Military/academic reaction to radical groups/biased news?

Hi everyone,

Here is a new thread for thought. "Anti-war" groups like Code Pink claim they present a peace movement, but after doing research on them, they come out of the Bolshevik revolution and extreme Marxism, yet are considered a tax exempt organization by the government. They defaced a military recruitment office in Berkley, California a few years ago, which amounts to vandalism. And during Gen. Petraeus's hearings in 2007, they had to be escorted out of the Armed Forces Hearing for disruption. Being anti-war is one thing, this is radicalism to the extreme.

I think the bottom line is this: there will always be crazies out there, thus militaries are necessary for national self defense. I wish everyone on the face of the planet got along with everyone and loved his neighbor like himself, but realistically, that wouldn't happen. When I was reading Gen. Petraeus's statement on the Centcom website, he stated that 3 Afghan civilians got beheaded when denying the Taliban aid in a village. After the beheadings, the Afghan security forces then called on US forces for support. And I think then the Taliban kept Afghan civilians as hostages inside houses when US airstrikes occured. You don't hear about the people being beheaded in mainstream news.

I think its very sad that the civilians got killed, but the problem is the Taliban. All the mainstream news does is show the sensationalism of the civilians who got injured. A lot of Centcom videos on youtube showed US forces helping the Afghan security forces, like putting in technology for clean drinking water and teaching first aid to Afghan medics save lives.

I asked a Marine recruiter on my campus why the news was biased and doesn't show humanitarian aid given by US forces, as well as explaining the entire story of the 3 civilians that got beheaded. He told me "people see what they want to see, even if its not the truth." I agreed with him. Things are never black and white, but shades of color, as I learned on the board here:D Yes, I'm still trying to learn in color, but I collected those thoughts since the last time I posted. Thoughts? Comments? Opinions?

Quote:

---

from yami...
When I was reading Gen. Petraeus's statement on the Centcom website, he stated that 3 Afghan civilians got beheaded when denying the Taliban aid in a village. After the beheadings, the Afghan security forces then called on US forces for support. And I think then the Taliban kept Afghan civilians as hostages inside houses when US airstrikes occured.

---

Both the beheadings and hostage use (if evidenced - not always that easy) are war crimes. They are also typical of the AQ-Taliban way of war - they have their own LOAC (Law of Armed Conflict). You can verify that via many sources on and off line. For a quick overview, see at SWJ, The Erosion of Noncombatant Immunity within Al Qaeda.

Quote:

---

Since its inception, al Qaeda’s treatment of noncombatant immunity has migrated from full observance to complete disregard. In just over a decade, al Qaeda transitioned from basing entire operations on the inviolable nature of noncombatant immunity to specifically targeting noncombatants. From 1991 until 2002, al Qaeda evolved through five distinct phases in its observance of noncombatant immunity. These phases transition from Phase One’s complete respect for noncombatants to Phase Five’s intentional targeting of millions of noncombatants with weapons of mass destruction. More recently, however, al Qaeda appears to be taking stock of the harm that targeting noncombatants is having on its cause. This paper will provide a phased analysis of how al Qaeda’s provision of noncombatant immunity disintegrated over time and why it may be returning today. This progression of thought and action concerning noncombatants serves as a roadmap by which to understand how and why al Qaeda made these ideological leaps.

---

The media and many Americans are simply incapable of seeing AQ-Taliban for what they are - as determined by what they do. Those folks should assemble a group of beheadings videos - usually done according to the law and process adopted by AQ-Taliban - and watch them while dwelling on what they are watching.

PS: Keeping in mind what AQ-Taliban do, I can't get very excited by the antics (and misdemeanors - defaced a military recruitment office & hearings disruptions) of Code Pink. They do more harm than good to their anti-war cause; so also, many protesters in the Vietnam Era.

But note, the great Fox News "Conservative" :rolleyes:, Bill O'Reilly, keeps inviting Code Pink's leader Medea XX on and she has the guts to keep coming. Ya gotta respect that, even if what she has to say really makes little sense.

Cheers

JohnT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yamiyugikun

Thoughts? Comments? Opinions?

