With the conclusion of the presidential election two weeks ago, it seemed that our 24/7 cable news industry would be left without anything riveting to give the viewers. Fortunately, they received the gift of CIA director David Petraeus’ extramarital affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, a scandal filled with sex, intrigue and corruption in high places — in other words, every reporter’s wildest fantasy. As interesting or humorous as the details have been, however, the past two weeks of its nonstop coverage got me thinking about media attention, or lack thereof, to the war in Afghanistan, which Petraeus was once tasked with carrying out.
Remember the war in Afghanistan? The one that’s been going for more than 11 years now? America’s longest-running war, ever? You could be forgiven for letting it slip your mind; it’s been rarely covered in depth, especially in recent, more economically-focused years. While I have no ties to the war, nor plans to actually enlist and fight in it, it still strikes me as slightly ridiculous that General Petraeus is dominating the news coverage not as part of a thorough analysis of the war and its merits, but as the center of a tawdry sex scandal.
I understand fully that expecting our news media to devote significant chunks of airtime to complex international issues is unrealistic; people naturally have fairly short attention spans, these issues take time to understand, and attracting viewers is a major concern for any media outlet. An 11-year-old war just is not a riveting or uplifting story that many people are naturally inclined to investigate. Consequently, it receives little coverage. But the level of the neglect the war has received throughout its history is simply ridiculous, especially in comparison with the Petraeus affair.
Launched in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, with the nation eager to retaliate for the devastating attacks, there was virtually no debate about the merits of the war or how to carry it out. Yet even without this debate, the war was still at least recognized for a while, until a newer and shinier war in Iraq took its place in the center of the public consciousness. With no one focusing on the war, how it was going, or how the troops were coping with it, most Americans were left to slap a “Support Our Troops” bumper sticker on their minivans and call it a day.
Even when the Iraq War wound down and ultimately concluded during President Barack Obama’s first term, the nation’s economic woes dominated the public’s attention, leaving foreign affairs as almost an afterthought in the national consciousness. Obama’s “surge” of troops in 2009 generated some buzz, but since then the general media has focused little to no attention on what the effects of that surge have been or what a successful withdrawal would look like, vital issues that our war-weary public simply does not have the stomach or the patience for anymore after the Iraq train wreck. Though I consider myself someone who soaks up a relatively large amount of media or current events in my day, I feel as though I know very little about what the situation overseas is; as such, I find it difficult to hold a very strong opinion on what direction the war should go in, a confusion that I imagine extends to most Americans as well.
Afghanistan didn’t even receive its day in the sun in our most recent election, with the president’s Republican challenger, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, shifting his position on the war several times and lacking any clear differentiation with the president over the conduct of the war. For a wartime election to hardly even touch on the war is simply amazing. It is a huge testament to not only the disinterest that exists among the public regarding this muddled war, but also to the confusion that the war itself creates along party lines, as many Republicans are typically pro-war, while many Democrats are more wary of overseas adventures. Yet it is being carried out by a Democratic commander-in-chief in a time of bitter partisan divisions. Many politicians are thus left without clear-cut positions on the war itself, further fostering the national confusion.
Unlike the war, then, which is nuanced, complex and full of morally gray decisions that must be made in order to bring it to a respectable conclusion, the Petraeus scandal is headline-grabbing, easy to follow and a riveting piece of gossip. It is understandable that it would be such a buzz-worthy story, and I am not saying that the CIA director lying about his personal conduct is not entirely trivial, nor am I saying that I do not get a kick out of stories about the famous and the powerful.
But when this sexy story receives more coverage in one day of cable news than Afghanistan has probably received in the past year, that strikes me as incredibly irresponsible and a disservice to the American people who should possess at least a passing idea of what their troops are going through overseas. If the Petraeus mess accomplishes anything, then, I would hope that it brings a newfound attention to the CIA, the military, and the wars they wage, an attention that would do everyone involved a great deal of good as we attempt to bring this long-running war to a close.
Ryan Kearney is a Communication sophomore. He can be reached at [email protected]. If you would like to respond publicly to this column, email a Letter to the Editor to [email protected].
