Afghanistan, US Media, and Elections: Marching Orders to Protect the War (Mull)

EA correspondent Josh Mull the Afghanistan Blogging Fellow for The Seminal and Brave New Foundation. He also writes for Rethink Afghanistan:

Congratulations US media, you've had a very successful couple of weeks. Your control over the public discourse on the recent Congressional elections is strong. The cretaceous values of Rand Paul, the victor in the Republican Senate primary in Kentucky, are balanced and justified by saying there aren't a lot of black folks in that state. A former Navy admiral and current US congressman, Joe Sestak from Pennsylvania, becomes "a Washington outsider".

Afghanistan: Obama Suspends the Rule of Law (Greenwald)

To complete the hat trick, you have established the narrative of the partisan insurgency. That means you get to portray both parties as going through some kind of ideological purge. Too progressive! Not conservative enough! What does that mean, and what does it have to do with actual issues and real policy? Who cares, right? Bor-ing!

And you have completely blocked the issue of the war in Afghanistan.


Now this is a big accomplishment, for sure. But you've made a lot of good people fighting for real change look like jerks for carrying water for your narrative, so you're going to want to protect it very carefully. Accordingly, here are a couple things you should avoid in your story.

Moving forward with the idea that the war-supporting candidates you choose to cover are somehow against the "status quo" is going to be very tricky, so make sure to follow these instructions explicitly. We can't blow the whole operation and have everybody actually engaging themselves in civics --- it might bring the collapse of Western Civilization. With that, here are your marching orders:

DON'T mention the cost of war is $1 trillion, trillions more in indirect costs, and is a major factor in our economic and debt crises.

You don't want people knowing about all the things that money could pay for. Things are much easier when you tell Republicans that a trillion dollars in debt is actually small government and fiscal conservatism. Democrats need to think President Obama is fixing the economy, not disemboweling it with a massive, off-budget spending spree for war. If you absolutely must discuss the cost of war, please only do it in the stupidest, inaccurate way possible, like complaining that troops get paid too much.

DON'T talk about any of these candidates who oppose the war.

Initial members of the Coalition Against War Spending (being added to at http://warisacrime.org/caws ) are:

Candidates for U.S. House of Representatives:
Nick Coons, AZ-05, Tempe/Scottsdale, Libertarian
Rebecca Schneider, AZ-06, Phoenix, Democrat
Carol Wolman, CA-01, northwest corner, Green
Clint Curtis, CA-04, northeast corner, Democrat
Ben Emery, CA-04, Nevada City, Green
Mark Williams, CA-12, San Carlos, Libertarian
Mary V. Larkin, CA-17, Monterey, Libertarian
Les Marsden, CA-19, Yosemite/Mariposa, Democrat
Randall Weissbuch, CA-26, Arcadia, Libertarian
Marcy Winograd, CA-36, Los Angeles, Democrat
William Hedrick, CA-44, Riverside/San Clemente, Democrat
Ken Arnold, CA-46, Orange and L.A., Democrat
Mike Paster, CA-49, Fallbrook, Libertarian
Tracy Emblem, CA-50, San Diego, Democrat
Michael Benoit, CA-52, San Diego, Libertarian
Gary Swing, CO-01, Denver, Green
G. Scott Deshefy, CT-02, New London, Green
Doug Tudor, FL-12, Riverview et al, Democrat
Marleine Bastien, FL-17, North Miami, Democrat
Regina Thomas, GA-12, Savannah, Democrat
Matt Reichel, IL-05, Chicago, Green
Bill Scheurer, IL-08, Lindenhurst, Green / Independent
Rodger Jennings, IL-12, Alton, Green
Doug Marks, IL-14, Carpentersville, Libertarian
Sheldon Schafer, IL-18, Peoria, Green
John Wayne Cunningham, IN-08, Terre Haute, Libertarian
James E. "Jim" Holbert, KY-05, London, Democrat
Peter White, MA-10, Cape Cod, Independent
Michael Cavlan, MN-05, Minneapolis, Independent Progressive
Kevin Craig, MO-07, Springfield, Libertarian
Thomas Hill, NC-08, Fayetteville, Libertarian
Lon Cecil, NC-12, High Point, Libertarian
Jonathan Tasini, NY-15, New York City, Democrat
Emin Eddie Egriu, NY-28, Buffalo, Democrat
Ebert G. Beeman, PA-03, Lake Erie, Libertarian
Vernon Etzel, PA-05, Oil City, Libertarian
Ed Bortz, PA-14, Pittsburgh, Green
David Segal, RI-01, Democrat
Eric Schechter, TN-05, Nashville, Democrat
Martin Nitschke, TX-23, El Paso to San Antonio, Libertarian
John Jay Myers, TX-32, Dallas, Libertarian
Claudia Wright, UT-02, Salt Lake City, Democrat
Ron Fisher, VA-08, Arlington, Independent Green/Progressive
Larry Kalb, WA-02, northwest corner, Democrat
Diana McGinness, WA-02, Bellingham, Democrat
Roy Olson, WA-09, Olympia, Green

