Over at Lost Nomad, Gar expresses his frustration with the manner in which the media prevents soldiers from doing their jobs.
For the record, I don’t support fighting a war “on their level,” as Gar suggests. I happened to think it’s a good thing that society — at least in the West — expects its troops to behave better than they did in the Thirty Years War. I do agree, however, that increased media scrutiny has drastically altered the way in which nations wage war. I’ve always wondered what the Second World War, let alone the First, would have been like had Allied forces come under the same kind of scrutiny Coalition forces are coming under in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially considering that today’s U.S. military is a much better behaved and professional force than the one our grandfathers served in. Needless to say, the increased media attention has made it much more difficult for governments to maintain public support for protracted conflicts, greatly weakening the “staying power” of developed societies at war.
That being said, I think increased media scrutiny of the battlefield is a positive thing. It gives the public a better idea of what war is really about. War is hell, and if the public is going to support using it as a foreign policy tool, it had better understand what it is, exactly, that it is committing its men and women in uniform to. Society then can debate whether or not it’s willing to stomach that ugly reality before sending its troops to the battlefield rather than acting with shock and disgust when its army at war behaves like, well, an army at war. Part of the problem, I think, is that past media censorship and the mythology built up around the “Greatest Generation” and its struggle against fascism has given the public unfairly high expectations of modern warfare and what to expect from its troops. At the very least, armed with the knowledge that war is not a glorious exercise, the public can force governments to be less trigger-happy and more careful about the defense commitments they take on.
And that’s a good thing.
87 Comments
Seems more like Gar is expressing frustration with the islamic fanatics than the U.S. media. The U.S. troops are much better behaved and professional than the members of the death cult from the dark ages they are fighting–that’s the problem.
*In those countries where government is actually interested in what “society” wants, of course. For the rest, there is a Decider.
In general, I agree that public oversight of our military is a good thing. One of the greatest threats to democracy is a military dictatorship. There’s also no shortage of mistakes we can make in war, either.
Related to the increase in media coverage of combat starting primarily with Vietnam is the lack of a “good war” where the enemy is clearly defined and it’s relatively easy to separate the “good guys” from the “bad guys”.
The exception to this is Gulf War I where the objectives were clear and there were relatively few civilian casualties.
However, in general, the rise in media coverage of U.S. armed conflict has coincided with a fall in level of an easily definable enemy. Thus, it may seem the media is causing combat to be more difficult whereas it’s more likely media coverage and the ease of achieving conflict objectives have no direct relation at all.
In short : don’t blame the media, blame the wars.
Yeah. I’m with you and with Robert.
Refer to classic movie “Apocalypse Now” for a very thorough exploration of these issues and the bad options involved once ya dive in head-first. I just showed it to my class on “American Culture” to explain why & how the globe’s mightiest military could *possibly* be losing a *crucial* war to barely-organized yet passionately-committed militias… yet again, twice in my lifetime… can’t believe the deja-vu, that i’m watching the same idiocy re-played by uncaring-madmen-liers in WDC, just at double-speed…
Which is what the media has in mind in reporting what it chooses to report about our fighting men and the wars we fight (and even who or what we are fighting against).
Too bad this emphasis on war is hell and should be avoided at all costs is not a universal phenomenon…….I’m sure we are going to wake up tomorrow to find the Bosnias, Kosovos, and terrorist cells opting for peace due to media pressure exposing the negative aspects of what they do…
Rock Hudson did a movie on the Korean War as a bomber pilot.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050171/plotsummary
In part, it deals with things like friendly fire and the difference between WWII and the Korean War. It should be interesting to watch in light of this thread’s discussion.
Let’s stack up the individual dead bodies of GIs. Let’s have a running account of the names of each dead read out in the media weekly or daily so we can equate the 3,000 or so KIA to date in Iraq with the likes of the tally of the first world war. Let’s print large each Nogunri we can find and report it as we do Nogunri.
I can live with isolationism. It will be fine by me. It will not influence my life here in the States much.
I doubt it will end up producing the kind of world we like to pretend we want. I don’t see masses of people rising up - after the results are in - praising the US for its bold initiative to factor in the costs of each individual life and the ugliness of war and thus curtail its military aggression abroad.
But, let’s give it shot….
It’s clear that our own media is used against us by insurgents. Sometimes (via one-sided, biased reporting) that media works against us anyway, wittingly or not. If we’d had that sort of coverage during WWII we likely would not have had the will to do it, and our enemies would also have used our own media against us. Mistakes are always made and constant public scrutiny of military matters does not help.
That’s not a public oversight issue; such oversight is done by electing the Commander in Chief, not opinion polls tweaked by skewed media vying for ratings.
The media has no place reporting up-to-the-minute on troop movements, operations, etc. We – the public – do not need to have or have a right to timely reporting on that, period. Those that do need to know will be in positions to read such military reporting. CNN et al are the poor man’s (e.g. insurgents) intel. We can get our reporting a week or a month after the fact. Along the same lines, any news outlet the knowingly publishes classified info should be fined near out of existence, reporters tossed right in jail, including Novak.
Likewise, constant critical evaluation of every move our military makes, often with political bias and/or news market share in the mix, is an undeniable boost to our enemies.
To those that think the threats of WWII and “global terrorism” aren’t comparable, you’re absolutely correct; the current threat is a lot worse. A nuke (real one, not a dirty bomb) blast designed to create an EMP to overload/destroy our electrical grid could literally set us back for several months. The impact of that on our economy would be devastating, and I don’t mean less going to the movies and cutting back on eating out. For those that think terrorists aren’t constantly trying to obtain such materials and entice scientists with the know-how, you’re only fooling yourself.
The media is not the decisive factor in the war, but it is a definite negative that needs to be reigned in to something more reasonable. No freedom is absolute, and the fact that much of the media does in fact give aid to the enemy needs to be taken into consideration.
“It’s clear that our own media is used against us by insurgents.”
It is? Please present evidence that this is so. With the exception of FOX news, I find the US news and newspapers giving a consistent picture of what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. If they are not, please tell me what is the real truth.
“To those that think the threats of WWII and ‘global terrorism’ aren’t comparable, you’re absolutely correct; the current threat is a lot worse. ”
While I may agree with you on this statement, I have to ask: Do you include the war in Iraq as a fight against global terrorism? It seems more Americans are believing it is not, hence the desire to bring home the troops. Actually, a growing belief in this country is that the war in Iraq has done much to recruit terrorists into groups like Al-Qaeda.
A growing belief fed by… the news media. Who, conversely, choose to obscure by omission the fact that no terrorist has struck on American soil since the US began to take the fight to the enemy following 9/11. It’s crystal clear that the media accentuates the negative and minimizes the positive when it comes to this conflict, in keeping with their principle on Bush of nihil nisi malum.
I have no doubts that the US has gone after terrorists and is doing a better job of trying to locate them within US borders. That along with an extremely heightened awareness of potential terrorism and better surveillance at places like airports is what has resulted in no major terrorist attack in America, post-9/11.
However, what is the connection between the war in Iraq and no terrorist attacks on American soil, post-9/11? I doubt a terrorist is going, “I’m gonna commit a terrorist act in the US. No, wait! There are US troops in Iraq, so I WON’T attack innocent American civilians within the US. I’d rather attack armed Americans in Iraq who have the power to kill me rather than those helpless Americans in America.”
Ut Videam,
Correlation is not causation. No terrorist attack has happened on US soil since I broke up with my ex-girlfriend or last drank a Mai Tai on the beach in Bali either. Anyhow, where does your premise stand given that War on Terror allies Spain and the UK have both experienced attacks in the interim, despite participation in said war?
If North Korea had oil and South Korea was Israel then the US might have invaded NK too despite NK actually having WMDs and Iraq not.
For varied reasons I don’t mind the hemorrhaging of our national strength. We could do with a good kick in the head. One reason is that a nation such as ours that make repeated mistakes without learning needs to be placed in remedial classes.
Which brings me to people that make statements such as “It’s clear that our own media is used against us by insurgents”.
Now its one thing to be old , senile, and out of touch with things in general, but these people are normally in nursing homes where they have people to prevent them from causing harm to themselves or others. Not drooling over the keyboard from their Luxochair, and willing death on those unbeknown to them.
And while we are dwelling in the Age of Aquarius, it was not the press that lost the Vietnam War, but the press that helped to win it for that righteously proud nation of victors against foreign oppression. A struggle of which the US once experienced, but whose citizens of which many later forgot.
Was it insurgents that fooled the minds of the hallowed fourth estate that worked so hard to uncover the existence of WMD in belligerent Iraq?
Or are you just pissing on the decapitated corpse of valiant journalists such as Daniel Pearl, just one guy who obviously knew so much about the threat we were presented with. Or a dumb fuck representative of his nation that had no idea what was going on around him.
We are fighting Uncle Remus’ Tar Baby, and we’ve met our match.
This is no Vietnam, the cold war is over, Russian went out, we’re just digging a grave.
“With great power comes great responsibility”
The terrorist threat against the US has increased, not decreased, particularly due to the actions of the US gov’t in response to 9-11.
The US may have handled the war in Iraq badly, but she was right to go in there. Saddam Hussein is gone, and Iraqis are learning the hard way that terrorism is not a good thing, something that many of them probably did not realize when the focus of the terrorists was on Isreal. Now it seems that Muslims are too busy killing each other to worry about Isreal.
My response to JK seems to be in moderation due to having too many links in answer to his rather naïve questions.
To Kim; North Korea is a completely different situation than Iraq for a few reasons. Most importantly, they can level much of Seoul before being taken down (which is why they never needed nuke, btw). Aside from that, if you think Iraq was about oil, then where is it?
(my comment-in-moderation, sans links, which can instead be found on a related post at my site)
What part of insurgents killing Americans (or insert the act) to get headlines and sway public opinion do you not grasp? What part of the media giving insurgents current operational information is too hard to understand? You don’t see the utility in recruiting that the Western media is giving to such groups? You don’t see their effort to sway U.S. opinion being mindlessly helped the media?
So you find what formed your view, and what now reinforces your view, to be correct. Convenient and not surprising. FYI, “consistent” does not mean correct.
- - - - -
dlatn; You’re attempting to conjoin several unrelated items into one = logical fallacy. How’s the nursing home?
Iraqi’s are learning the hard way that terrorism is not a good thing?
Well , thank you sir for the spanking.
Did one half of the commenters on this blog all go to the same unit or something, why is it they seem to miss the boat all the time? Is this DLI, rednecks O/S from a young age, or just randy hard military discipline?
And why are US Kyopos left to take up the fight defending a nation from the dregs of US imperialism in South Korea, when by and large they have infinitely greater awareness of the issues facing the country than the former GIs.
Excuse me for being disparaging, but some of you are a lost cause.
The Internet is like that…
…everybody can here you dribble shit.
Like I said, I can live in the world the media and so many others, including some in this thread, are calling for. Let’s do it. I’m for getting out of South Korea any way, but let’s pull out of Iraq and end things like NATO since the Cold War is over. Let’s retrench and untool.
Iran dominating the Middle East will eventually end up causing serious economic reprecussions to the global economy. If Saudi Arabia falls, so be it. We and it have no moral high ground in the first place, right? Look at all the mistakes we’ve made. It isn’t even a democracy, so let it fall. And if a dominant Iran goes after Israel, well, we’ll see how that goes. From this distance, at least Americans won’t be killed, and we won’t be killing anybody’s babies.
