Ralph Peters loses his mind ... justifies execution of US Soldier by Taliban

[Cavguy]

AL9P6W9vt6E

Continuing his descent into madness, Ralph Peters strikes again. :mad::rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL9P6W9vt6E&feature=player_embedded

[Ken White]

They are not good and Joe is less kind than was Ralph. True or not, I don't know but tales are out there.

[Greyhawk]

...of the hostage video - kill morale, sow division, shock value...

Clearly some folks understand that better than others. :mad:

[Starbuck]

I haven't heard the RUMINT on this, but (assuming everyone's a rational actor), I can't believe that either a.) this guy just left the confines of the FOB on his own and started walking or b.) this guy thought of deserting in the middle of Afghanistan. Where was he going to go? Why not go to Canada on R&R leave?

[George L. Singleton]

Like I said since this SWJ discussion on this topic began there are unknowns and the less we say, in my view, the better off the official efforts and process will be.

It now just has to run it's course.

[Entropy]

The first words Ralph says in that interview: "Julie, I want to stress first of all, that we must wait until all the facts are in before we make a final judgment, but..."

Hey Ralph, why don't you STFU until we get our soldier back.

And really, until we do get him back we won't really know if he left on his own or why.

As far as training goes, can someone tell me if the Army still trains the majority of its personnel to the SERE level A standard, which is simply the annual code-of-conduct training, or have they upgraded to the sere level B, which is much more rigorous (Special Forces, pilots and others with a high risk of capture already get level C).

[tequila]

LTC Peters lost his value as an analyst long ago. He's just a screeching head nowadays. I can't remember the last interesting thing he wrote, but that crazy reapportioned map of the Middle East/South Asia he made up awhile ago did generate a hell of a lot of conspiracy theories in both regions. A friend of mine's father still likes to wave it around as evidence that the U.S. is plotting to split up Pakistan.

[BayonetBrant]

Ralph Peters ceased to pique my interest years ago. I hate that ACG gives a page every issue to his politicized bombast.

[pjmunson]

This guy, Peters, is pure garbage and should have been recognized as such long ago. One statement made me wonder though, "as I'll tell you, as any 11B infantryman will tell you..." Was he ever an 11B?

[Mark O'Neill]

As I suggested in a few posts nearly two years ago, this guy arrived there a while ago.

Polemicism of the type routinely pushed out by Peters is not analysis, is not useful (except to polarise the'average man' )and definitely is not entertaining.
Cheers

MTO

[IntelTrooper]

That guy needs to shut his fat, lip smacking, stupid mouth...

[Schmedlap]

It seems to me that there are two ways of looking at this.

1) Ralph Peters has gotten entirely too comfortable on TV and doesn't feel the need to think before he speaks.

-OR-

2) He assumed that the Taliban were watching and wanted them to get the message that this prisoner is worth more to them alive than dead. That is certainly one message that they could have received. He expressed frustration towards the Soldier and suggested that the Taliban would do us a favor by killing him.

One way or the other, I don't know. But really, who cares? This is just more stuff on cable news. It's about as important as whatever is on the front page of the tabloids at the supermarket checkout.

[Ken White]

The fact that he's on TV is an indication of why I never watch it...

[Brandon Friedman]

This guy, Peters, is pure garbage and should have been recognized as such long ago. One statement made me wonder though, "as I'll tell you, as any 11B infantryman will tell you..." Was he ever an 11B?

According to Wikipedia, he was (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_peters) a Military Intelligence officer. However, prior to that--between 1976 and 1980--he was enlisted. Don’t know what his MOS was at the time.


But really, who cares? This is just more stuff on cable news. It's about as important as whatever is on the front page of the tabloids at the supermarket checkout.

The problem is that Us Weekly and People Magazine actually influence how the public feels about Jon and Kate and their dozens of children or whatever. Fortunately, thank God, public opinion in this realm has little effect on public policy. But cable news has the same effect--only on a different audience. You’d be surprised at how closely political offices (mostly the staffers who write the talking points) follow the news talk shows. And the things said on those shows actually do work their way into the conventional political wisdom. I’m not saying it’s good or bad, but that’s the way it works.

