An Appeal for Debate on CNN

At a war’s beginning, the media narrative should never be provided by supposed experts with a conflict of interest in the outcome. Voices of the anti-war movement, not pundits proven wrong in their warnings about Iraq and Afghanistan, should be included in any balanced coverage. In the case of Libya, however, CNN is relying heavily on the supposedly expert views of Fouad Ajami, a Bush-Cheney-Wolfowitz adviser who was among the foremost cheerleaders of the Iraq invasion. Ajami even credits the American war in Iraq as the cause of the recent uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt. He uses his influential position and melodic tone to convey a steady advocacy of invading Libya, overthrowing Qaddafi, and ignoring dissent from the rest of the world.

Ajami dismisses “anti-Americanism as the "road rage" of a thwarted Arab world – the congenital condition of a culture yet to take full responsibility for its self-inflicted wounds. There is no need to pay excessive deference to the political pieties and givens of the region.” [“Iraq and the Arabs’ Future," Foreign Affairs, Jan.-Feb. 2003] After initial disagreements, Ajami also endorsed Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” thesis as “compelling.” [New York Times Review of Books, January 6, 2008].

CNN has attempted to provide an alternative to the unbalanced partisan interpretations of FOX, and demonstrated courageous journalism on the ground in Egypt recently. But when it comes to expert interpretation, it is incomprehensible that CNN turns to advocates of war who should have been discredited- or at the very least debated- long ago.

The 2000 Report of the Project of the New American Century entitled "Rebuilding Americas' Defenses" calls for the implementation of a long war, a war of conquest. One of the main components of this military agenda is to, "Fight and decisively win in multiple, simultaneous theater wars."