And if France and Germany come back as gas prices shoot up demanding the UN/US do something, unlike with Bosnia and Kosovo, we will tell them to bend over and suck our cornhole… No troops to make mistakes and loose lives in a foreign war just so those two nations can have cheaper gas…
George Washington said it best:
Let’s get back to that. If we had not forced Japan to attack us by using economic war fare over concern for colonization that was none of our business to begin with, how many of our grandfathers would have been spared the horrors of war? Maybe Germany would have been more successful in WWII, but we don’t know if it would have been able to continue to occupy all those nations or Japan those it conquered. Either way, those nations would have ended up needing to do business with a nation the size of the US. So, did we really have to fight in that war? Why was it our business? Like Rock Hudson showed, orphans were blown up in it too…
If we’d stayed out, millions of people would probably still be alive today. Perhaps our economy wouldn’t be as big, but look at global warming. Can we honestly say that would be a bad thing?
If we had only understood the realities of war back then….but the media was too censored and too bias….
Richardson,
“So you find what formed your view, and what now reinforces your view, to be correct. Convenient and not surprising. FYI, ‘consistent’ does not mean correct.”
Actually, the same could be said about you, Richardson. Are you saying FOX news and other right-wing conservative sources are more credible than CNN? I hope it’s not because their opinions match your own.
“What part of insurgents killing Americans (or insert the act) to get headlines and sway public opinion do you not grasp? ”
When US troops went into a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks (and where the White House was warned would result in a violent civil war that would not benefit the US) and insurgents over there attacked US troops, how can you say the US invasion was justified? You are saying the REACTION by the insurgents to US troops being there (based on faulty and/or fabricated intelligence by the White House, I might add) is the justification for the US troops being there in the first place. Doesn’t this logic sound faulty?
As for others on this thread who justify the US attack on Iraq….just WHAT did this have to do with the war on terrorism?? If anything, US operatives searching for Osama bin Laden and other key Al-Qaeda figures in Pakistan said it HURT their efforts. And HOW is this related to potentially pulling troops out of South Korea? No more red herrings please when discussing the war in Iraq. A civil war is underway there, and Bush opened up the Pandora’s box that allowed it to happen….all in the name of fighting terrorism….even though Hussein’s Iraq had nothing to do with terrorist activities against the US. And now more Americans (in fact most) are realizing it.
“The US may have handled the war in Iraq badly, but she was right to go in there. Saddam Hussein is gone, and Iraqis are learning the hard way that terrorism is not a good thing, something that many of them probably did not realize when the focus of the terrorists was on Isreal. Now it seems that Muslims are too busy killing each other to worry about Isreal.”
gbevers, WHAT does this have to do with Israel?? I hope you are not saying that all Iraqis are to be clumped together with certain extreme Muslim terrorists and that the actions of these extreme Muslim terrorists somehow justifies the attack on Iraq. That’s like saying that because there may have been some terrorists living in Croatia the the US should invade Spain; it makes no sense.
I love it when JK goes into the logic arguments…
Maybe if you said terrorists were living in Croatia carrying out suicide bombings against that nation and were being funded by Spain, you might be start making better sense….
The Korean War was a civil one as well, and our top military people were telling Truman the southern end wasn’t worth the horror of war, but he reversed them all and through us back in there - resulting in the deaths and harm of millions.
“and through us” Why do I constantly make such stupid mistakes?
Richardson wrote:
“What part of insurgents killing Americans (or insert the act) to get headlines and sway public opinion do you not grasp? What part of the media giving insurgents current operational information is too hard to understand? You don’t see the utility in recruiting that the Western media is giving to such groups? You don’t see their effort to sway U.S. opinion being mindlessly helped the media? “
And what part of wartime combat do you not grasp? Insurgents are not killing Americans to get headlines any more than US troops are killing insurgents to get good press. A very important part of winning a war is killing enemy combatants. Sure, the insurgents do pay attention to US media reporting and to US public opinion, but even if there were a total blackout on media coverage, the insurgents would keep on killing. We are all anxious about the fate of the missing soldiers, but far more Iraqis have been tortured to death by insurgents. The insurgents aren’t killing because they like to make headlines. They’re killing because they want us out of Iraq.
usinkorea, you want to play logic with me? Okay, let’s go:
“Maybe if you said terrorists were living in Croatia carrying out suicide bombings against that nation and were being funded by Spain, you might be start making better sense…”
First of all, let’s not stretch the facts. Your statement about my hypothetical example implies that Saddam Hussein funded terrorist attacks against the US. From what I understand, Hussein would send money to the families of terrorists in the Middle East (as in Palestine and Israel) after a terrorist killed himself (along with innocent civilians). I DOUBT the killer’s motivation in committing the act was so that his/her family would receive money from Hussein. And can you go from this statement to saying that Hussein “funded” suicide bombings? And how do you go from this to saying Hussein funded terrorist attacks against the US?
And EVEN IF this were considered “funding suicide bombers”, did Hussein have anything to do with 9/11?? Hussein and Osama bin Laden weren’t exactly fond of each other.
So I reiterate my point that attacking Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terrorism. If anything, it hurt the hunt for Osama bin Laden and helped in terms of Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups finding fresh new recruits.
As for Iraq itself, an civil war is already under way, and Iraq WILL become three nations. This feud among the parties goes back centuries and US troops being there isn’t going to stop the creation of the three countries that all hate each other. So then I have to wonder why Bush went into Iraq even though he had been warned of this likely outcome.
I don’t think you want to go there. Particularly when we are speaking what amounts to information operations.
Insurgents do indeed plan, time, and coordinate efforts to achieve headlines in the Western press.
Please show me where I said that. I don’t think you can. Just because they do indeed often plan attacks for media impact is in no way exclusive of their other obvious goal of killing Americans (Sunnis/Shias/etc.). Two birds with one stone and all of that.
I find it amazing that some apparently don’t get it that media saturation of this sort is lapped up by and played up to by insurgents to negatively affect American public opinion. When combined with he realistic consequences of pulling out early – a Democratic timeline – it’s incomprehensible.
“I find it amazing that some apparently don’t get it that media saturation of this sort is lapped up by and played up to by insurgents to negatively affect American public opinion.”
So without media coverage, these insurgents would do nothing against US troops? Interesting logic.
You mention a Democeratic timeline. What about the Republican one? I think the White House plan is more of the same ol’….and we know how well THAT’S working.
