdad.
Trying to put some sense into these war hawks about the reality of Iraq is like trying to blow out the light bulb.
Iraq refugees,
A third of Iraq without water, food, sanitation.
A civil war sitting like a stick of dynamite with a real short fuse that is lit.
Perpetual hositlities because of America's refusal to take down the 14 permanent bases and leave the country.
Violence at all levels ranging from common street gangs to well organized insurgencies.
The list goes on and all we get is a message that Iraq will become Disneyland just around the corner you'll see from the war supporters.
it was nice to see them celebrating their soccer win, instead of watching people weep over relatives lost in car bombings. but i only heard it noted in one place that the team trained in jordan because of death threats to the mixed members of different ethnic and religious groups. nor was it mentioned that cars were forbidden on the roads after the last win, to avoid bombings. necessary to do, but not something you can continue on a normal basis. this is sort of like senator lindsey graham, who has been a "critic" of the war, but when push comes to shove he calls for more of the same. and nbc nightly news tonight had a segment on the huge amount of corruption in the iraqi government and the failure to hold anyone to account.
Collins is just another dumb cute face on TV.
She claims that Pollack has changed his tune, ignoring that he supported both the invasion and the surge.
What an idiot.
Having spent 20 years in the military I had prepared for many, inspections by visiting brass, high level government visitors, and on rare occasions news people (civilians). Usually it was our jobs to make sure that the best possible picture was displayed to the visitor no matter how weak the real situation was. In other words it was our jobs to make a sow’s ear look like a silk purse. We were hardly ever asked any searching questions, and I doubt very much if Pollack was allowed to ask the right people what the real situation is even if he wanted to. So from past experience I take any “good news” with a very large grain of salt.
I heard Pollack on NPR this afternoon, and someone called in, and basically gave him the business. Saying that he was a cheerleader for the war before it started, and how he had no credibility, and if we couldn't believe him then (before the war) how are we supposed to believe him now that he's saying "things are better". Of course, he didn't answer the question at all, or respond to the caller's comments, but I expected nothing less. I think I could hear him squirming on the radio.
I watched part of his interview with Blitzer on CNN. He asked Pollack if he went out on his own to visit Baghdad or if he was escorted by the military. Pollack replied that they had a military escort and the places they visited were picked by the military. Another propaganda piece on behalf of the military and Junior.
"Here's a WAR CRITIC, and EVEN HE has to admit things are looking up in Iraq!" A stunning headline sure to cheer Bush supporters and warmongers everywhere ... a critic "won over". Wow.
Except this "critic" has been a war fan all along. Ooops. No story here. So the "sensational conversion" had to be MADE UP.
- leaving viewers with the impression that Pollack was a war opponent who has become more supportive of the war. - Andrew Ironside, mmfa
That's preposterous...except in the view of a naive, liberal, college boy grasping at straws.
Collins was very clear in describing Pollack as "a vocal critic of the administration's handling of the war"...not the issue of going to war.
What is also clear is the effort by mmfa to downplay any positive news coming from Iraq...blatant posturing by mmfa.
Tell us all the good news, Wesley.
<braille tag open>"... this is the first time I've been to Iraq where I've come back actually a little bit more optimistic than when I went... this time around, what we saw, in particular in the security sector, and to some extent with local economics and political governance --is better."<braille tag closed>
Apparently, Mary, the good news out of Iraq is that Pollack is feeling much better now.
After all, that's the reason we invaded in the first place - because Pollack was feeling a little blue.
Ah, yes - another critic of Bush's handling of the war. The long-suffering group of Iraq war proponents who feel that Bush had the right idea, but was vexed by incompetent.....uh, who? Soldiers? Generals? Defense Secretaries? Yes, I remember their criticisms almost immediately after the Homeland dismissed the standing Iraq military. And after disbanding the existing police. How could we forget their constant harping after the Homeland created the Iraqi Governing Council? Or when border control was neglected?
Yep, current war-handling critics have certainly bolstered their bona fides over the duration of this conflict.
And by the way, your "straws man" sounds like a pretty good guy. If you're equating "naive" with "innocent", you've got yourself the imaginary embodiment of 3 very strong virtues.
