Maven University

From Spinsanity, one of Webmama's favorite blogs... Some war rhetoric turns against open debate By Ben Fritz As the war against Iraq enters its third week and debates rage about tactics and policies, some politicians and pundits have been using extreme rhetoric that serves only to shut down open discussion, rather than encourage it. Strong terms like "aid and comfort" and "traitor" need to be saved for the most extreme circumstances, not simply used against those with whom people strongly disagree. While strong emotions are sure to rise at a time when Americans and Iraqis are dying and our national security may be at risk, these arguments serve to undermine one of the most fundamental values of American democracy: fair and open debate about national policy. In some cases, these terms have been used simply as cheap labels to smear opponents as siding with the enemy. A piece for the New York Post by Ralph Peters, for instance, criticized an article by John Lee Anderson and referred to the publication that ran it, The New Yorker, as "a minor magazine loosely affiliated with the Baghdad regime." An editorial in the Manchester [New Hampshire] Union Leader suggested that Democrats who criticize the war in Iraq while it is happening, such as former Vermont governor and presidential candidate Howard Dean, are "giving aid and comfort and false encouragement to an enemy who is counting on just that sort of thing." And in his online column for The Nation, John Nichols compared the current media to that of the Soviet Union and labeled some right-wing pundits "neo-conservative commisars." There have also been several comparisons of the Bush administration to one of the deadliest dictators the world has ever known. A column on the liberal website Common Dreams was dedicated solely to comparisons between President Bush and Adolf Hitler, likening the new homeland security department to the S.S. and the war against Iraq to the Nazi regime's oppression of Jews. According to the New York Post, in a recent interview with TV Guide, Ed Gernon, the executive producer of a CBS miniseries about the life of Hitler, said public support for Bush's policies is "'absolutely' similar to post-World War I Germany's acceptance of Hitler's extremism." None of the arguments contained in these articles are necessarily inappropriate or unfair. But by seeking to affiliate their opponents with fascism, communism, or the Iraqi government or implying that they are aiding our enemy in a war, these columnists and editorialists are all avoiding the actual debate and slurring those with whom they disagree. Even a U.S. general has made recent comments that serve to stifle dissent. In a press conference, General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in response to a question "about criticism from current and former officers" that such comments are "harmful to our troops that are out there fighting very bravely, very courageously." While Myers has every right to ask that current officers don't publicly criticize their superiors, questioning the right of former officers to criticize U.S. military policy is inappropriate. Indeed, our democracy clearly benefits from the viewpoints of former officers who are military experts, as they can make a valuable contribution to debates. Such comments could only be "harmful to our troops" if one assumes the tactics and policies adopted by the current administration are necessarily best for them. Even if criticism does lower some soldiers' morale, which is possible, that is clearly outweighed by the benefits of utilizing our military as effectively as possible, which happens in a democracy through vigorous debate and dissent. Both supporters and opponents of the war in Iraq claim to cherish fundamental American values, including support for vigorous and open debate about government policy. We should hope that the pundits and leaders engaging in that debate at the highest levels will do a better job of encouraging that value, rather than trying to delegitimize their opponents.