“I find it amazing that some apparently don’t get it that media saturation of this sort is lapped up by and played up to by insurgents to negatively affect American public opinion.”
So without media coverage, these insurgents would do nothing against US troops? Interesting logic.
You mention a Democeratic timeline. What about the Republican one? I think the White House plan is more of the same ol’….and we know how well THAT’S working.
To those that think the threats of WWII and “global terrorism” aren’t comparable, you’re absolutely correct; the current threat is a lot worse. A nuke (real one, not a dirty bomb) blast designed to create an EMP to overload/destroy our electrical grid could literally set us back for several months. The impact of that on our economy would be devastating
“set us back for several months”? England had meat rationing for 9 years after WW2. Last I remember, people weren’t sleeping in the tube in London for months after the terrorist attacks there. It’ll take awhile to reach the 50 million dead mark of world war II - though, luckily, the “war on terror” is meant to be an endless war, so maybe we’ll reach that death toll one day - but not in a similar time frame to WWII. 6 years have almost passed (though maybe 49.5 million people will die and a continent or two will be devastated in the next 5 months and i’ll be proven wrong).
WWII was the worst spate of mass killing the world has ever seen. As far as targets in western countries are concerned (and they’re the ones that matter!), we’ve lost a few towers in NY, a piece of the pentagon, 4 airliners, a few buses and a subway in London, a train in Madrid (and myriad smaller buildings in Indonesia, Turkey, etc. that housed white people), and, what, 10,000 people in those attacks? I hope you wouldn’t include the 3,300+ US soldiers killed in a war that had nothing to do with the terror attacks - in that case, the US president (it wasn’t congress who sent them to Iraq (though they willingly gave up their power to so, so I’ve little problem spreading the blame to them)) has killed more Americans than the terrorists on 9/11 did.
But even if you include all of the dead in the maelstrom the US brought to Iraq, you still have less than 1% of the dead in WWII. Even the threat of a Nuclear blast or two wouldn’t come even close to equaling the devastation of WWII (Japan had two of those).
A little perspective is needed.
JK; Go look up “straw man.” Perhaps get the definition tattooed on your forearm. Refer to often, and you’ll be less annoying. Thanks.
bulgasari; Google “emp attack electrical grid” to find out what you do not know. That will put it in the proper perspective, which you are not.
A media blackout is not the solution. Delayed reporting void of operational details and a ban on showing insurgent videos (i.e., beheadings and the like) would perhaps be appropriate.
Insurgents do enjoy the attention Western media gives them, however. Notice how they film themselves and then spread on the net? This is meant to both recruit and to affect American morale. That the Western media helps with the morale issue is icing on the cake for them.
Yet that’s the answer. If you don’t like it, ok, it’s going to take years, at least. It’s almost funny, reliance on arbitrary timelines to control things that don’t equate to timelines. If you’re stuck in traffic when will you get there? If you have cancer, when will you be healed? Those are things that cannot accurately be judged from the beginning, or even into it in many cases.
Timelines are inappropriate; conditional based decisions are the way to go and they should be kept secret; from the insurgents and everyone else. Operational security over the long-term is more important. Progress and setback reported, yes; after the fact by some time.
The administrations communication is a problem less; but that in no way negates the problem of the media furthering the goals of insurgents by playing the role of their de facto propaganda machine against America.
BTW, Joshua answered your questions and posed his own.
You can’t expect people to eat everything up like they did when they watch the highly propagandized newsreels of WW2. We’ve grown more sophisticated, more aware of how technology can be used to manipulate public opinion, especially now after the first Gulf War where the degree of complicity that exists between the US media and the US government was aired for all to see 24/7.
Sonagi #22 is wrong. Removing the enemy’s will to fight is one of the primary goals of an insurgency and they know as much as we do that one of the methods of achieving that goal is to use negative press to convince the members of the enemy nation that the war isn’t worth the cost. Why do you think the insurgency choses terroristic bombings? Why do you think they went for taking GIs captive? They aren’t going to headlines? Of course they are.
“Your statement….”
So, which one is the US in your head? Croatia or Spain? Or what were you trying to say?
For starters, I never said the US funded terrorists to strike at the US, and when I state that the only possible justification for going to war in Iraq was proof of a connection between Hussein and 9/11, place cut and paste it in a word document so you can show it to everybody the next time you make this argument.
Next, if you can’t find it within your head to understand how giving the families of suicide bombers a king’s ransom post-bombing is connected to the bombings, I’m not surprised, but I don’t know how to help you out…
And yada yada the “fresh recruits” horseshit…
Logic stereotype stereotype…
“WWII was the worst spate of mass killing the world has ever seen.”
How does WWI stack up with that one?
“I find it amazing that some apparently don’t get it that media saturation of this sort is lapped up by and played up to by insurgents to negatively affect American public opinion. “
I get it. I know that the insurgents do pay attention to the media. But what is the alternative? Please be clear about how the media can cover the war responsibility. Positive statements work better than negative statements. If, for example, eight soldiers die in a roadside attack three days from now, how should the media handle this? If fifty Iraqis are killed in a marketplace bombing, how should this event be covered in the media?
“When combined with he realistic consequences of pulling out early – a Democratic timeline – it’s incomprehensible.”
Early? The word “early” is relative. I am required to be at work by 7:20. Most of my colleagues arrive around 7 AM. People who arrive before that are considered “early.” If six months from now is “early,” then what is “on time” and “late”? The administration has criticized the Democratic push for a timeline but doesn’t seem to realize that these Democrats in Congress, who wish to get re-elected, are asking for a timeline and benchmarks because they know that public support for the war is eroding. If the Bush administration wants the support of the American people, it needs to communicate goals and timeframes.
“Yet that’s the answer. If you don’t like it, ok, it’s going to take years, at least. It’s almost funny, reliance on arbitrary timelines to control things that don’t equate to timelines. If you’re stuck in traffic when will you get there? If you have cancer, when will you be healed? Those are things that cannot accurately be judged from the beginning, or even into it in many cases. “
The problem with your traffic/cancer analogy is that if we’re stuck in traffic, we may or may not have options. If we’re heading to work, we have no choice but to tough it out. If we’re on leisure, we can take an alternate route or head back home. Likewise, cancer is in our own bodies, so we cannot escape it. We do have a choice in Iraq. We don’t have to stay there indefinitely.
