The Fogosphere of War

George Packer contrasts two recent Iraq war controversies at Interesting Times:

(1.) A soldier on a base in Baghdad writes a pseudonymous dispatch for The New Republic that describes minor atrocities committed by him or others in his unit—mocking a disfigured woman in the dining hall, wearing a piece of a child’s skull on his head, running over dogs while out on patrol. Conservative journalists and bloggers deride the piece as fraudulent and anti-military; officers in Iraq join them. The New Republic reveals the identity of the soldier and provides corroborating evidence. The conservatives keep firing. The soldier has his cell phone and computer taken away.

(2.) Two center-left think-tank analysts return from a trip to Iraq and declare in an Op-Ed that the surge has produced successes. Liberal journalists and bloggers deride the piece as credulous, dishonest, and self-serving. Republican politicians, including the Vice-President, celebrate the Op-Ed; conservative journalists and bloggers denounce its denouncers as unpatriotic defeatists. The liberals keep firing. The think-tank analysts retain their phones and computers.

The same people who believed the first story refused to believe the second, and vice versa. In a sense, they believed or refused to believe each story before it was published—even before it had occurred. What mattered was whether the story supported or undermined their view of the war. This kind of thing depresses me even more than the thought of Bradley Fighting Vehicles running over stray dogs.

More here.

Image: "The Fog of War" by Norman Wright