Shadowland: When Victory Was Ours

The disaster in Iraq, it would seem, is the fault of the press. "YOU CREEPS HAVE BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS," reads an e-mail from a gentleman in Cincinnati, which popped up on my screen this morning as I was drinking my coffee.

It's one of hundreds in response to last week's Shadowland column where I suggested Americans were in denial about the mess in Iraq, that the French probably were right when they tried to prevent the rush to war last spring (but are insufferably smug about it now) and that there were warnings in the American press about how long and painful the military occupation would be, if only the public had listened.

That last point really ticked people off. The Cincinnati gentleman attacked the "so-called liberal media" for not being liberal enough, for cheerleading the rush to war. Others, on the right, called me a traitor for daring to criticize the Iraq adventure at all, even now. "Only a True American can disagree with our leaders but still publicly support them," a Mr. Romero wrote. "Our weak and heartless media give other countries the impression that Americans are weak ... The next time you chose[sic] to tread on the American Flag, do it from another country."

I've read all the nearly 800 e-mails. About one quarter are pure vitriol addressed, inevitably, to "people like you," but a roughly equal number contain thoughtful criticism, usually emphasizing the good that's been done for the Iraqi people by eliminating Saddam's regime. Another quarter are unabashed fan letters, thanking somebody for being "brave enough" to speak out. (Feel free to keep sending those to Shadowland@Newsweek.com.) And recently, there's been an avalanche from folks, like the man in Cincinnati, who say they always opposed the war, and blame the media for failing to do so, too.

In fact, it's not the business of "people like me" to oppose the war, or for that matter the occupation. Our business is to try to describe the situation as accurately as we can and, if possible, on the basis of past histories and present facts, to suggest what the future might hold in store. If you tell me there was a lot of bad reporting before, during and after the first phase of the war, much of it pure jingoism, you're right. But there were other voices that tried to present all sides, to ask tough questions, and, if they didn't get the ratings, it's not only because they were drowned out by the war drums, it's because the answers made almost everyone so uncomfortable.

Let's not kid ourselves about Saddam Hussein. He wanted to acquire weapons of mass destruction. He said as much on many occasions, and mounted a massive program to do just that during the 1980s. He was a horrible tyrant who slaughtered his own people. He was ferociously vengeful, could never be trusted and, what is worse, had a long record of pathological misjudgments leading to vast, bloody wars. I've been writing about his grim record since my first visit to Baghdad in 1985. I make no apologies for calling him evil. And let's take this a step further. I think it's pretty clear that if September 11 hadn't happened (quite independently of Saddam), and if President Bush had not used the anniversary to rally the United Nations and world opinion a year later, Saddam might well have found a way to start rebuilding his horrible arsenal. The intent remained.