---

Not sure if this is related or not, but this thread seems to essentially be about opinions and perceptions influenced by the media.

The left whines that the right regards itself as the guardian of family values. The left, meanwhile, likes to assert similar authority in declaring what is legal and what is not. If anything, what is legal or constitutional is even murkier than than determinations of what is in line with our values.

The President has done a good job of changing the climate in Washington. The dirty secret is that he has done so by shutting up his own supporters - something that, unfortunately, only a Democrat could have done (unfortunate because it shows how close-minded and foolish political activists are). But I have to give kudos to his administration for deftly acting in a manner that shuts up the weirdos (code pink, et al) while not doing any damage.

Examples:
1. Gitmo. He issued an executive order saying that Gitmo will be closed within a year. This shuts up the crazies, but it doesn't do anything. In a year, we will conclude that "it's not politically feasible - sorry, but we tried." By that time, people will have moved on to another pet peeve. Well, except for the ACLU.
2. Prisoner mistreatment. He said that he would release photos of "torture" but then backtracked on the advice of his staff. That avoids the propaganda concern and justifies it by him putting forth an image of the prudent decider acting upon sound advice, but gives him the option of getting/letting the photos to be leaked while keeping his hands clean (because he ordered them not to be released).
3. Torture. His executive order essentially says that we won't torture unless we have to - which is not a change in policy - but it sounds really good to people who were clamoring for some action on the issue. He also released information about the types of torture. This is actually a good thing. The "terrorists" are not going to train to resist those types of torture because we just said that we're not going to use it (unless we have to). Good disinformation there - believable and expedient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yamiyugikun

I think the bottom line is this: there will always be crazies out there, thus militaries are necessary for national self defense.

---

As you say, it's not always black and white. I do not think the reason you state is why militaries exist, including the US Armed Forces. Violence, in whatever form, is crazy. But it happens, and in many forms. The military is an indiscriminate tool to be used at the behest of its handyman -- for better or for worse. Is a beheading any worse morally than targeting a terrorist leader knowing full well that the effects will produce civilian casualties? So really what is bias when violence and death are, in the end, all the same? Just some questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yamiyugikun

I think its very sad that the civilians got killed, but the problem is the Taliban.

---

Perhaps. IMO, the Taliban is the response to a more deeply rooted problem in Afghanistan's political-economic structure. What's particularly interesting is the Taliban's near-exclusive relationship with the Pashtuns, which invites the question of whether the Taliban is (another) ethnic armed group disguising itself as a religious movement.

The reason why Code Pink is "extreme" isn't because of their views or their conduct -- it's because it's a signal of impotence to continuously clamor for a thing while never attaining it. They only degrade themselves in the eyes of others because they never win (or appear to win). The 'unarmed prophet' spoken of by Machiavelli. Nobody respects a nobody.

Quote:

---

from JTF
Bill O'Reilly, keeps inviting Code Pink's leader Medea XX on and she has the guts to keep coming. Ya gotta respect that, even if what she has to say really makes little sense.

---

Could it be that BillO has the hots for Medea ? - as I did for Cassandra Peterson. There is a certain chemistry. ;)

Schmedlap made three perceptive observations (IMO) about the Obama balancing act between the left (on one hand) and his center-left and some center-right supporters.

Some months ago, Ken observed that there would be a shift in the center-left to a "pro-war" position; and in some segments of the center-right and right to a "critical of war policies" position. That also was perceptive (IMO).

The media, since it is a creature of the two major parties (albeit more center-left in its overall reporting), will reflect some confusion in finding the now politically-correct set of talking points.

Now, having warmed up to write a critique of the President's detainee-war crimes speech, I bid adieu for a bit. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yamiyugikun

I asked a Marine recruiter on my campus why the news was biased and doesn't show humanitarian aid given by US forces, as well as explaining the entire story of the 3 civilians that got beheaded. He told me "people see what they want to see, even if its not the truth." I agreed with him. Things are never black and white, but shades of color, as I learned on the board here:D Yes, I'm still trying to learn in color, but I collected those thoughts since the last time I posted. Thoughts? Comments? Opinions?