I’ve been doing that thorough this string; Delay reports by a week/weeks/month/whatever. Show no insurgent videos until long after the fact, if at all. Instead of hyping the war 24/7 – particularly the focus only on the negative and relative aversion for the U.S. successes – report what happened and move on.
Early as in before the job is done. That is the context the word is being used in for the national debate and should be well understood.
Goals, yes. Timeframes are unrealistic.
Richardson wrote:
“JK; Go look up ’straw man.’ Perhaps get the definition tattooed on your forearm. Refer to often, and you’ll be less annoying. Thanks.”
I haven’t been insulting to you, Richardson, so no need to be with me. I MAY find you annoying with the way you are losing your cool and the way you are insulting but I don’t resort to getting personal. How about present your argument and leave personal statements out of this?
Now, the discussion was based on the following exchange:
Richardson wrote:
“I find it amazing that some apparently don’t get it that media saturation of this sort is lapped up by and played up to by insurgents to negatively affect American public opinion.”
I wrote back:
“So without media coverage, these insurgents would do nothing against US troops? Interesting logic.”
“You mention a Democeratic timeline. What about the Republican one? I think the White House plan is more of the same ol’….and we know how well THAT’S working.”
Let’s discuss the actual issue, please and not make personal statements, Richardson.
Sonagi wrote:
“The administration has criticized the Democratic push for a timeline but doesn’t seem to realize that these Democrats in Congress, who wish to get re-elected, are asking for a timeline and benchmarks because they know that public support for the war is eroding. If the Bush administration wants the support of the American people, it needs to communicate goals and timeframes.”
Amen to that. No more Bushian stubborness to sticking to what doesn’t work year after year after year…..
“Next, if you can’t find it within your head to understand how giving the families of suicide bombers a king’s ransom post-bombing is connected to the bombings, I’m not surprised, but I don’t know how to help you out…”
A “king’s ransom”? How much was it? And you’re saying that it was because of this so-called king’s ransom that young radical Palestians decided to commit acts of terror against Israel? So it’s all Saddam Hussein’s fault. And since WHEN did Hussein fund terrorist attacks against the US???
“And yada yada the ‘fresh recruits’ horseshit…”
How is this argument horseshit? Recruits do seem to be pouring into Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
If the US media’s current focus seems now biased more toward the negative, and to be avoiding covering US successes, perhaps it’s in part their atonement for previous reverse bias.
In the 3 weeks pre-invasion, a survey of 1617 on-air interviewees and commentators found:
64% were pro-war
10% were anti-war
only 3% of US commentators were anti-war
So American viewers were 6X more likely to see a pro-war speaker than an anti-war speaker. Looking only at American speakers, the ratio became 25:1.
The US media did a grave disservice to its constituents in the lead-up to this war. Maybe they’re making up for it.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2627
JK, I won’t defend what I did not say, i.e. the straw man argument you are making.
“I’ve been doing that thorough this string; Delay reports by a week/weeks/month/whatever. “
A week? Two weeks? A month? Will that really make a difference? Will Americans be less disillusioned if they learn of that horrific bombing that killed sixty people a month after it happened? If the US media delays reporting, people will turn to other sources. Despite China’s extreme efforts at controlling the flow of information, educated Chinese still use proxies to read foreign media.
“Show no insurgent videos until long after the fact, if at all.”
I agree with this one, but it would require a cooperative effort amongst all the major US media. Of course, people can access the videos on foreign media, but it would be a meaningful symbolic gesture and show sensitivity to those killed by insurgents. For or against the war, the insurgents are still our enemy.
“Instead of hyping the war 24/7 – particularly the focus only on the negative and relative aversion for the U.S. successes – report what happened and move on.”
Could you give at least three examples of hyping by national mainstream media such as the NYT, WaPo, CNN, CBS in the last three months?
“Early as in before the job is done. That is the context the word is being used in for the national debate and should be well understood. “
BINGO! There’s the problem. There is the presumption of victory in your statement. You are presuming that we will win if we stay long enough. You know what I think about that presumption, and I am not alone.
$10,000 to families of those killed in fighting against Israelis.
$25,000 to families of suicide bombers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm
Fair.org is the leftwing answer to aim.org = try again.
I’m not a left-winger. The sample set is large. The number of networks covered (6) is representative. The numbers are valid.
That you think that’s a problem is a problem in and of itself. Victory is the only option. And I do not say that due to escalation of commitment, but b/c it is the right thing to do.
From what I saw, at least some of those networks gave the insurgents exactly what they wanted with hyped coverage, to include too many details of what the U.S. was doing, in regard to the three missing soldiers. But I don’t watch TV news anymore (including FOX, for those that assumed incorrectly). I am exposed to it somewhat at work, though I avoid it and seek my news from radio (while driving and C-SPAN on Sundays) and net only.
This is pointless. We’ll decide it with votes.
Sure. What was the critera used? Who judged?
Valid questions.
I can only answer circumstantially. To wit: with 65% logged as pro-war and 10% as anti-war, that left 25% as neither. Someone serious about bending the data to their own purposes might have dipped into that reserve for a plumper data cushion for their own side.
And then, there’s the result of all that coverage, the views of the US public:
57% of Americans believed falsely that Saddam gave substantial aid to Al Qaida.
69% believed falsely that Saddam was directly tied to 9/11.
22% believed falsely that WMD had been found in Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2.....a_coverage
Sanshinseon, “Apocolypse Now” is a cartoon with as much relativity to the Vietnam War as “The Deer Hunter” and other such garbage. The only decent Vietnam War flicks were “Between Heaven and Earth” and “We were soldiers once,…”. Now that that’s off my chest, Apocolypse does fit a class in American culture. “War as how the stay-at-home middle class draft dodger now war-(chicken)-hawks saw it.” (ps, “Platoon” wasn’t bad, but grossly exaggerated.)
