I know I have often said that the press is an adjunct of the Democrat party, and I think I have made a pretty good case for that contention, but today I am going to go a bit farther and say that the press is actively opposed to the interests of the United States, at least at present.

Now, I do not contend that the press is in the employ of a hostile power, or even that the press is interested in seeing the fall of the United States. What I do contend is that, as the press is in the pocket of the Democrat Party, and as the Democrats have pinned many of their hopes on a military defeat in Iraq, the press is actively working to undermine our military mission in Iraq, regardless of the cost in lives or the effect that will have on the security of the United States. So, though they are not intentionally treasonous, I think that it is fair to say, by the means they use to support their favored party, the press is taking a stand in opposition to the interests of the United States.

Now, some in the press, and in the Democrat Party will say that opposition to the war is not treasonous, it is their patriotic duty. I won't argue the "dissent is patriotic" argument here. I think it is a facile slogan that is most often used to cover the unpatriotic feelings of most anti-war protesters, but that does not matter here. I am not objecting to the press editorializing against the war, I am complaining about actions they are taking which serve to render fighting the war more difficult and  which endanger our troops and risk national security.

For example, when the NYT revealed details of bank surveillance programs and thus compromised our ability to stop the flow of funds to those attacking the US, that was not any principled "opposition to the war", it was simply a deed designed to make fighting terrorists harder. When the press reports weakly supported or unsubstantiated reports of "atrocities" as if they were proven, or when they automatically assume the worst of troops accused of "war crimes" that is not "principled opposition", nor is it the impartial journalism it claims to be, but an attempt to turn public opinion against the war and destroy morale among our troops*. When the press ignores the successes of our troops in Iraq and reports only failures, and when the press goes silent when there is only good news to report, that is not principled opposition to the war, it is an attempt to convince the public we have lost, as the press did after our Tet victory, to force us to surrender in a war we are winning.  And when the press drools over every casualty, finds new "grim milestone" to mark as often as possible, and tries to convince the public that 4000 deaths in 5 years is a massive casualty count, that is not patriotic, it is an attempt to erode support for our troops and our government.

I think the problem is simple. The press tries to fill two contradictory roles. At times it balances the two roles well, at others badly. Currently, the press is doing a very bad job. The press needs to balance its role of providing editorial opinion with its professed goal of providing impartial coverage. Sometimes it does well, confining opinion to the editorial pages, at others unstated assumptions make their way into the selection process, choosing which stories will be reported, or even determines how those stories will be reported. Sometimes, things get even more muddied, and the press begins to explicitly editorialize within the news stories.  And that is what is happening today.

Perhaps one more example will help show how the press can shape public opinion without making any explicit statements. The best example are the media reports of civilian casualties.

I hear many asking why I would choose such a topic. And I will admit on the surface these reports seem unobjectionable. The press tends to shy away from the more extreme numbers put out by many anti-war groups, and when they do notice these numbers the press does rightly express some skepticism. The press rarely editorializes in reports of civilian casualties, usually refraining from running as many "human interest" stories about tragic deaths the way they do for military deaths. Nor do they run special "tragic milestone" reports when civilian deaths reach a number ending in multiple zeroes, the way they do for the troop deaths (eg 100 deaths,1000 deaths, 4000 deaths.) If anything, the press has been remarkably restrained in their reporting of civilian deaths.

The problem with such a perspective is that it is looking at the press' behavior through thoroughly modern eyes, eyes shaped by the very media reporting I am about to criticize. That so many will readily agree with the preceding paragraph shows only how successful the press has been on forcing certain assumptions on the public, assumptions which serve only to weaken the position of the United States and the effectiveness of the US military.

How so?

Let me answer a question with a question. Why should the press report civilian casualties at all?