---

That part in particular is extremely important to focus on given that often for a variety of reason initial expectations or perceptions can be scewed for variety of reasons and the followon can involve a whole lot of useless wasted eforts on their part to find ways to confirm what they think they know.

And unfortunately it leaves the SFA force trying to disenfranchise them of those initial perception rather than being able to focus on the real business their there for.

It can really seem like an exercise in futility at times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yamiyugikun

They defaced a military recruitment office in Berkley, California a few years ago, which amounts to vandalism. And during Gen. Petraeus's hearings in 2007, they had to be escorted out of the Armed Forces Hearing for disruption. Being anti-war is one thing, this is radicalism to the extreme.

---

When they start kidnapping and executing soldiers, assassinating government officials, and bombing government offices, I think then we can say they are radical extremists. Right now they're on par with the Boston Tea Party. They're basically within their rights, with some jumps into vandalism and public disorder (and to be clear I am no "fan" of code pink and I don't think that they stand up to well in a full comparison with the Sons of Liberty ).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yamiyugikun

there will always be crazies out there, thus militaries are necessary for national self defense.

---

Not to be a nitpicker, but there is a pretty big difference between internal 'crazies' (ie, people we don't agree with) and using the military against them, and then using a military for defense of the nation from outsiders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yamiyugikun

You don't hear about the people being beheaded in mainstream news.

---

I think that something to keep in mind here is that people already understand that the taliban and al-qaida are horrible. So there isn't much need for the news to repeat that (of course, arguably, if they heard more about it, they might say 'well, civilians died when we bombed a safehouse, but we got the guy that had been slitting kids throats").

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yamiyugikun

A lot of Centcom videos on youtube showed US forces helping the Afghan security forces, like putting in technology for clean drinking water and teaching first aid to Afghan medics save lives.

---

Right, we have our propaganda, and they have theirs. Ours is less controlled and theirs is more effective. Of course, their propaganda only really is targeted at those people who are on the edge of being a terrorist, while ours is targeted at everyone. So when theirs is successful they get a fighter, but we don't really even know 'how' ours is succesful. I mean, we can recruit thousands of times more fighters from our population than they can from theirs, but thats not the end goal of our propaganda in the first place anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yamiyugikun

I asked a Marine recruiter on my campus why the news was biased

---

Maybe a recruiter isn't the best source for unbiased information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nygdan

Maybe a recruiter isn't the best source for unbiased information.

---

Regrettably, the vales of Academe don't do much better than the Recruiters or the Media.

Best solution is, as it has been for many years, to absorb as much information as possible -- preferably from competing sources -- and then make your own decisions.

Respect for the military and faith in its capabilities were seriously damaged in Vietnam. But the Army rebuilt itself and is now highly respected and has the confidence of the American people. Does anyone think that this is the media's Vietnam moment?

We all know what Vietnam moment they would like to experience, but that's not what I mean. What I mean is, most people view the media with as much disdain as politicians. Most people have very little confidence in the media's ability or willingness to report accurately. Might the media - at least those who regard themselves as "professional" journalists - finally reach the point where they realize that they need to renew the standards of their trade in order to regain the trust and confidence of the people?

re: this Schmedlapism:

Quote:

---

1. Gitmo. He issued an executive order saying that Gitmo will be closed within a year. This shuts up the crazies, but it doesn't do anything. In a year, we will conclude that "it's not politically feasible - sorry, but we tried." By that time, people will have moved on to another pet peeve. Well, except for the ACLU.

---

fully endorsed yesterday by another astute observer of things political:

Quote:

---

Will Gitmo Closure Ever Happen?
As Excuses and Political Opposition Abound, Obama Promise Means Less and Less
by Jason Ditz, May 22, 2009

During yesterday’s national security speech, President Barack Obama tried to reassure that despite several high profile reversals on the question of detainees and publicly supporting the Senate’s decision to pull funding, he somehow still intended to see the detention center at Guantanamo Bay closed.