I completely agree with you Robert.
Soldiers are there to protect, not to be used as a tool to help that group of fairly bad fellows in the white House reach their political and social aims.
And it’s a pity that so many fail to see why the Iraq invasion and occupation is total clusterfuck simply due to partisan politics.
17 ignored resolution and this had nothing to do with it, huh?
Actually, WMD has been found in Iraq; a score or so (more?) of old shells with degraded mustard gas (someone, here I think, joked that they were “weapons of mild discomfort” – funny, but mustard gas is harmful for decades and WWI munitions still causes accidents in France and Belgium when inadvertently disturbed). Technically the correct answer to that question is true.
So X-majority of Americans supported the war at one time, and Y-majority now supports leaving. Were then wrong then, or now? The real questions are will they be willing to face the geopolitical consequences and who will get the blame for surrendering the region to the chaos that would follow a premature retreat?
Notice how the insurgents and media have the same goal - convincing enough people in the democracies the war is not worth the costs.
(#34) Timelines and body counts are the what the press and others use as weapons.
The insurgency uses terror and strikes meant not as battlefield measures in a war fighting strategy but as a broader strategy whose key is the hearts-n-minds.
The goal of both is to win enough support in the US (and elsewhere) to demand the exit option.
#31 Exactly what the cynical ass side of me was talking about in my first comments on this thread. But I was serious about my ability to accept the flip side some say they want — get us out of foreign wars. Maybe no man is an island whole and unto himself. Or, maybe all life is local. I can go with the local side. No more Iraqs, Kosovos, Bosnias, Vietnams, Koreas, and even no more WWIIs and Is. Regroup and untool.
Who are “we” to say Juche doesn’t work…
#33 How about not talking about 8 deaths as if they were 8,000 and wholly unknown in previous conflicts? How about not setting artificial standards for success and guidelines like saying, “Prove the war is doable - see you can’t. It obviously isn’t. Cronkite was right…”
#38 “All Hussein’s fault” - mule meet strawman. Snack up. (Ditto “when did Hussein support terrorist attacks on the US?!!)
#39 64% of US TV commentary was pro-war before it started………….f-ing please!! What planet was I on….
The press certainly contributes to our problems in Iraq and Afghanistan. So what? And yes, press coverage is exploited by our enemies to get their message across. It also serves the unpopular function of shining the glaring light of bad publicity on our mistakes and cover-ups, as occurred during the recent Pat Tillman episode. We deserve the knocks, and this comes from someone who has been part of such cover-ups in a past war and was never caught. (Nor am I repentant!) I supported the invasion of Iraq, even though I was fairly convinced that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, had doubtful ties to Al Qaida, and was nowhere near developing atomic weapons. I did have a reasonably founded belief that he did possess massive amounts of Chemical and probably Biological weapons. So did all the intelligence agencies. He had possessed such weapons in the past, he had a history of using them, and there was no reason to assume that he would not use them against either ourselves or our allies in the future. I knew all of this from reports I read in the press, and on the internet. From subversive tracts I read after the invasion (Gen. Bernard Trainor’s “Cobra II”, among others), I learned that the intelligence to support our case for invasion was “tweaked” by the White House neocons to present only the “go” arguments, while all intelligence pointing to the contrary was dismissed. Trainor also lays out the selection process by which dissenting senior military officers were side-lined, in favor of more unquestioning, compliant officers. Again, all this from open sources which would not have been available to me under wartime censorship. So a free press, to include reporters with access to the fighting, does render a valuable service, even when accompanying the enemy on combat operations against U.S. forces. (Though I would have gladly emptied a magazine into any I ever caught.) A free press is a necessary adjunct to our democracy, and a muzzled press is not free.
For dlatn: You confuse the Vietnamese communists for the Vietnamese people. Suggest you read Doan Van Toai’s “The Vietnamese Gulag”. He was once on their side. If you care to see what non-communist Vietnamese nationalist heroes looked like, try here: http://www.bcdlldb.com/photoalbum.htm
Yet no freedom is absolute. A delay not a ban on reporting, epically ongoing operations, would not do harm; the stories would still be told, but they would not interfere with getting the job done at the time or be to the advantage of the enemy.
But in reality that’s moot and we have to deal with the media we have.
read: “especially”
Re: comment #54:
But a delay in reporting ain’t gonna solve the problem.
America has done much good….over the last hundred years.
That doesn’t mean that what the White House is doing right now….justifying an invasion of Iraq based on faulty information…is right. Accountability is also an American thing…I still believe.
From the authors of “The Best War Ever, Lies,Damned Lies and the Mess in Iraq”…
“The Best War Ever, by the best-selling authors of Weapons of Mass Deception, is a vital account of why America is losing in Iraq and the Middle East. We have met the enemy—and it’s our own PR machine.”
This video from the authors is worth watching…
http://www.prwatch.org/tbwe/index.html
#54
Delaying reports would do very little. If anything it would raise the ire of the media - not just in the U.S but elsewhere - that cover-ups are taking place and result in more negative reports.
What if the info on Abu Gharaib was delayed? A couple of hundred more innocent iraqis would have been needlessly tortured, and their friends and families radicalised.
The media reports the truth as soon as possible - that’s as it should be in a democracy.
The problem with all of this is that the US appears to be having trouble fighting wars. If it can’t win here, can it win anywhere in the future? If the US wanted to, instead of trying the ‘limited war’ approach, it could have opted for all-out war. This would mean the US would have won in Vietnam and could win here, but of course, it can’t go this route because it can be the nasty route (for example, they could have nuked Hanoi to stop the commies).
I’m not saying they should go this route, but if the US can’t fight and win wars anymore, then what’s to become of the place? Their enemies are certainly not becoming more pacifist.
If only the nastiest mofo’s can wage war becasue they don’t care what anybody says, then we could be in for trouble in the future. War is hell but it is here to stay and pretending that we don’t have to be involved in war anymore is like saying to our enemies that we refuse to fight, (so you win).
