The US Military fought tooth and nail to avoid taking the PR hit that was Iraq.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
motorfirebox
I don't have a lot of experience on the ground, but I do have quite a bit of experience watching CNN.
Well, okay but TV 'news' served up by the Entertainment industry and fllavored strongly by US domestic politics and ideologies is probably a poor source for decision making information... ;)
Better to skim the Internet for multiple news reports, preferably competing or conflicting and from several nations -- and give the 'news' time to be corroborated and to gel (first reports are invariably incorrect, some dangerously so) -- then judge veracity, filter for bias and make your own decision. :cool:
Later realize you did the best you could with the information you had at the time but the unknown unknowns gotcha. :o
Quote:
I can't see the US military willingly taking that kind of PR hit, regardless of how the action against the Somalis themselves is viewed.
Willingly is not an option...
Speak to the politicians. Your Elected leaders and their appointed minions make those types of decisions. Whether the military wants to do it, is properly trained or equipped to do it is absolutely immaterial to them. Virtually no one in the US Army wanted to go to Iraq...
Listenin and learnin on this one,
But do have one question for the gallery. Would it be illogical to presume that if the Supply of new Hostages were to be "discontinued" through efforts focused on the supply chain (Boats/M-Ships/Docks) it doesn't necessarily mean greater danger to those already in custody.
May just be me but wouldn't that make the limited supply of money-makers they already have more valuable to keep around in order to get the ransoms?
(back to the cheap seats)
Politicans lead the world...
in strange and wobdrous ways...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
motorfirebox
The public's attention is an important distinction. It's important because we're a voting public, and unpopular military action subtracts votes from the guys who ordered it.
Really? Roosevelt tricking us into WW II, Nixon in Viet Nam, Clinton in Somalia and Bush in Iraq and the reelections of all to a subsequent second (or third) term during unpopular wars (yes even the great crusade of WW II was questioned by many...) would seem to make that a statement that is at best questionable... :wry:
Quote:
CNN is useful to me as an indicator of what the public at large is interested in. For actual news, I get my hands dirty digging.
In reverse order, good. My experience and observation has been that most of the TV news is seen as flaky at best. I'm old and I'm sure many say things to me differently that they would talking to a younger person but I sure don't see much stock put in any of the TV news by most Americans...
Quote:
Er, yeah, I said "military" when I meant those who make the decisions on where to send it.
That's a rather important distinction. Many do not make it. Which leads to confusion in some, particularly the aforesaid politicians...:rolleyes: