Jessica’s cry for help

At the existential hour of 1:29 a.m. on Monday, Jessica McBride typed this torrent of giggle-inducing prose:

I haven't choked on my morning coffee to this extent since the asterisk editorial. This Sunday's Crossroads section was an outrage.

Let's start with the huge blaring headline:

We are NOT winning (not was in red)

Thanks, Journal Sentinel, for that inspiring Sunday morning read.

First of all, the headline stated this as a fact. This is not a fact. For example, I believe we are winning. At the very least, this is a matter of debate. The headline should have read:

We are not winning, according to the Journal Sentinel

She's talking about this story. Jessica worked at the Journal Sentinel for 10 years. Did no one tell her in that time that Crossroads is opinion? So maybe headlines play a little different, have more of a point of view, than articles in the news pages? (Perhaps not. That might explain her hatred of the “mainstream media” and her contempt for the practice of journalism in general.) Still, the upper right hand corner of Crossroads reads “Opinion/Commentary/Editorials/Letters.” But at 1:29 , perhaps you can miss the print right in front of your face (as she has missed so many other things).

By the way, Jessica, can you please explain why we are winning in Iraq (which is the focus of two of the books reviewed)? I know offering a vision of what qualifies as victory and how that could be achieved would put you on the lunatic fringe of the right – but give it a shot! (Or at least kindly shut up when Democrats seek to put in a timeline for an American withdrawal … Or at least just say we’re going to stay there forever. To that point, are you talking to your kids about enlisting in the military when they’re old enough so they can do their duty in Iraq? Because it’s never too early!)

She goes on to write:

We are not winning, so nah,nah,nah,nah because we have staked so much rhetorical capital on this stance that we can't back out now and are rather pleased we aren't winning because it validates our long-standing arguments

As an extra-credit assignment, Jessica should ask her students to diagram that sentence – or better yet, explain how it comports with the Pulitzer Board’s definition of excellence in editorial writing:

“Clearness of style, moral purpose, sound reasoning, and power to influence public opinion in what the writer conceives to be the right direction.”

She must go on – the demons of 1:29 are pushing her – so she does:

We are not winning, according to a couple books we cherrypicked to match our doom-and-gloom template.

Actually it was three books. One is The One Percent Doctrine by Ron Suskind, a former Wall Street Journal reporter who won the Pulitzer Prize and demonstrated his ability to cut to the heart of decisionmaking in the Bush Administration in his book The Price of Loyalty. Another is Cobra II, by Michael R. Gordon and General Bernard Trainor (Yes, in Jessica’s scary 1:29 world, Gordon’s status as an NYT reporter is tantamount to being a traitor. But still, General Bernard Trainor is, as his title suggests, a retired lieutenant general. So he might, you know, have a clue about how war works – and just as importantly, have the trust of military officers to tell their story. Also this duo wrote a book called The General’s War about the Persian Gulf War. One reviewer called it “A fascinating account of the war. I recommend it to my friends as something that gives them a different element of some of the different decisions that were made.” That reviewer was Dick Cheney.) The third is The Assassins Gate by George Packer, who was a fairly high-profile hawk who subsequently has come to see the mission as an utter disaster.

I tarry over these author’s biographies to underscore that perhaps these books were picked because they offered something new to the dialogue about the war – as Bill Glauber says in the piece McBride attacks, these books “are based on hard digging and newsgathering instead of the usual name-calling that so often characterizes what passes for a national debate on the war on terror.” (I disagree with his conflation of Iraq occupation and the war on terror, but that’s a separate issue.)

I’d say it’s obvious McBride hasn’t read any of these books before condemning them (ole Burke would roll in his grave if he were to see the people who claim to be part of his “tradition”!), but that goes without saying for McBride who famously observed re: learning about Islam:

I know all I need to know about Islam, thank you very much - let's start with the way that women are treated in most Muslim countries. I have no interest in going to learn about a religion that pretty much fosters societies that enslave women.

Again, at 1:29, like some sad sack Beckett character, she goes on:

You know what, editorial board? At the very least, we are winning the war on terror a lot more today than we were under Bill Clinton. I don't remember the headline, we are NOT winning, then. When Clinton ran from Somalia. And blinked when he could have taken out bin Laden. And ignored the USS Cole outrage and the bombings of the African embassies.

We are decimating the al-Qaida leadership. We just got Zarqawi. Iraq had free elections. Bin Laden is hiding in a cave somewhere. We ARE winning, whether you like it or not. Why do some people seem invested in losing?

Uh, first off, the story was written by Bill Glauber. Not the editorial board.

And the sentence “we are winning the war on terror a lot more today than we were under Bill Clinton,” apart from being hilariously constructed, isn’t true if terrorist attacks are increasing – which they have – and more terrorists are popping up. Right? As for Somalia,, getting out of there was a bipartisan effort (as the Brawler laid out for you before, Jessica – and that was not a front on the war on terror anyway). The “taken out bin Laden” scenario is more complicated than you describe. And the Clinton Administration had told the incoming Bushies that they should be on the watch for bin Laden et al. And Bush blows off a certain PDB.

(Why no mention of Reagan trading arms for hostages or pulling out of Beirut while you're at it? That's right, he was a Republican.)

Moreover, why do you fail to mention that Bush might have been able to get bin Laden at Tora Bora but blew it? Meanwhile, Iraq is hurtling toward civil war.

This 1:29 column is a clear cut cry for help. After all, no self-respecting journalist – let alone a teacher of budding journalists – would put her name to such offal.

UPDATE: Jessica's latest screed draws rave reviews elsewhere. Check out Xoff, who raises similar points. It appears a growing number of people are asking: Why is Jessica McBride teaching journalism?

Comments

[Cream City]

She ought to know what opinion writing is -- she is listed as teaching a course called Critical and Opinion Writing at UWM.

Administrators and regents, act now! Review this instructor's ability to teach this course!

[Dave]

According to the good Professor Lakoff, we've already won - and a long time ago, too:

Occupation: The Inconvenient Truth About Iraq
07-01-2006

It is time to tell an inconvenient truth about Iraq: it is an occupation, not a war. In wars, armies fight to dominate land. The US won the war three years ago when Bush said, “Mission Accomplished”. Then the occupation started, and our troops were not trained or equipped for an occupation under predictably hostile circumstances. Finally getting the courage to tell the truth that the US is an occupying force drastically changes the picture in Iraq. You cannot “win” an occupation. “Cut and run” does not apply to an occupation. Occupiers have to leave; the only question is when and how. Progressive Democrats agree that it should be soon; they only disagree on details. Political courage is called for. Truth now!

More at: http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/lakoff/occupation

[North Central]

I e-mailed dear Jessica and asked her why she failed to distinguish the front page from op-ed. She did reply, although she didn't answer the question. The gist of her response was "I believe in what I say and am not a shill."

So I mailed back and challenged her to explain in detail how we are winning the war in Iraq, in the context of recent headlines, shifting rationales for invading, the exhorbitant human toll, the half-trillion dollar taxpayer toll, etc. etc. I told her she should blog her response. This should be interesting.