Oh, it sounds shocking to modern ears, but it wasn't that long ago that civilian casualties were never reported, or only reported for our own civilians, or maybe our allies. The unspoken assumption throughout most of our past was that civilian casualties were unavoidable in war, and that there was no point in mentioning them. I am certain there were some isolationist papers and others in World War II who printed up accounts of German dead, but I challenge anyone to find a report from that era, in a major paper, which reports the civilian casualties suffered by Germany or Japan. If anyone succeeds in finding such a report, I guarantee the tone is not one of regret and recrimination, as it would be today, but rather provides the numbers as a measure of the impact an attack had on German or Japanese industrial capacity. We were much more realistic in the 40's and knew that civilian casualties not only are unavoidable, but at times may help our efforts, as they crippled the enemy's industry. Only in modern times have we begun to focus on civilian casualties, number which carry with them the unspoken assumption that wars should be fought without inflicting civilian casualties.

It was only with Vietnam, and the alliance of the press with the peacenik wing of the Democrats that we began to see this "body count" aspect appear in journalism. Of course, it took a while to take hold. I may be wrong, but I don't recall seeing any mainstream press reporting body counts even as late as the invasion of Granada. It was only with the attack on Panama that I recall the press lamenting civilian casualties on the other side. Of course, since then, it has been a constant refrain, except, oddly enough, for the many Balkan misadventures of the 1990's, when the press was curiously silent about Serbian civilian deaths.

But, perhaps in that case the press disliked Milosevic more than it disliked the military, or maybe, just maybe, they were a bit more reluctant to say anything negative about a Democrat.

Actually, the Balkan conflict provides the best comparison to our current conflict.

You see, I am sure someone will reply to my World War II example above by arguing "But we weren't fighting to free the Germans, we are trying to liberate the Iraqis, so we should not be killing them." Ignoring for a moment the many interviews that show the Iraqis are more mature than we are, and understand there will be unavoidable casualties as part of their liberation, I can agree that our current conflict, as a war of liberation does differ somewhat. Of course, during World War II we did liberate many conquered nations (eg France), and many civilians did die in our attacks, but let us agree that World War II is a bad example. Clinton's various Balkan campaigns are not.

Let us just look at the two conflicts and how the press handled them.

Clinton fought several conflicts in the Balkans to liberate various regions from the Serbs, we were essentially picking sides in a civil war (twice), there was no immediate threat to the US, there was no official declaration of war, there were many civilian casualties, and the troops far overstayed the initially estimated period. And the press' reaction? Wild enthusiasm. The same aspects of our current conflict bring nothing but scorn. If the press truly believed what they are saying about civilian casualties in this conflict, they would have been attacking Clinton just as vigorously, as he too was "killing the people he was liberating". But they did not.

Which is why I say the press' attempts to undermine our military is nothing but an aspect of their support for Democrats. If it had been a true opposition to all war, or a loathing of the military, or an interest in human rights, they would have been every bit as hard on Clinton, but they were not. The press was in Clinton's corner from the moment he was sworn in, and it never flagged. (At least not until he started to atatck Obama on behalf of his wife.)

All of which does nothing to support the press' claim that they are engaging in "principled opposition to the war". Were that the case, maybe, if we were extremely generous, we could forgive their attempts to undermine public support for the war, destroy troop morale, force a defeat on the US and harm our position in the world. Maybe we could forgive that if they were engaging in well meaning criticism.

But not even that excuse is available to them. This is just partisan reporting, nothing more. As Bush started the war, and they hate Republicans, the press is determined that the war must be lost so the Democrats can secure some political advantage.

It is truly sad when near treasonous behavior rests on nothing more than partisan bickering.

--------------------------------------------------------

* This assumption not only makes conflict difficult for our troops, who must try to fight without harming any civilians, but it gives an incredible advantage to terrorists and others who are quite willing to hide among civilians, position their rockets and artillery in civilian structures and disguise themselves as civilians. It also puts an exceptional burden on our troops, which does not help morale. Which is yet another reason I argue that the press' actions are harmful to the military as a whole.