On the home page of Milblogging.com is a good commentary on the Scott Beauchamp fiasco vs. the New York Times Op-Ed article titled "A War We Might Just Win." These two issues have been rumbling all over the internet -- where Beauchamp receives praises by the "liberal press" but the writers of the op-ed piece (who come from the liberal Brookings Institution) receive harsh condemnation by the "liberal press." (You can click through to the NY Times article via the Wall Street Journal piece by James Taranto linked to above).
But it is simply a situation where both the praises of Beauchamp and the condemnation of the NY Times journalists are considerably off track.
There is a universal truth -- no one likes to be wrong -- but we all are at some point in our life.
Yet it’s only the incompetent and weak who continue down the path of foolhardiness and deception just to avoid admitting they're wrong.
Unfortunately, this latter category is the label easily applied to many in our media -- we have mountains of Scott "Boo Chump" fans who are not willing to acknowledge Beauchamp’s farcical foundations nor can they admit that the surge in Iraq is making progress, and they increasingly look foolish for not doing so.
With their desperate need to preserve the belief in their own misguided ideology, these journalists will deny to the bitter end that any of the gradual, painful, tenuous –- but always worth it -- steps towards democracy will ever make a difference. In their callous disregard of thoughtful analysis, they help destroy those tenuous but necessary beginnings of democracy, anywhere.
Had those same journalists been employed in their same career of choice back in the late 1700’s and then 100 years after that, they would be just like those European pundits who wrote or stated that the U.S. fledging democracy would fail. Those who claimed during the Civil War that America was self-destructing, hedged their bets on the confederacy, promoted European-sourced ship building for the confederacy, made concerted efforts to thwart Lincoln's foreign relations, encouraged conflicts with Europe over cotton embargos and so on – all under the assumption that the U.S. was a bunch of fumbling killing murdering folk caught up in a civil war that could mean nothing positive for the future of the country – a war that if it wasn’t worth being hopeful about, you could at least be expedient.
Those Beauchamp-adoring journalists would be wise to study the complexity of Lincoln’s very demanding, controversial and deeply challenging foreign policy at the time of the Civil War – his battles in foreign policy were as complex and tenuous as the war itself. There were many pundits who thwarted Lincoln’s policies and helped lengthen that painful terribly bloody civil war by encouraging and strengthening people who were against Lincoln’s worthy agenda – simply to preserve their own self-interest.
Sadly, the comparison isn’t laughable-- it is all too familiar. The ineptitude of many journalists today is encouraging the forces of those who prefer the path of death, violence and loss of hope for the people in Iraq and Afganistan and elsewhere. Their efforts encourage a self-fulfilling prophecy that I think some in the media subconsciously prefer simply so they don’t have admit being wrong.
Tragically, the people who so desperately depend on our strength, courage, hopefulness and perseverance may lose that chance if we lose resolve at the helm of those who are too weak to admit relevant, tactical and hopeful details about success.
Hmmm, 'A handful of patience is worth more than a bushel of brains!'
Faith and smiles,
Posted by: Lynnis | August 18, 2007 at 10:15 AM