Candidates for U.S. Senate:
Duane Roberts, CA, Green
John Finger, CO, Libertarian
Bob Kinsey, CO, Green
Cecile Lawrence, NY, Green
Mel Packer, PA, Green
Ben Masel, WI, Democrat (2012)

You need to think small. Three candidates last week were a full blown grassroots insurgency to you. These 53 (and counting) candidates would make your narrative look ridiculous. If three people who support the war are anti-establishment, what do you call 53 candidates who oppose the trillion-dollar price tag? If current Congressman Joe Sestak is "the fringe", where do you think any of these candidates will be in your story?

Just think about all the real grassroots movements, the constant, concerted effort it takes to field 53 candidates, across the political spectrum, all focusing their attention on the war. Those thoughts can be ruinous to your control over the debate, so banish them. You don't know what democracy looks like, so keep it that way. Only stick to safe, pro-war candidates (the three or so of them you have).

DON'T talk about the havoc we're wreaking on the military. Don't mention the death toll is at 1,000 (and is skyrocketing), that we're destroying their health, or that they have a terrible strategy and no alternative. Just keep patting them on the head, telling them, "you're doing a super job, buddy," and then sending them off to do a task you know they can't do but will thanklessly die trying to do.

Don't mention that non-military development works, or that even the slightest association with the military in Afghanistan is enough to destroy entire families. And no matter what, definitely don't talk about the suicides - the many, many, seemingly endless suicides. Support the troops, just don't pay any attention to them. It's a real bummer, and you've got a long campaign to cover. Keep happy thoughts ---  they're heroes!

DON'T ---maybe in this case that isn't strong enough --- never let Afghan voices to be heard. Afghans can be exotic aliens, Muslim fanatics, backwards tribalists, and genetically pre-disposed, xenophobic foreigner-killing machines. But they cannot be allowed to express themselves or have their own voice. They require foreign interference. They can't be trusted to tell their own story.

The same thing goes for Pakistan. Only allow debate to focus on whether we should be more aggressive with Pakistan, more assassinations and kidnappings, maybe some invading troops. Just ignore any notions about democracy. They have nukes and they're Muslim, end of story.

These are massively important foreign policy issues, some of them blatantly illegal, so no way can you let the people most affected by them anywhere near your media. You'll need that airtime to fact-check Stephen Colbert or something (horse race!). And anyway, we need to be able to parachute in un-sophisticated  "Western" journalists to "embed" for like a day and a half and score sweet Twitpics of them posing in flak jackets in front of tanks, and soldiers behind a wall firing and/or reloading their machine gun for the nine zillionth time. That's what war has to look like, otherwise we'll see the icky parts and not want to spend all our blood and treasure on them. And that's bad.

DON'T let people know how much power they have. If they feel isolated and powerless, they'll eagerly swallow whatever pill you're selling. They're an insurgent because they voted for Rand Paul. Good for them. The best way for them to show they're angry at broken government is supporting a trillion-dollar, murderous occupation in Afghanistan. You don't want them to know there is an entire congressional caucus devoted to ending the war. Those are incumbents! Gross!

Don't mention that these slick Washington fat cats are working hard on bills to end the war and return the money to the American people. Don't talk about the Feingold bill in the Senate, the McGovern bill calling for an exit timetable, the impending $33 billion supplemental vote that many members of Congress are prepared to oppose.

Don't mention that pressure works. You can't let people know they have the power to reach out and grab a hold of their elected officials. Grab them and force them to accomplish real change. If they knew they could just pick up a phone and dial (202) 224-3121 and ask to speak to their representative, your entire enterprise of access and privilege would crumble overnight. Maintain that this is impossible.

Finally, you'll want to stay completely away from Rethink Afghanistan's Facebook page. If you were shocked and dumbfounded by health care town halls and the Tea Party movement, the tens of thousands of people working to end the war there on Facebook would just blow your mind. Acknowledging the vibrancy and diversity of the peace movement more broadly would destroy even your strongest efforts at "fair and balancing" the left/right paradigm. There are libertarians and conservatives, progressives and liberals, independents, moderates, and hardliners. All of them working together and working hard across party and ideological lines. Not even the most craven plutocrat lobbyist skulking in the bars and brothels of DC could water down that movement to some kind of partisan fringe.

And there are your instructions. Follow these exactly, and with any luck, you the media will remain stupid and this war will go on, destroying our country and theirs, for years and years to come.