I for one want to see the US get better and stronger (that’s good for Canada and the world). Isolationism does nobody any good, but if that’s what everybody wanted, I can agree with usinkorea that the US should pull troops out of everywhere and tell everyone they are on their own. If you get in trouble, don’t call on the US.
Snow, this war is “unwinnable” as it stands now because the U.S. is not trying to impose a government there in which religion (islam) plays no part. If sharia law is allowed in Iraq the injustices are built in for the Christian and other non-moslem minorities and it will be far from democratic. It’s also trying to get sunnis and shiites, tradional adversaries for centuries, to work together when before the shiites were oppressed under Saddam, a sunni. It’s just a massive pandora’s box the Bush administration ripped the lid off without preparations. I think it’s maybe best right now to partition Iraq and put the onus on our friends in the M-E to restrain their “brothers” from slaughtering each other. The secular Turkish gov’t could be the ultimate model here.
I agree with Richardson on stifling reporting on operations and movement. As far as the censoring of anything else, not possible. There are other ways of getting the news and it will come.
Left wing media hasn’t swayed the American public as much as the shame this whole thing brought. Previously, we not only saw John Wayne out on the front lines, we were John Wayne. Even after Vietnam, we always tried to fight retaining a modicum of integrity and dignity. We had the moral high ground. That’s utterly and irrevocably gone.
Even the people in charge have admitted our impetus for this particular fight was based on erroneous intelligence. Fighting terrorism could have been no less successful in Southeast Asia or Africa.
None of us ever thought we’d smear prisoners of war with their own feces and stack them in pyramids. Strip them naked and urge dogs to growl with their muzzles inches from their packages.
We have detained innocent people, without due process or legal representation, or even told them of the charges against them. When we realized our mistake did we compensate them, apologize, shake their hands and welcome them back. No! We still haven’t released them!
I have a friend back in the States whose business funds were frozen. She was told to contact the offices of Homeland Security. When she did, by way of explanation she was asked her name. When she told them, “Deborah”, they asked if she went by any other names or aliases. She replied, “My friends call me Debbie.” Her funds were freed up that afternoon.
It’s true there hasn’t been an attack on US soil since 9/11. I’m having a hard time giving this administration credit. I’ve been to New Orleans. As far as I can see it’s the Peter Principle gone mad.
You say you want more news of the good things we’re accomplishing in Iraq. My father has a restaurant on Coronado Island in San Diego. I have alot of friends who’ve been to Iraq. They try to remember something good they did but those moments seem to be fleeting. They are all in therapy.
I have some friends who are not back from Iraq, a few who never will be.
Interesting thread. Last week I talked to an old friend of mine, who had only just left the US army as a Captain. He was of the opinion that the war is not winnable by the USA in any shape or manner and was only being sustained to keep oil prices high and enrich the ruling elite. My friend, incidently, had his contract extended twice, against his will. He also stated that most of the officers and NCOs in his company were of the same opinion and that the enlisted men arriving were of such low quality that US casualty rates were going to soar as the professionals leave what they see as a lost cause.
Now, it is easy to blame the losing war on the media. I am old enough to remember exactly the same thing during the Vietmam war but facts remain facts; the war is lost and America’s continued involovement will only prolong Iraq and America’s, suffering.
Cheney, btw, has a personal worth of $50bn, most of it made while he has been Vice President.
kimchipig; I work in an organization where every single person I work with/near (a single exception out of about 40) is either former military or currently in the reserves, about half have been to Iraq, Afghanistan, or both, and almost all know/correspond with folks over there right now. None here (no exceptions – this is a topic discussed) share the sentiment attributed to your CPT friend and his troops in regard to the situation or the quality of incoming personnel.
The overplayed and under-thought oil conspiracy is also a big clue.
Blaming what’s going on in the war – loosing you say, though that of course depends on what you actually know about what’s going on there and what you don’t – on the media and saying that the media is used by the insurgents is actually two different things, BTW.
Richardson, you work for an organisation, which by its very nature, dissent is not on the agenda. You all agree with each other. You attack anyone who disagrees with you. That is called dogmatism.
Pragmatism is a stanpoint at examining a situation and making an evaluation based on the availible information at hand. The decison to go to war was dogmatic, not pragmatic, and so is the continuation.
Such ogranisations existed in the Vietnam war. However, they were not successful and the democratic process led to the election of Richard Nixon who campaigned on the platform of getting the US out the the war. This he successfully did.
Yet, more and more people disagree with you. The elections last November are a clear indication of this. The next presidental election will very likely send an even more clear message.
You have absolutely no idea of what you’re speaking of. Really, you don’t. Yet you make such judgments. But such jumping to conclusions and inclination for conspiracy theory does explain a lot.
“Richardson, you work for an organisation, which by its very nature, dissent is not on the agenda. You all agree with each other. You attack anyone who disagrees with you. That is called dogmatism. “
I have no military experience and thus do not know firsthand how decision-making is carried out, but that strikes me as an absurdly unbelievable statement. If decision-making in the military is anything like decision-making in other organizations, there is discussion and input, but once the decision is made, all members of the organization must support the decision to the extent that their professional duties require.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8
The longer we remain in this conflict the more we resemble our enemy.
I get the impression that the long this thread runs, the more clichés we will see.
Yes, our involvements in unjustifiable wars is becoming cliche. Because this dance is so retro all the moves were seen forty years ago. Spin it. Tell me how we are going to continue to fight these people until they agree to get along. Do you see it? Do you see a point where they just say, “okay, we give up”. “We’ll swallow what you’re proposing.”
Do you think that the force we are exerting is anywhere near the deprivation they endured under Saddam? The ones who are still around never budged on their core beliefs. You think they will now?
“Now, it is easy to blame the losing war on the media. I am old enough to remember exactly the same thing during the Vietmam war but facts remain facts; the war is lost and America’s continued involovement will only prolong Iraq and America’s, suffering.”
