Feature Article

Paving the Path to War

By Katharine Cuyle

At a time when support for the Iraq war is waning, a new threat is lurking. The public is all but disillusioned with the outcome of the Iraq war, which makes finding support for the continuance of the “War on Terror” all the more difficult. This new threat however has something sure to stoke old flames. Now think back. Iraq wasn’t the only terrorist hotbed, nor was it the only country to have its government overthrown. Afghanistan was a major al-Qaeda stronghold supported by a Taliban government.

If you are murky on the details the recent news headlines can refresh your memory. Up until the ’08 U.S. presidential elections, Afghanistan was all but ignored. A small troop base of coalition forces remained, but it was rarely reported on. All this has changed; Afghanistan is in the spotlight bringing with it familiar themes of terrorists, an illicit drug trade, and corrupt government officials which threaten U.S. aims of eradicating terrorism and exporting democratic ideals.

While President Obama waits on the outcome of the contested Afghan election to unveil the revised U.S. policy in the country, news stories hint at possible strategies and remind the public of the threat posed by this country’s terrorist ties and anything else to highlight the country’s instability. Quoting mostly unnamed government sources and newly released government reports the New York Times headline reads “Many Sources Feed Taliban’s War Chest” and the Washington Post tells us “Why the U.S. Fights in Afghanistan.” If further U.S. intervention in Afghanistan is uncertain, what accounts for the growing media interest and relocation of journalists to the country?

What’s happening in Afghanistan is an example of the media acting as a mechanism to facilitate support for an intended government policy. The media is setting the stage by providing facts which make the possible troop surge more palatable to the general public. Thus we arrive back at those unnamed sources. The release of information by such sources signifies the active government engagement of the media to influence the public mood. Government attempts to influence news coverage of international relations employ recurring frames to encourage public opinion consistent with government policy objectives. By releasing information via government reports or unnamed sources public opinion can be gauged or a specific policy can be promoted over opposition. The theme is that Afghanistan is becoming a more dangerous place and poses a significant risk to the U.S. if something isn’t done.

When covering international relations the media is especially reliant on government information. This relationship is beneficial to both parties, government sources can promote their objectives and journalists who otherwise would not have access are given privileged information. It is a relationship of convenience which helps maintain a shared ideology.

By utilizing news management techniques the government effectively shapes the contours of the debate on most issues of international relations. Professor Robert McChesney underscores the media’s role as a facilitator of government policy in his chapter contribution to the book ‘Journalism after September 11’ by highlighting how the U.S. government utilized the media to gain support for its policy objectives in the lead up to the Iraq war. In the case of Iraq this was accomplished by narrowing the debate to possible military options, by utilizing military officials for public comment. In much the same way, unnamed government officials quoted in the recent discussion of Afghanistan are promoting further U.S. military intervention as a necessity.

And they have been successful; so far the debate has revolved around whether or not the President will increase troop levels. The only option for Afghanistan is a military option.