Several factors could incline an observer to think progress is being made in Iraq. First is the true fallacy that there are far less deaths being reported in the city from the ongoing religous civil war. The fact, however, is that the residents of Baghdad, as well as Iraq, have accustomed themselves to the violent attacks. Like the citizens of Northern Ireland, the people of Baghdad are not so willing to be victims. A success? Vehicles are banned in huge parts of the city. Mixed religous neighborhoods are sectarianized and buffer zones created. U.S. forces still represent the majority of activity in the country as well as the capital. Markets are open only for minutes at a time when U.S. patrols are there to provide secuirty. The government still hunkers down within the green zone, which itself has become unsafe with increased mortar attacks. The casualty rate for U.S. soldiers although the lowest in eight months is a misleading statistic. Casualty rates for U.S. troops compared to this July of last year are up almost 57%. Fighting, sectarian and otherwise, drops off during the hotest parts of the Summer, when the temperature can rise to 115 degrees as it will today.
Regarding his disagreement with a U.S. Senator’s remarks and noting that “The fact is that there is no civil war taking place in Iraq by any reasonable metric”, General James T. Conway, Commandant of the Marine Corps had this to say on 07/10/07:
“…
The reason for the progress is that during October of ’06, the leading Sunni sheik’s in the province decided that U.S. forces were less an enemy to them than the al Qaeda. They finally had their fill of the murder and intimidation campaigns the al Qaeda was subjecting them to, and suddenly, themes the Marines had held fast to for over two-and-a-half years began to resonate. As was their culture, the tribal leaders determined that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” and thus began a partnership that has over the intervening months all but cleared the hard-core terrorists from the region.
The metrics show the results. Attacks are down 60 percent. Cache discoveries are up 400 percent because tips from the local population are up 150 percent. Sunni tribes now offer more of their young men each month for the Iraqi Security Forces than the coalition can train. And, yes, casualties are down almost 14 percent for U.S. troops. A normalcy has returned to the province, not seen in over three years, and the people like it.
Al Qaeda can be expected to counterattack, but they have lost the support of the populace, and when that happens, an insurgency cannot survive. Economic progress must follow, however, for us to fully capitalize on the security gains, and that also is happening. Marketplaces in all of the major cities are opened and a decentralized economy flourishes. International businesses have been watching the security situation closely in Al Anbar, and many now feel the time is right for those willing to accept some risk, but perhaps realize significant gains to act.
The final leg of the stool is the political link. At the national level, the political patchwork is problematic, and the Maliki government has been repeatedly cautioned that it must make better use of the time coalition forces have bought them. In the Al Anbar Province, things are slightly more encouraging. Prime Minister Maliki has met in Ramadi the lead sheiks and is scheduled to meet with them again in al Qa’im this summer. The sheiks realize that in order for the country to stay together, there must be reconciliation with the Kurds and the Shi’as at the national level.
... and Conway continued on with this:
Reconciliation conferences are taking place amongst tribal leadership, the clergy, and elected officials. Recently, just such a conference was attacked by a suicide bomber. While the attack may make subsequent efforts more difficult, it also shows the participants how much the al Qaeda fear the success of these efforts.
As one might expect, the morale of the Marines and Sailors who are living the successes in the West is off the page. Although our deployment tempo is intense – Marines are normally deployed for seven months and are at home for seven months — or in some cases less — the absolute best morale that our Corps has is found in units getting ready to go to Iraq or that are already there.
I’ll give you a couple of examples. The Second Battalion, Fifth Marines was in Ramadi on their last deployment and lost 15 Marines killed and another 150-plus wounded. Scheduled to return to Ramadi again, the battalion commander approached his combat veterans who were nearing their end-of-active service that would occur either before or during the deployment.
He expressed concern that his younger Marines who were not combat experienced would miss their leadership and their know-how. He asked them to consider staying aboard through the next rotation. Ladies and gentlemen, without a penny of incentive pay, 200 Marines — most of them NCOs — stepped forward to deploy again with that battalion.”
[Applause]