Monday, December 13, 2004

Historical Miracle and Media Indifference

The incomparable Charles Krauthammer at the Washington Post notes the MSM's utter lack of enthusiasm for giving President Bush credit for the successes occurring in Afghanistan. Indeed, the only time we hear mention of Afghanistan in the media is when there are casualties to report or when we're informed of the difficulties Hamid Karzai faces in governing this wild land. Afghanistan is a miracle, says Krauthammer, and the media can only manage a disinterested yawn:

"Miracle begets yawn" has been the American reaction to the inauguration of Hamid Karzai as president of Afghanistan. Before our astonishing success in Afghanistan goes completely down the memory hole, let's recall some very recent history. For almost a decade before Sept. 11, we did absolutely nothing about Afghanistan. A few cruise missiles hurled into empty tents, followed by expressions of satisfaction about the "message" we had sent. It was, in fact, a message of utter passivity and unseriousness.

Then comes our Pearl Harbor, and the sleeping giant awakens. Within 100 days, al Qaeda is routed and the Taliban overthrown. Then the first election in Afghanistan's history. Now the inauguration of a deeply respected democrat who, upon being sworn in as the legitimate president of his country, thanks America for its liberation.

This in Afghanistan, which only three years ago was not just hostile but untouchable. What do liberals have to say about this singular achievement by the Bush administration? That Afghanistan is growing poppies.

Good grief. This is news? "Afghanistan grows poppies" is the sun rising in the east. "Afghanistan inaugurates democratically elected president" is the sun rising in the west. Afghanistan has always grown poppies. What is President Bush supposed to do? Send 100,000 GIs to eradicate the crop and incite a popular rebellion?

What has happened in Afghanistan is nothing short of a miracle. Who is responsible for it? The New York Times gives the major credit to "the Afghan people" with their "courage and commitment." Courage and commitment there was, but the courage and commitment were curiously imperceptible until this administration conceived a radical war plan, executed it brilliantly, liberated the country and created from scratch the structures of democracy.

Don't expect the MSM to give Bush any credit for anything. When the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union broke up it was all because of Michal Gorbachev, we were told. Ronald Reagan was relegated to the role of bystander even though the collapse of communism occurred largely due to Reagan's courage and leadership and to a lesser extent because of the courage and efforts of people like Lech Walesa and Pope John Paul II. To ignore Reagan's role in the collapse of the Soviet Union or George Bush's role in the Afghan success while crediting the Afghan people is like ignoring the role of George Washington in defeating the British while crediting the troops in the Continental Army.