"Press corps," meet antiwar movement; antiwar movement, meet your "press corps"

Gene Lyons is perfectly capable of recognizing an antiwar movement when he sees it: The sun is setting on dreams of empire Daily Dunklin (Arkansas) Democrat 06/22/05

For the longest time, all the Bush White House had to do to answer critics of the war in Iraq was to unfurl Old Glory.

The time for flag-waving, however, appears to be ending. According to a USA Today/Gallup poll, almost six in 10 Americans think the United States should start bringing the troops home ASAP. Only 36 percent, roughly the hardcore Republican base, want them to stay. Majorities in several polls say the war wasn't worth the sacrifice and doubt that Iraq was ever a threat to the United States.

Would-be soldiers are voting with their feet. Despite lowering standards to include drug users and small-time criminals, Army recruiters keep significantly missing their enlistment quotas. Marine recruiters aren't doing much better. There's even talk of a renewed draft, but that's not going to happen. The kinds of student deferments that helped patriots like Vice President Dick Cheney (and me) stay out of Vietnam wouldn't pass muster today. But any move to pluck Young Republicans out of the nation's high schools and colleges would alter the balance of American politics overnight.

And he can identify some of the things that drive it. Like, people realize that the model democracy we're supposedly setting up is both a long process and a long shot:

Brig. Gen. Donald Alston, the Army's spokesman in Baghdad, sees things differently, saying: "I think the more accurate way to approach this right now is to concede that ... this insurgency is not going to be settled, the terrorists and the terrorism in Iraq is not going to be settled, through military options or military operations. It's going to be settled in the political process."

Maybe if everybody who believes in that process simply closes his eyes and claps his hands, a solution to Iraq's centuries-old ethnic and religious strife will magically appear. Meanwhile, Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, has complained to reporters about what he called "the Pillsbury Doughboy" effect: Pressing the insurgents hard in one area only causes outbreaks of violence elsewhere.

Also, when the leaders of the war don't at least make some attempt to play it straight with the public,it doesn't really help get people to support the war policy when it becomes painfully obvious that they are lying, obfuscating and generally dancing around the facts:

Let's get back to basics. Nobody ever asked the American people if they wanted an empire. Instead, the geopolitical daydreamers involved with the "Project for a New American Century"--Cheney, Rummy, Paul Wolfowitz et al.--conceived a scheme to conquer Iraq after the first Gulf War to ensure that the United States remain the world's lone "superpower."

The first President Bush knew better, refusing to march into Baghdad lest chaos ensue. Knowing little geography and less history, the second President Bush was easily tempted into rashness, using the 9/11 attacks to concoct a bogus threat largely out of his advisers' fevered imaginations. Having dragged the country into an unnecessary war, they ignored allies and military professionals who warned that a far larger force would be needed to stabilize a large, fragmented nation like Iraq.

They haven't demonstrated American strength; they've dramatized American weakness halfway around the world. Afraid to admit error, they have no clue what to do next. (my emphasis)

Yep, that pretty much sums it up. So why does the mainstream press marvel in puzzlement and how so many people could be against the Iraq War and the mess that the Bush administration has made of it?

Jules Witcover is also able to see what's in front of his face. He's even unconventional enough - by the standards of our sad excuse for a "press corps" today - to wonder in print why it's taking the elected officials so long to pick up on it: Protesting war online, not in streets Baltimore Sun 06/22/05.

First he lays out the lazy, and remarkably dense, mainstream press view:

The president's support, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, has plunged from 45 percent of those surveyed in February to only 37 percent.And a majority now say that invading Iraq was a mistake that has not, as Mr. Bush keeps insisting, made Americans safer.

Yet the public and Congress seem to be in a state of lethargy. It's in sharp contrast to 30 years ago, when outpourings of street protest eventually played a key role in ending the American involvement in Vietnam.

And then he responds to it with a polite version of "Well, duh!"

Critics of this war point out that in the Vietnam conflict, the protest did not reach a boiling point until this country had been engaged for much longer.

These critics also note that while the 1,700-plus American deaths have been shocking and deplorable, they don't approach the 58,000 lost in Vietnam. During the Vietnam War, the steady return of thousands of Americans in body bags and the existence of a draft significantly fueled the protest.

But why hasn't the U.S. experience in Vietnam spurred those strenuously opposed to the American presence in Iraq to hit the streets? Instead, except for some spasmodic demonstrations and a round of intellectual anti-war teach-ins copied from the Vietnam era, there has been nothing comparable to what happened three decades ago.

In place of militant protesters, thousands of Americans are using the Internet to express dissatisfaction with the war. It may not yet be a new silent majority, but it's clearly growing.

Assorted peace groups are making noise, but only what could be called a guerrilla war of words is being waged in Congress by a band of mostly Democrats and a few Republicans. (my emphasis)

I guess it's kind of like that old question about if a tree falls in the forest and there's no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? In this case, the question is more, when a large majority is rejecting the current war policies in an ongoing shooting war, is there anything that can make the so-called "press corps" notice?

Julian Borger also seems to have a pretty good picture of antiwar sentiment and how the administration's fake optimism has contributed to it:

Iraq insurgency could last a decade, admits Rumsfeld by Julian Borger Guardian (UK) 06/27/05

US war objectives have been ratcheted down in recent months from establishing stability in Iraq to training sufficient numbers of Iraqi government troops to fight the insurgency independently.

The policy of lowering expectations however was thrown into confusion by Mr Cheney's claim that the insurgency was "in its last throes". The claim appeared to take other administration officials by surprise and forced them into a string of semantic contortions to explain it. ...

The defence secretary's [Rummy's] back-to-back television appearances were part of a concerted administrationcampaign to convince the American public it has a winning strategy in Iraq amid falling home support.

That public relations campaign will reach its peak tomorrow night with a prime-time address to the nation by President George Bush, who will call for popular resolve in support of the nation's 135,000 troops still in Iraq.