I am not prepared to accuse the New York Times or the Obama administration of egregious propaganda. There's simply not enough evidence to make the case. But I do argue that this is a textbook example of doublespeak. The most famous example of doublespeak comes from George Orwell's famous novel, 1984. Orwell's novel depicts a totalitarian regime that inculcates its citizens with a three-pronged slogan: War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength, and Freedom is Slavery. Such doublespeak inverts commonplace understandings, thereby tricking citizens to believe that up is down, black is white, and bad is good. In our current case, we are led to believe that more troops are fewer troops, more war is no war, and escalation is an exit.
I am not sure why the Times would use such doublespeak. Perhaps the newspaper is aloof to its own double-sided discourse. Perhaps it actually thinks that this is sound reporting. Perhaps it is consciously trying to maintain Obama's image as the next great savior akin to JFK and Dr. King. Perhaps it is in bed with the Obama administration. I really don't know. But the intentions are less important than the effects: such reporting helps set conditions for the delusional belief that we are preparing to leave Afghanistan. The only problem is that the war is intensifying, not ending.
Such delusions are further highlighted by recent comments by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. He appeared on ABC's This Week on December 6th. In response to a John McCain criticism, Gates responded with, I don't consider this an exit strategy, and I try to avoid using that term. I think . . . this is a transition . . . it will be the same kind of gradual, conditions-based transition province by province, district by district that we saw in Iraq.
These comments are quite perplexing since we're still in Iraq
and residual forces will remain there even after the combat troop drawdown
of August, 2010. But keep in mind that
more than 700 U.S.
military bases exist in 63 countries. A
complete and total withdraw from either Iraq
or Afghanistan
is highly unlikely. There may be a
transition, but it will be a transition from complete and total war to a
permanent and friendly presence. This neo-colonialism
is no longer orchestrated by Junior Bush, Senior Bush, Ronald Reagan, or even
the supposed liberal, Bill Clinton. It's
being orchestrated by Barack Obama.
Keep in mind, too, that Obama campaigned on escalating the Afghanistan war. He told us what he was going to do (more or less) and now he's doing it. There should be no surprise. But many Obama voters (including myself) probably didn't anticipate the doublespeak. We can use this as a moment of insight: Obama is not the great ambassador of hope and change; instead, he's a politician invested in and supported by a wider system of special interests. Unfortunately, the interests of everyday people are often ignored by that system.
Some Obama supporters may get defensive, arguing that there is no doublespeak. But would these same people defend George W. Bush's mission accomplished speech two months into the Iraq war? I doubt it. Likewise, a December 10th New York Times/CBS poll reveals that 51% of Americans support Obama's plan to send more troops. But what percentage would support this action if Bush was still president? I can almost guarantee that the percentage would be lower. It is wrong if Bush does it but okay if Obama does it? That makes no sense. Too many folks are still high on the Obamania, and that's the problem.
The campaign is over and Obama's words are now actions. When he says would should escalate the war, it happens. If we don't like it, then we must stop apologizing for his decisions and start pressuring him. That's what democracy is all about. I fully admit that I voted for Obama and hope he does well since he moves this country closer but not nearly close enough toward the world that I desire. But so far he is failing. Bailouts for banks rather than people; a gutless healthcare bill; and now an escalation of war. Voting for someone is not an indefinite approval for every action and policy. I fervently oppose Obama's escalation and believe that the New York Times is complicit in the recent Obama-speak. If I am wrong, then fine. But if I am correct, then it's time to call Obama out and hold his feet to the fire. Let's get past the doublespeak and start acknowledging that Obama is intensifying the violence and horror of war.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