If the US pulls out now, the suffering in Iraq will definitely get worse and there will be serious repercussions for the US down the road. Was it right to get involved in the first place? I don’t know, but the fact is, the US is in there now. Unilateral surrender aka cut and run will have serious consequences.
“Yes, our involvements in unjustifiable wars is becoming cliche.”
What would be a justifiable war?
“He was of the opinion that the war…was only being sustained to keep oil prices high and enrich the ruling elite.”
Yet another evidence-free conspiracy theory.
“The longer we remain in this conflict the more we resemble our enemy.”
Yeah, the US military is getting into beheadings, using children to get past checkpoints and then blowing them up and planting bombs in market places to deliberately kill innocent civilians.
What does it matter if the child dies in the market or the bomb rains down on her head while she’s in her home?
I was referring more to the detention without representation, without charge and specifically the torture. I always thought that depriving people of their rights simply because of suspicion was something other countries did.
“What does it matter if the child dies in the market or the bomb rains down on her head while she’s in her home?”
How is the US supposed to stop terrorists who hide out amongst civilians? The military doesn’t just fire away indiscriminately. They go to great lengths to try not to hit civilians and soldiers are trained to handle difficult situations and not just shoot indiscriminately. About the only way to prevent such things from happening is to not go to war at all.
How is detention without representation like our enemies? They don’t detain, they behead.
I do think they should allow for representation of those detained, but what if someone is let out and immediately turns around and kills Americans? Anyone who lets terrorists out because of their rights, will find themselves in serious hot water if the terrorist then kills Americans upon release. The responsibilies of those in power is great. If they hold these people, they are accused of violating rights. If they release them and the person murders Americans, the one who released them will be in serious trouble at home.
Torture? Is there any proof that the US military has been involved in this? If so, I highly doubt that it’s anywhere near the type of torture practiced by terrorists.
And as far as depriving rights? What rights do terrorists care about? I highly doubt that people are held in prison on mere suspicion. Tenet stated that its ridiculous to claim that they hold people merely out of suspicion or rumor. He said that they must have solid evidence before acting, and this evidence is debated and discussed before arrests are made. I don’t know the situation with Guantanamo, but I think with people in-country, nobody gets detained on rumors or hearsay. There has to be direct and clear evidence of links or actions.
“especially considering that today’s U.S. military is a much better behaved and professional force than the one our grandfathers served in”
It is not what i have read and thought.
In the past, the US army could portray the American society much better than it is today, and i think that plays an important role in the quality of the “job” your soldiers are doing there. Nowadays, those who are recruited to Irak are from poor background, or empoverished minorities, and most of all very young. They go at war not for defending ideal of democracy but to earn money {they are professional indeed} to hope for a future, that they do not have before leaving, if and once they return home. That ends up with teenagers shooting civilians while listening to hard core music, and more problematic, to the worsening image of the US in the world.
At a lower degree, this is what happens in Korea with the US forces, it is well known that many first-grade soldiers who come to Korea are the ones who couldnot get a better destination…
“Nowadays, those who are recruited to Irak are from poor background, or empoverished minorities, and most of all very young.”
I’ve heard that this is a myth.
“That ends up with teenagers shooting civilians while listening to hard core music”
Another myth. The US military is better trained than ever and the education level is quite high according to many connected to the military. Many see the military as an important step in their life goals and many see the military as a way to make a (positive) difference in the world.
As far as better behavior is concerned, absolutely. Some of the stuff that soldiers did in the past are impossible today. In Canada, they even tried to disband the Vandoos, a venerable old unit, for beating up and killing a young thief in Somalia. Not long ago, events like that would have gone on as a matter of course.
In response to #75 your accusations are based on no facts and are simply what you hope is true about the US military.
I deal with facts and here they are:
http://rokdrop.com/2007/05/18/.....ecruiting/
The military is more educated than ever, more middle class than ever, with enlistments from poorer demographics decreasing and with recruits from wealthier families even increasing. Less blacks are enlisting and more whites are joining up bringing the military’s demographics more in line with the US population.
The longer the War on Terror goes on, more the demographic make up of the US military is becoming a direct reflection of American society itself. I know it is a bitter pill for the demagouges, the race baiters, and class warfare specialists to accept.
#75 Yann:
“…That ends up with teenagers shooting civilians while listening to hard core music, and more problematic, to the worsening image of the US in the world.”
I imagine you’re of Korean extraction, living in Germany, Yann? Since there’s a German flag by your “handle”.
Since you’re so concerned with our US soldiers being the current incarnation of the “wild bunch”, I urge you to solicit the elected representatives of whatever country you are a citizen to expel all US troops from its territory. That way you can feel safe from their depredations, not to mention there’s quite a few of us Americans who would be equally delighted to see them leave.
You doubt it? No, you highly doubt it. Can’t fight that kind of argument.
No torture? Give you proof? The whole freakin White House endorsed it. Where have you been the last four years?
Tell you what. You’re right. We’re all just skin draped over vacuous skulls sitting slack-jawed in front of the tube waiting for our marching orders from the left-wing media.
Who cares how we treat these people. Let’s build real pyramids out of them. We’ll use their feces for mortar.
Boy, where do they get all those suicide bombers? Why are they so angry?
And where did all those left-wing kool-aid drinkers come from? The damn media somehow got democrats control of both houses. A country full of sheep for voters.
Where is your proof that people are held on mere suspicion? That is mere speculation. I think it was Tenet that said that it’s ridiculous to claim otherwise, after all, these are professional organizations. Nobody wants to do things that they could get in trouble with so they must do all they can to cover their actions including getting plenty of legal advice. Is he lying? Of course that is always possible, but I look at many of these issues from a position of rationality and common sense. Tenets claim makes sense, whether it’s true or not, I can’t say.
What did the White House authorize exactly? I read something about water boarding but I can’t remember exactly where this was approved or where it occured. Was it official? As far as I heard, the only real torture was water boarding, which I would have a problem with, if it’s true (I’ve only heard speculation) that it was authorized and used by US personnel. At the same time, water boarding is minor compared to what is possible and likely by terrorists. You are the one confla