Leading Media Correspondents Ruminate on US Foreign Policy
By Anita Raman

May 5, New York City - It's a rainy and chilly afternoon, but the weather is hardly apparent inside the Palace Hotel's Villard Ballroom, where leaders in the news, international relations and investment communities have gathered for the Foreign Policy Association's annual NBC Luncheon.

Since its inception, the Luncheon has given policy wonks a first, pre-headline bite at national foreign policy, as seen by those who cover international news at its highest levels. This year, Brian Williams, NBC Nightly News' Anchor and Managing Editor, moderated Andrea Mitchell, NBC News' Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent, and Jonathan Alter, Senior Editor and Columnist at Newsweek.

	Foreign Policy Association Website

Andrea Mitchell leads her comments with North Korea; the ideological slant behind her remarks is hardly surprising considering her longstanding administration ties. But moving quickly through sanctions regimes, Iraq and nuclear proliferation, Mitchell quickly drops a bomb of her own: from liaison with the current administration, and unlike in Iran, "there is a military option for North Korea - a very serious military option - and we are seriously weighing its costs and its benefits."

Why not Iran, then? Iran's size, population and geographic complexities make intervention there out of the question. North Korea, relatively small, with an impoverished and undernourished population, makes a more viable target for a national army already strapped by Iraq and Afghanistan. North Korea is under consideration because it is a softer target, though this is said indirectly.

Alter then speaks to Iran - why its national strength provides it with insulation, despite being fenced in by U.S. military interventions on both sides. Present on both of Iran's major borders - Iraq and Afghanistan - we have already raised Persian ire. And, from Alter's comments, it's time for Germany, France, Russia, he U.K. or really, anybody, to take the lead on this one. Another field where the U.S. has to fall into line.

Maybe what got us there is our "9/11 Syndrome", the fascination with the idea that doing something is better than doing nothing, regardless of the shape and content of our action. No, Alter says, "my bigger concern is that [9/11 syndrome] is wearing off... the sense of urgency is gone." He speaks of intelligent steps we need to take - securing chemical plants, upgrading the FBI's intranet, effective enforcement of air safety guidelines.

But our sense of urgency has not historically led us in a structured or coherent direction. Instead, urgency has taken us into an era of noncompliance with privacy and international humanitarian laws, into draconian immigration enforcement. Maybe the end of the Syndrome should be viewed with a sense of relief, because our haste has never been the more intelligent animal Alter describes.

International relations is peppered with armchair quarterbacks, and second-guessing of others' perceived mistakes. However, if the executive branch perspectives related by Williams, Mitchell and Alter are at all indicative of where our nation is going on the international front - and these views at least color what comes to your screen - the results could be quite troubling.

In this universe, China is a threat, not a potential challenge to move our domestic industry and education systems forward. North Korea, a nation we refuse to speak to, is under serious consideration for military engagement, though we do not even expend two direct words on diplomatic engagement.

As consumers of media we have to continually ask what separates news from views. What makes Iran and North Korea more of a threat than the black market in arms proliferation, and self-interested arms-peddling nations, that have supplied and even structured their nuclear programs? What should the average American make of the horse-and-pony show playing out on coverage of the Bolton nomination?

On Afghanistan, Mitchell points out the logical leaps that run throughout our entire national policy framework, "it plays to our weakness again, which is follow-through." The press and the panel's speakers are to be commended for risking their lives and safety for global awareness the world's most isolated and dangerous regions. However, their dedication does not erase the question of follow-through in their own coverage.

Weaknesses in policy carry over to information and vice versa, the two being largely inseparable. In an era of press feeds and embedded journalists, the Fourth Estate does its best to present reasonably fair coverage. However, "fair and balanced" has become one network's platitude in modern media, and independence notoriously compromised. The blurring of lines between news and policy is apparent in the Luncheon's very existence; we turn to the news media for policy, while our political branches create clips and coverage, fed largely unedited into your local nightly news.

Williams, known for his progressive and in-depth personal coverage, closes with an anecdote from an evening in Mosul. Night falls rapidly in the desert, and his sole option for exit in time to cover Iraq's
elections is military escort down the main airport road, a sitting-duck target for insurgent fire. Stepping out of his Striker, Williams catches an AK-47 round in the back of his protective neck brace, striking him in a protected but blind spot.

In response, a 16-year-old Iraqi is gunned down at a nearby roadblock. As Williams notes, maybe an insurgent, maybe not - no one really knew who was where in that strange desert night, "and we will never know." The invocation of our limited lines of sight, and need to recognize the limits of a story before we fire, comes as a welcome reminder, in contrast with prospective predictions about our nation's increasingly aggressive role in the world.