Shafer and Brooks: Public Opinion on the War in Iraq

The War in Iraq has been the main subject for public opinion for the past 5 years, soon to be 6. This has resulted in numerous theories on how the populace of the United States opinion on the war is being formed, and to what effect that is having. Two men, Greg Shafer and David Brooks, analyze the situation and its fallout on public opinion. In the end, it is obvious that Shafer’s thesis is correct, and Brooks essay only serves as an example of what happens when the public’s opinion is shifted through the media’s filtered coverage of the Iraq war.
Shafer’s essay revolves around the theory that the mass media is by and by the cheerleader of the United States’ foreign policy in Iraq. The result of this is a moral choice in which the citizens of America must choose to either support the war in Iraq or be un-American. Shafer is able to see the unjust way the American people have be treated with the ultimatum and blames it on media’s bias towards speaking out against the government. Instead of giving the people all of the information the news gives us a happier version of the war in which there are no casualties and America always comes out on top. But this perception of reality is false, and it ends up doing more damage than good. If the people do not get the full story then how will they be able to make decisions on important matters? They could never have full comprehension of what is going on around them and they are pointed in the direction that the media and the government want them to go. This is done because the United States understands the full power of the people’s public opinion on the actions of the government. It knows that without the support of the American people it cannot achieve its goals. So it has become custom for the media to work with the government to make it un-American and wrong to protest it. Those who spoke out against the war in Iraq were cast into the flames and labeled as anti-military. But is it not the Armed Forces job to ensure that the Constitution is protected and upheld? And the defining point of the Constitution is freedom of the people, including, and arguably most importantly, to argue with the government and speak out. So, it is not anti-military for public to speak out against the war, it is in fact utilizing the right that our heroes have fought and died for throughout American history.
Shafer brings up the issue of flag burning to exemplify the importance of protesting the government. He is not stating that we should have a constant grudge towards the government, but rather fights to make it better. To burn a flag is to cry out and reject the actions of that country because you believe them to be wrong. If it were illegal to do that then what does that say about the country? It shows that it is unwilling to here the vices against it and would rather shut up the protesters then address the problem. It makes the only other option to be to salute the flag. If this were the case the honor and significance of that act would be gone. If one cannot burn and reject the ideals of the nation, how could they take pride in pledging themselves to the nation? The core value of America states that everyone should have a choice, and to go against that is in fact an act of flag burning. What better way is there to dishonor your country then to take away its founding ideals?
Shafer shows how this is going on in the United States through a myriad of examples. There is the arrest of Stephen Downs for wearing an anti-war T-shirt. And the way the Peter Arnett was condemned for showing the bad side of American foreign policy, in this case a bombed Iraqi milk factory. The Patriot Act also infringes on the American public's ability to speak out against the government. With all these acts it is clear that there is an active force that is trying to keep the public in line and have the opinion of the people be consistently positive towards government actions. Though it is good to support the government and should always be something that should be worked towards, one should not support it based on false or incomplete information fed to them by the media that they think they know and trust. It is thoroughly undermining democracy.
David Brooks gives a different view on what the war in Iraq is producing. In his essay he describes three “dream palaces” that operate in accordance to the United States. These palaces are places of contempt towards American government and, according to Brooks, are forces that are misguided and wrong. The dream palaces are made up of there sects. The first is the Arab palace. In this world Brooks describes an angry Arab populace that in intent on destroying America and its freedoms for the apparent wrongs of the past. Then there is the European elitists palace, in which the European nations gaff at the United States and have unrealistic views on the American people and their values. Lastly Brooks describes the Bush hater dream palace. This palace is reserved for the small percentage of the American public that fight against Bush and his polices in an attempt to topple the President for the sole reason of undermining the Republican Party, regardless of the consequences.
Brooks theorizes that now that the Iraq war has ended (this essay was written when it was generally perceived that the war in Iraq was won and a Mission Accomplished was rendered by the President) these three dream palaces will begin to crumble and America will be, once again, proven right. Yet, unknown to Brooks, the coming years will cripple his thesis. Almost all of the planed fates that Brooks made up go awry and almost the exact opposite happens. The Arabs do not sag in their rage and in fact come back full force, trying the American military in Iraq and forcing them to realize that they are not fighting some disorganized enemy but instead a well organized force (even consisting of old men with AKs that shoot down Apaches, much to Brooks lament).
Europe did not go through its self-criticizing period, but instead responded with even more fervor towards the United States, including riots in France.
Lastly the Bush haters DID become more vociferous in their anger, but not for the reasons that Brooks foretold, but instead because the war continues to drag on for 5 plus years. Their numbers do not diminish, but instead grow, resulting in a 2008 presidential election in which the Democrats run the Executive office, along with the Senate and the House of Representatives.
No, it seems Brooks was wrong on almost all accounts. This is not because he is stupid (well, maybe a little bit) but because he is one of the Americans that have been subjected to the biased teaching on the media, just as Shafer predicts.
Brooks is under the assumption that protesting the war is unpatriotic, just as the media has told him. In his essay he creates a fictitious character, Joey Tabula-Rosa. This character is reacting to what he sees happening in Iraq, and does a perfect job of reinforcing Shafer’s point. In the essay he states that Joey is “glued to the cable coverage of the war and is ready to form some opinions.” He sees the United States as the shining city of light upon the hill surrounded by the darkness of other evil nations. He sees the American military liberating people with aims to limit the civilian casualties. But Joey does not hear of the civilians that are hurt, displaced, and/or killed. Nor does he hear the reasons of why other countries stand against America, only that they are evil and want to dismantle our way of life. He sees stereotypical versions of other countries that he is suspicious of. And most importantly he sees those who support the government’s policies and those who protest against it. Those who support the government are bringers of freedom and democracy, while those that oppose it are Californian degree holders that are secluded in their own world and fail to realize that situation that besets the country.
All of these views are products of a media that supports the government and does not leave room for protest. It showed the public a war in which there were no casualties and we were the clear winners. It did not prepare them for the long insurgency to follow, even though it could have. The media could have reported that the Marines of MEUs were not only fighting the Iraqi Army but also insurgents from Saudi Arabia and Iran that had come to participate in the jihad. But instead of telling the people this vital fact on where the war would soon be heading, the media put forth the allusion that the war nearly over and that victory was guaranteed. Without are clear and unfiltered view at what is happening in the world the public’s opinion is fated to be warped and out of perception. Brooks is the evidence that this did in fact occur. The media and the American government vie to control the public’s opinion, and the result is an undemocratic United States.
Brooks speaks of regimes that are sadistic and evil. They torture their own people, ignore basic rules of warfare, put their own problems onto others, and have far reaching effects across the globe. But if one looks closely, this is precisely what America is becoming if it continues down this path. The citizens no longer have privacy because of the Patriot Act, and suspected terrorist can be detained and tortured in facilities in other countries, such as Guantanamo Bay. We have begun to covertly attack other countries such as Pakistan and Syria with out their knowledge. We routinely attack others for our problems that some may call unjust, as we did in Iraq. And most of all our actions affect people across the globe. The United States of America is the world’s most powerful nation, and countries around the world must first gain our approval before action is taken. But just because we are the most powerful does not mean that we are perfect. Shafer proves the point that if the media continues to undermined the public’s opinion then it will make America the very thing that we are fighting to bring down.