Typically for something like that to happen, however, there has to be not only a grain of truth to what’s being said on TV, but there has to already be a propensity for the viewer to already feel that way. The talking heads just solidify it. So when Ralph Peters goes on TV and says this kid is a deserter (which many people suspected (http://www.bouhammer.com/2009/07/missing-soldier-update-with-video-of-pfc-bowe-bergdahl/)--rightly or wrongly) and that he should be killed by the Taliban, then it has to be knocked down quickly by others in the media--which, fortunately, it was. Otherwise, you run the risk of the sentiment taking hold. My point is that you can’t just say, “Ahh, who cares?” Because Ralph Peters--the “strategic analyst” that he is--just told a million viewers right then what they should think. And many will go right along. That type of media market is too large to ignore.

And while we’re on the topic of this guy, I think it’s worth noting that this isn’t the first time Peters has come unhinged. I wrote this (http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2971) yesterday:


Such proclamations aren’t unusual for Peters, however. He actually has a bizarre penchant for executions. Recently, Peters stated his lusty desire (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QghDU7pjSc) to see the U.S. government execute all prisoners at Guantanamo Bay--without regard for their legal rights, and in spite of the fact that, in his own words, “there will be miscarriages of justice.” And in another instance in May of this year, Peters also called for “military attacks on the partisan media.”
(http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/05/right-wing-military-writer-we-may-have-to-kill-war-journalists/)
Ralph just wants to see some executions. Doesn’t matter who. Soldier, terrorist, just anybody. Somebody needs to die. Now.

The guy is a real nutbar and I think he finally just pissed away what was left of his credibility.

[Schmedlap]

My point is that you can’t just say, “Ahh, who cares?” Because Ralph Peters--the “strategic analyst” that he is--just told a million viewers right then what they should think. And many will go right along. That type of media market is too large to ignore.
My "so what" reaction seems relevant still. Suppose that a million viewers saw this and that each one of them was immediately swayed to this viewpoint. So what? Is that going to alter how we go about trying to get this Soldier back? I say no.

And, as I pointed out before, possibility #2:

He assumed that the Taliban were watching and wanted them to get the message that this prisoner is worth more to them alive than dead. That is certainly one message that they could have received. He expressed frustration towards the Soldier and suggested that the Taliban would do us a favor by killing him.Given that Peters' went black on credibility a long time ago among people who pay attention to military affairs, but that his "in praise of attrition" mentality remains popular among those who regard cable news as real journalism, he seems like a useful conduit to send that message. It conforms to his existing written and spoken work and nobody in this country will make the mistake of assuming his view is the party line of the administration, any more than anyone assumes that Lou Dobbs, Keith Olbermann, or Bill O'Reilly speak for any official.

[jenniferro10]

The fact that he's on TV is an indication of why I never watch it...

It was one of those things that you watch and then say, "Did I really just hear that? Surely he didn't say what I thought he said. Oh crap, he did."

[jenniferro10]

A little off topic, but I think having a "like" button, similar to facebook, would be great, especially for the next time Friedman reads my mind and posts my comment before I do...

Anyway: Considering his credentials, is it worth positing how it is Peters got so far off track? Is it that being a full-time punditard has left him a little out of touch? Is he just trying to attract press by making a spectacle of himself? He is not alone: many media advisors- even the nonacademic ex-military ones- are not all that useful. If they could keep up with the breakneck speed with which we are adapting our strengths in Iraq and Afghanistan they might still be in the military. Possibly this is too harsh...? I am interested to hear from this crowd who we think is doing a solid job of being a television media advisor on military issues.

[Schmedlap]

I am interested to hear from this crowd who we think is doing a solid job of being a television media advisor on military issues.

"Doing a solid job" and "being a television media advisor on military issues" are mutually exclusive. I'm not asserting that to be a wiseguy. The media is not interested in solid analysis. They are interested in selling advertising. They sell that advertising space by appealing to an audience. A viewer in that audience will find no appeal if the "news" program is inconsistent with the existing views of the viewer. Most viewers (in my highly un-scientific estimate) do not want to learn, so much as they want a continuous stream of information that reaffirms their views. It is a source of assurance. From the media's standpoint, the best analyst is the one who can most artfully deliver information in terms of black or white, right or wrong, yes or no analysis. The more clear-cut and definite the analysis, the more reassuring it is to the viewer.

