On Wednesday night, Grand Rapids area Representative Vern Ehlers spoke on the intersection of faith and science at the Women's City Club in downtown Grand Rapids at an appearance hosted by the Freethought Association. During the question and answer period, Ehlers was asked three questions about the Iraq War. His responses are important in that they show his current position on the Iraq War.
Ehlers' comments ran the gamut from explaining why the United States entered the war to how the media is covering the war in Iraq. In one question, Ehlers was asked about whether or not he would pledge to stop funding and take a more realistic view of the situation in Iraq:
Q: You talk about the disagreement with theology and science, and there is one thing that there is no disagreement on. Most of the religious leaders, both popes--John Paul II and Benedict, the Dali Lama, Desmond Tutu, to name a few, would have what you call the "special revelation," were and are against the war in Iraq and the scientific data--the "general revelation" that you discuss here, has shown empirical information [sic] of failure. In other words, thousands of US casualties and tens of thousands of Iraq casualties--why are we continuing the war in Iraq? Vern, as our representative, a Christian, a man of integrity, and a scientist, will you please view start viewing the war in a scientific way and look at the facts, and what you call the "theology" of this, and why are we funding the war, because funding the war is continuing the war. Can you pledge to vote against any further funding of the war?
Ehlers: Ok, that's a very broad question and one that could easily take the next half hour, but I'll try to be fairly brief. This obviously is a very complex issue. I have been portrayed in the Press recently by a group of letter writers as someone who is an "ardent" support of the war, I have had demonstrators come to my front lawn and put posters on my house--one of those referred to me as an "ardent" supporter of the war--and that is false. By the way, my colleagues in Washington are absolutely astounded that anyone would come to my own home to demonstrate--that's just unheard of--but that's just a side issue. So, in any event, what if we do pull out? So there are no simple solutions, there never have been. What if we simply pull out? How many thousands of people are going to die? Five-fold more than we have now. In my view, on that particular issue, we went in, we made the mess, it's our responsibility to clean up the mess and try to ensure safety for the people before we leave. And, that's, that's my opinion, and it may not be widely shared. But we have a responsibility after having gone in there to try to restore peace so that the people will have a chance to try to put their country back together and living in piece. There are many different aspects to the whole situation. I'm not at all pleased with what happened, I warned the Pentagon before they went in what would happen because they were not at all prepared for what did happen. I predicted it right on and I also had backing, I didn't know it at the time, but the Army War College had a report that said the same thing.
Ehlers responded first by stating that he has been misrepresented in recent editorials to the Grand Rapids Press as an "ardent" supporter of the war, which Ehlers says "is false." However, Ehlers does nothing to show that he is anything other than an "ardent" supporter of this war. This is likely because he cannot claim to be anything else, as his voting record is clear--he supported the initial invasion and has voted for every funding request. Moreover, he has voted against recent measures setting a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops and has supported "the surge." In recent months, Ehlers has attempted to say that he was a "reluctant" supporter of the war, although his comments in the lead up to the war raised the prospect of a nuclear explosion over Calder Plaza, not concern over a lack of pre-war planning.
Moreover, his pre-war comments are not the issue--it is what he is doing now. Ehlers has said that he wants a "new solution" in Iraq, but he has not offered one. Instead, he talks about "the mess" in Iraq and asserts that the consequences of leaving will be worse than staying, but he offers no proof that this will be so.
Ehlers also talked about why Congress voted to go to war in Iraq:
Q: I want to know why the Congress, and I'm talking about both sides of the aisle, did not do their homework and let Bush get us into this war.
Ehlers: So, that is very complex, because there are 535 different answers from 535 different members of Congress. I don't think any of us--well I take that back--I think some were actually strongly supporting going in immediately. There's a whole spectrum of opinion, the Congress is as diverse as the American people and frankly that was a surprise to me when I first got elected, that democracy actually works. The opinions of everyone across the nation are represented there. We had some heated, healthy debates, and the answer came out the way it did. And I told you I had deep reservations and I'm sure a lot of others did, and others had no reservations whatsoever, but the decision is done, it was made. The question is now, what do we do now? And that's a question that we face everyday.
His response to the question was essentially a dodge, with Ehlers making questionable assertions about the diversity of opinion in Congress while ignoring what he did during the debate over the war in 2002. Ehlers' so-called "deep reservations" were never raised publicly. He is right to say that "the decision is done, it was made. The question is now, what do we do now," but unfortunately Ehlers has refused to take the lead on the issue or meaningfully participate in the debate over the war.
Ehlers was also asked about the role of the media in shaping the public perception of the Iraq War:
Q: It appears that the constituents in your district and the American public at large are receiving incomplete information about the situation in Iraq due to the fact that the media and the press in Iraq are heavily controlled by the US military. This restriction of the press and the polarization of research, why or why not will you take a stance regarding that?
Ehlers: I'm not sure what you mean by the restriction of the press. This has been the most covered war I think in history. The reporters were embedded but again they still had free reign there. They may chose not to face all the dangers that are over there, but the most common complaint that I hear from people who have been in Iraq--this includes troops and civilians--is that the press here is biased against what's going on in Iraq--that they are not telling the true story. Now, I am just telling you what I have been told, so don't shake your head. That is a true statement--I have been told that by a lot of people who have been in Iraq--either military and those who have gone over there as civilians. So, whether the press covers things accurately or not is a premium question--we face that in the Congress all the time as well. You know, I'm absolutely astounded at some of the things that I read about myself in the paper that I supposedly did or said, and that I would not consider reporting a scientific activity with little uncertainty. So everyone makes mistakes, including reporters.
Ehlers' response is interesting in that while describing the war as "the most covered war... in history," he neglects to address how the media functioned in building a case in support of the war. Ehlers ignores the fact that the "embedding" process came out of a desire to manage public perception of the conflict and was part of a massive public relations operation designed to control the public perception of the war. At the same time, Ehlers' assertion that reporters had "free reign" and had the opportunity to move freely about the country but may not have felt comfortable due to the "danger" of the situation, ignores the fact that over 100 journalists have been killed in Iraq and that the United States military has targeted journalists in Iraq.
Ehlers further argues that the media is "biased against what's going on in Iraq," although his claim is certainly open to interpretation. In two studies conducted by Media Mouse of Iraq War coverage in the Grand Rapids Press (1, 2) this year, an overwhelming majority of sources consulted were military and government sources--neither of which are particularly critical of the war effort. Similarly, earlier studies by the Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy (GRIID) in 2003 and 2004 had similar conclusions. Critical perspectives in "news" coverage of the war have been limited. Instead, Ehlers' claims seem to reflect the problem that there are not many journalists on the ground in Iraq traveling throughout the country--most are confined within the fortified Green Zone and are essentially practicing "stenography" of US and Iraqi government briefings.
