Yesterday afternoon, during the buildup to last night’s State-of-the-Union-in-all-but-name, the administration leaked some rather important information to the press: President Obama has reportedly decided on a new timeline for the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Per the modified plan, U.S. forces will draw down nineteen months from now, in 2010.
If implemented (an official announcement likely won’t come until Friday), the amended timeline—”a compromise between commanders and advisers who are worried that security gains could backslide in Iraq and those who think the bulk of U.S. combat work is long since done,” the AP reports—will keep the current presence of some 142,000 military personnel in Iraq three months longer the sixteen months Obama had promised, repeatedly, during the campaign. The new blueprint will also maintain a residual force of 30,000 to 50,000 personnel—between a quarter and a third of the current troop level—in the country.
Which two developments, combined, mean that the administration’s decision was pretty much guaranteed to anger the growing contingent of anti-war, pro-drawdown Americans, many of whom helped elect Obama. “Pledging to end the war in 16 months helped to build enormous grass-roots support for Obama’s White House bid,” the AP notes.
In the past, the timing of the administration’s pseudo-announcement would seem to have implicated it in the practice traditionally known as “taking out the trash” or “dumping”: releasing unsavory information either right after a deadline or right before the press will be occupied with something else. (Or both: thus, the traditional post-file, pre-weekend Late Friday Afternoon Newsdump.) The Iraq leak came right before all of Washington—and its press corps—descended on the Capitol to hear a speech that, for all its grandiose discussion of community-building and dream-restoring for Americans, barely mentioned how we will be engaging in such activities when it comes to the commitments we’ve made in other countries. (“We are now carefully reviewing our policies in both wars, and I will soon announce a way forward in Iraq that leaves Iraq to its people and responsibly ends this war,” President Obama said in the speech. And then he moved on.) The president’s message last night was about reclaiming America’s promise to itself; the Iraq war, so flagrantly at odds with our own preferred self-conception, didn’t fit. So: cut away.
Whether yesterday’s delayed-drawdown leak was accidental or intentional, its timing alone would seem to suggest that the timetable “announcement,” made on the day of Obama’s much-anticipated and much-covered address to Congress, had itself a flair of non-ness about it. The leak revealed itself, apparently, with the intention of being ignored.
But then! Today, news of the timetable extension is here. And here. And here and here and here and here. It’s been talked about on TV. It’s been blogged about. It’s been on Drudge. It’s, you know, A Story. And a big one.
There’s a lesson in this, for politician and power-broker alike: Burying a story in the dregs of the news cycle works only when there’s a meaningful news cycle to do the burying. And, currently, by any practical measure, there is not. There is only news—news that’s emitted to the ether, news that jostles and jockeys for space, news that spreads not according to a manufactured construct of deadlines and air times, but according to its own merit. That doesn’t mean worthy stories always get the attention they deserve, to be sure. But it does mean that the collateral benefit of a media landscape that is (to borrow a phrase) hot, flat, and crowded is that, paradoxically, it’s difficult for important information to hide, unseen, within it. Newsworthy stories, much more than they have in the past, generally find their way to sunlight.