Who are we fighting?

TPM:

Oddly enough, the president used to be fairly responsible when describing al Qaeda's role in Iraqi violence. Not too terribly long ago, Bush described "the terrorists affiliated with or inspired by al Qaeda" -- not even the network itself -- as the "smallest" component of violence in Iraq.

As the political winds shifted, so too did the administration's rhetoric. In May, Bush declared that al Qaeda is "public enemy No. 1 in Iraq." A few days ago, he reiterated the point at the Naval War College, describing al Qaeda as "the main enemy" in Iraq.

The point is as subtle as a sledgehammer. If the administration can transform al Qaeda from a minor player in Iraq to the sole purpose for our ongoing presence, simply through rhetorical games, Bush might reframe the debate: us vs. them. Americans against those responsible for 9/11. Forces of freedom vs. forces of terrorism.

I understand the appeal of such a dynamic -- it would make the war in Iraq so much easier -- but it's simply, unquestionably wrong. Worse, it's a shamelessly cynical ploy to rally public support under false pretenses. Americans don't support U.S. staying in the middle of a civil war, but maybe, the White House thinks, Americans will support a war against al Qaeda. It's a transparent con job.

Glenn Greenwald recently had an excellent item explaining that several major media outlets, most notably the New York Times, have been buying into the administration's rhetorical shift. Today, to his enormous credit, the Times' public editor, Clark Hoyt, tackled the subject head on a terrific column.

[I]n using the language of the administration, the newspaper has also failed at times to distinguish between Al Qaeda, the group that attacked the United States on Sept. 11, and Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, an Iraqi group that didn't even exist until after the American invasion. [...]

I went back and read war coverage for much of the month of June and found many stories that conveyed the complexity and chaos of today's Iraq.... But those references to Al Qaeda began creeping in with greater frequency. Susan Chira, the foreign editor, said she takes "great pride in the whole of our coverage" but acknowledged that the paper had used "excessive shorthand" when referring to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. "We've been sloppy," she said. [...]

On Thursday, she and her deputy, Ethan Bronner, circulated a memo with guidelines on how to distinguish Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia from bin Laden's Al Qaeda.

It's a good move. I'd have been happier still if The Times had helped its readers by doing a deeper job of reporting on the administration's drive to make Al Qaeda the singular enemy in Iraq.

Military experts will tell you that failing to understand your enemy is a prescription for broader failure.

There's certainly no guarantee that the White House will stop playing cynical rhetorical games just because they got caught -- they are a shameless bunch -- but items like Hoyt's help set the record straight. With a little luck, they might even help improve reporting on the war and discourage the Bush gang from playing the electorate for fools.