US Politics: The Tea Party and the Dangers of a "Leader" (Haddigan)

Lee Haddigan draws a lessons from this week's primaries for the US Congress:

On Tuesday night Rand Paul, the son of Congressman and former Presidential candidate Ron Paul, won a stunning victory in the Republican Party's primary for a US Senate seat from the state of Kentucky. By Wednesday morning, there were mutterings in the US press that the win marked the emergence of a potential national leader for the Tea Party movement. And by Thursday Paul --- like his father, a staunch libertarian --- was the target of a Democratic-led campaign to discredit him and, by association, the Tea Party.

Paul’s experience, and the example of conservative leaders of the past, are a warning for the Tea Party not to unite behind one "leader".

Paul got into hot water on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show on Wednesday night (part 1 and part 2 of video)  when asked to explain comments he made to a Louisville, Kentucky paper last month. Paul had explained to the Courier-Journal why he would have opposed one of the ten provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, specifically the clause that allows the federal government to enforce anti-discrimination laws on private property.



Paul's position is based on libertarian principles. For most libertarians, private property rights override the rights of any government in all circumstances. Thus in this case, a restaurant owner has the right to serve, or not to serve, any customer.

In a series of interviews Thursday Paul was at pains to insist he is no racist and supported the nine provisions of the Act that enforced anti-discrimination regulations on public property. But, as Paul recognized in an appearance on the Laura Ingraham show, he had made “a poor political decision”. The Democratic National Committee immediately seized upon the mistake by sending out nearly 30 emails on Thursday to the media attacking Paul and, by association, the Tea Party.

Haven’t We Been Here Before?

In 1964, conservatives backed the Presidential candidacy of Barry Goldwater, a Republican Senator from Arizona. Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act and voted against it.

Like Paul, Goldwater was no racist, and he disagreed with the Act over the principle that anti-discrimination laws were a matter for the individual states to decide. But that principled stand/"poor political decision" allowed the Democrats to flesh out their portrayal of the Senator as the representative of "extremism" in America (The iconic image of that extremism, although it was not seen widely at the time, was the Democrats' commercial of a small girl and a daisy, which linked Goldwater to the use of nuclear weapons.)

For those who don’t know:  Goldwater lost by a landslide to Lyndon Johnson.

The conservative campaign that ended with the defeat of Goldwater shares many similarities with the current Tea Party movement. His candidacy was the result of several years of grassroots campaigning to get a President who supported free markets, less taxes, a limited Constitution, and the prevailing liberal orthodoxy (of both parties) in Washington.

Even the symbol of the tea bag is not new. In January 1959, Willis E. Stone reported in his column, "Organized Tax Protests", that a group in New Orleans, “headed by Kent Courtney, is using the Boston Tea Party theme in their tax protest, sending teabags with their protest to members of Congress and the State Legislatures”.

In the vanguard of that grassroots effort to see conservative values reestablished in government was the John Birch Society, led by Robert Welch. They disavowed any connection to the Republican Party and took no position on partisan issues. Their focus was to educate the public in the reasons why America needed “less government and more responsibility in which to create a better world.” The John Birch Society called for the election of politicians, Democrat or Republican, who believed in those principles. And their primary tactic was the mass mailing of letters and postcards (the ancestor of the Tea Party's faxes and e-mails) to politicians in Washington.

The relevance of the John Birch Society to the Tea Party? Both offer warnings about the dangers of becoming identified with a national leader. In March 1961, Time magazine revealed to the nation that Welch had claimed a few years earlier that President Eisenhower was “ia dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy”. It was a revelation (along with some falsehoods in the article) that crippled the effectiveness of the Birchers. It also helped establish the validity of Democrat depictions of conservatives as "paranoid" members of a "lunatic fringe".

(How the letter became public is another caution for Tea Partiers.Welch made his statement about Eisenhower in a private letter to several hundred individuals he wanted to contribute to the John Birch Society. Frederick C. Schwarz of the Christian Anti-Communist Crusade, nominally committed to the same principles as the Birchers, made a copy of Welch’s letter available to the press. Welch believed Schwarz did so from resentment at the popularity of the new organization, which continued donations to Schwarz’s Crusade.)

A last consequence of the controversy that erupted as a result of Welch’s indiscretion was the infighting it provoked within the conservative movement. Welch and his Society polarized Goldwater supporters. Many defended him, but many, notably William F. Buckley, attacked him.

Risks of mutating into a unified national organization are widespread within the Tea Party movement. Shelby Blakely, Executive Director of the New Patriot Journal, advised readers in February, "Tea Party Not Interested In Media Appointed Leaders" (especially if that leader was to be Sarah Palin). Blakely’s opposition to a national leader rests on the conviction that from the beginning, “Those opposed to tea party ideas have tried to bait our movement into becoming something they could destroy: a top-down group with a visible (and therefore reachable) leader to focus on.”

The example of Rand Paul –-- and Goldwater and Welch before him –-- suggest that Ms. Blakely was correct.