Television is not a medium for the free flow of ideas, for give and take, learning, discussion, or contemplation. It is to entertain, comfort, and deliver information. Very little of that information is actually news and that is by design.

[Brandon Friedman]

My "so what" reaction seems relevant still. Suppose that a million viewers saw this and that each one of them was immediately swayed to this viewpoint. So what? Is that going to alter how we go about trying to get this Soldier back? I say no.

No, it won't affect how we get Bergdahl back in this specific case. But mainstream social sentiment is a powerful thing. Remember before Michael Jackson died? He was considered a pedophile who most in society and the media treated like a bizarre freak show at best, a leper outcast at worst. That was the accepted frame in public. But then he suddenly died. Overnight he became a civil rights leader (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2009/07/05/cnn-anchor-elitist-disdain-amount-coverage-jacko-accidental-civil-rights). An inspiration to millions (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1614765/20090626/jackson_michael.jhtml). A genius "boy man" (http://www.tmz.com/2009/06/26/paul-mccartney-mj-was-a-talented-boy-man/3) deserving of a House Resolution (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.RES.600:) and a statement by the President (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24246.html).

In reality, little had changed. Most people who thought he was a pederast before still thought he was a pederast. And most of his fans--who had always secretly admired him--were at once able to express that publicly again. What had changed was society's collective perception of the man. And by the time Congressman Peter King (R-NY) got around to saying (http://www.nypost.com/seven/07062009/news/regionalnews/ny_rep__michael_jackson_was_a_pervert_177882.htm) what everyone else had been saying a week earlier (that Michael Jackson was a pervert), it had become no longer socially acceptable to say such a thing. The media's reaction to such remarks were swift and incredulous: "How could he say such a defamatory thing about our Michael?"

Of course, both the Ralph Peters case and the Michael Jackson example aren't typical situations. But I stand by my point that it's a constant battle in the media to keep ahead of public sentiment. If you allow people with whom you disagree to sway millions of viewers and voters unchallenged, you can easily find yourself on the wrong end of the debate. And that can certainly affect policy.


Given that Peters' went black on credibility a long time ago. . . .

That's hilarious. I have to use that one. I miss Army lingo.

[Greyhawk]

"Doing a solid job" and "being a television media advisor on military issues" are mutually exclusive. I'm not asserting that to be a wiseguy. The media is not interested in solid analysis. They are interested in selling advertising. They sell that advertising space by appealing to an audience. A viewer in that audience will find no appeal if the "news" program is inconsistent with the existing views of the viewer. Most viewers (in my highly un-scientific estimate) do not want to learn, so much as they want a continuous stream of information that reaffirms their views. It is a source of assurance. From the media's standpoint, the best analyst is the one who can most artfully deliver information in terms of black or white, right or wrong, yes or no analysis. The more clear-cut and definite the analysis, the more reassuring it is to the viewer.

Television is not a medium for the free flow of ideas, for give and take, learning, discussion, or contemplation. It is to entertain, comfort, and deliver information. Very little of that information is actually news and that is by design.

Concur.

Would add "generate controversy" - which paradoxically might entertain and comfort those who agree and disagree. By defining where the deep end is, Peters assures some folks they aren't there and others that they aren't alone - that their position might be reasonable because it is shared. There's some "comfort" in both.

Not to say that was his intent. His intent was to shock. (Or provoke, or generate controversy, all of which is assumed to attract viewers or increase fame - or notoriety.) Semantics aside, as such it is the same as the intent of those who produced the video.

[Greyhawk]

Of course, both the Ralph Peters case and the Michael Jackson example aren't typical situations. But I stand by my point that it's a constant battle in the media to keep ahead of public sentiment. If you allow people with whom you disagree to sway millions of viewers and voters unchallenged, you can easily find yourself on the wrong end of the debate. And that can certainly affect policy.

Concur with that, too. The task becomes to convince those whose impulse might be to agree with one position (or be attracted by it) to see the error of their ways - with a positive message. It's too easy to keep those who are repulsed by it in the first place "in the fold".

While we aren't in their number, it could be helpful to imagine some folks who might agree with Peters most extreme points (imagine because I haven't heard anything supportive from anyone as far as quotes in the media, nor do I expect to any time soon) and consider how you would counter the argument without broadening the divide - the latter being the desired result of the video producers.

On the other hand, if there are no such folks, then no problem.

[Brandon Friedman]

"Doing a solid job" and "being a television media advisor on military issues" are mutually exclusive. I'm not asserting that to be a wiseguy. The media is not interested in solid analysis. They are interested in selling advertising. They sell that advertising space by appealing to an audience. A viewer in that audience will find no appeal if the "news" program is inconsistent with the existing views of the viewer. Most viewers (in my highly un-scientific estimate) do not want to learn, so much as they want a continuous stream of information that reaffirms their views. It is a source of assurance. From the media's standpoint, the best analyst is the one who can most artfully deliver information in terms of black or white, right or wrong, yes or no analysis. The more clear-cut and definite the analysis, the more reassuring it is to the viewer.

Television is not a medium for the free flow of ideas, for give and take, learning, discussion, or contemplation. It is to entertain, comfort, and deliver information. Very little of that information is actually news and that is by design.

For the most part, I agree with your analysis of the TV news media. That said, I'm not on board with the idea that "'Doing a solid job' and 'being a television media advisor on military issues' are mutually exclusive." Of the "media advisors on military issues" I know, most do a solid job of providing cogent analysis. Some are partisan (on both sides), but that doesn't mean they're not passionate, insightful, and able to effectively communicate the needs and views of their respective constituencies within the military community. Some, like Ralph Peters, are just crazy and incompetent. I'd name a couple of good ones, but will recuse myself instead since I work in the field. :)

The problem (and we could probably agree on this) is that even the good military guests are constrained by the fact that they have to transform complex topics on which they're well-versed into sound bites easily digestible by a flaky public within a four-minute segment. But again, that's the media's fault--not the guest's.

[jenniferro10]

Sounds like we are all of one mind on this. Hence the term: punditard. Good night, God bless.

[Schmedlap]

If you allow people with whom you disagree to sway millions of viewers and voters unchallenged, you can easily find yourself on the wrong end of the debate. And that can certainly affect policy.
In the case at hand, I don't see how public sentiment toward this guy could impact policy. Are we going to just declare him a dirtball tell Mr. Tallyban to keep him?


Of the "media advisors on military issues" I know, most do a solid job of providing cogent analysis. Some are partisan (on both sides), but that doesn't mean they're not passionate, insightful, and able to effectively communicate the needs and views of their respective constituencies within the military community.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Who or what are "their respective constituencies within the military community"? To me, doing a solid job as an analyst means that the analyst helps to inform the viewer. But the viewer doesn't want an analyst. The viewer wants someone to reassure him of his existing opinions. The "analyst" label just lends credibility to the person and enhances the reassuring experience.


But again, that's the media's fault--not the guest's.
And that's kind of what I was getting at. The media does not want people who do a solid job. They want someone who plays to the crowd. If an analyst does a solid job, then the viewer will change the channel back to American Idol.


Given that Peters' went black on credibility a long time ago...

That's hilarious. I have to use that one. I miss Army lingo.
Be careful. Someone unfamiliar with the term might think you're making a racist comment (they'll be wondering, "went black?" - what does that mean? Why's it gotta be black?).

[goesh]

- frothing mad Pete, what a jerk. I'm glad they are not going to run the clip saying they won't help the Taliban but had this happened in Iraq when Bush was CIC, they darn sure would have aired the tape - that gripes me as much as what mad Pete is saying.

[Fuchs]

I didn't see much of Peter' writings in the past years. I think he had his high time before OIF.

I recall him as needlessly ruthless and hawkish, rarely with insights that deserve support. Most of the time he was just an annoying source for people with whom I disagreed.