But four months after making that promise in the first place, there seems to be little political momentum for the closure, and less and less indication that the Obama Administration is willing to do anything concrete to see the facility closed. A good portion of Congressional Democrats are against it, and nearly all Congressional Republicans are against it.
.....
At the end of the day, keeping the facility open will likely be deemed politically safer, and with a myriad of excuses of why the detainees can’t be moved from extralegal custody on a military base in Cuba into extralegal custody on American soil, it seems unlikely that enough support will coalesce to see the facility shuttered.

---

I conclude that any of the following are "possible":

1. Mr Ditz is an avid reader of your posts at SWC.

2. Mr Ditz and you are engaged in a cabal.

3. Great minds run in the same channel.

:)

Cheers

Mike

I think that Mr. Ditz and I have different suspicions. I think that President Obama has had an all-star team of political advisors from day one and he never had any intention of doing most of the things that he promised in his campaign. This is nothing new for a politician, but the promises made and the manner in which he is breaking those promises is very impressive. He was able to make foolish promises because people were foolish enough to WANT to believe them and so blinded by hatred for President Bush that they saw supporting someone who made those promises as an expression of their hatred. It was brilliant. The idiots truly were useful.

Now he's got his Presidency and he is acting in a manner that should surprise no sane observer. His actions are to the left of what we could have expected from McCain, but not greatly different. Neither would have been able to govern far from the middle. Specifically in regard to national security, there was a narrow set of options available after 8 years of political battles at the edges. If anyone really thought that President Obama would end the war in Iraq, bring all or most troops home within 16 months of his inauguration, and close down Gitmo - those people are either insane or stupid. That goes for the left-wingers who supported him for those reasons and the right-wingers who were crapping their pants with fear at the thought that he would be elected.

Schmedlap,

It's not that Obama is breaking promises, it's that he never made the ones people on the far left attribute to him. In reality, on the topic of national security, Obama has never strayed from the center-left. Though, as you correctly note, many of his most ardent supporters on the left didn't want to believe that. Obama spent all of 2008 campaigning for a shift in military focus from Iraq to Afghanistan, but many progressives simply weren't hearing him. Thus, when he started announcing actual shifts in military focus from Iraq to Afghanistan--exactly what he said he'd do--many on the left were not only blown away with surprise, but they suddenly mobilized against the President's new policies. (OMG, he's just like Bush!!!)

However, he is actively moving to close Guantanamo and he is drawing the occupation in Iraq to a close. He might miss the deadlines on which he campaigned, but I don't think that constitutes a broken promise. Had McCain won, it's not likely we'd be seeing similar moves.

BTW, with regard to your analysis of how Obama has "handled" his supporters, you'll like this if you haven't seen it.

Agree regarding the characterization of left-wing reactions to changes in Afghanistan. But...

I actually do think that we would have seen similar moves from McCain. The difference is that whereas Obama has the moral authority to increase our operations in Afghanistan, McCain would have encountered significantly more virulent resistance from all of the left, rather than the fringes that Obama is taking heat from. Conversely, McCain would have had the moral authority, as a former POW, to close down Gitmo and tell his fellow Republicans to STFU and quitcherbitchin. I think both would prefer and experience equal resistance/support for a drawdown in Iraq - Obama probably preferring sooner to satisfy his base and McCain preferring to go as slowly or quickly as the JCS recommend. But now I'm beginning to sound like an allohistorian.

I don't know if candidate Obama ever explicitly said, "I will end the war in Iraq and bring home each and every last American Soldier home from Iraq and to hell with whatever mess we leave behind." But I do know that I repeatedly heard him talk about withdrawing one BDE per month and withdrawing from Iraq over the course of 16 months. Now if we want to get super-technical and ask whether these words equate exactly to completely withdrawing from Iraq - that is probably not how they should be construed, if spoken by normal people. But candidates are not normal people. Every talking point has a wiggle strategy and an exit strategy. He was always sure to point out that he would rely upon the guidance of his military leaders, knowing full well that their advice would differ significantly from the expectations that he was creating in the minds of his supporters. Yet he still made his statements for the specific purpose of making left-wingers believe that he would withdraw from Iraq, end our involvement there as quickly as possible, and then glow in the light of world peace that would spontaneously break out.

If similar words were spoken by you and I, then I would agree that no promise was made. But those words, when spoken by a Presidential candidate whose strings are being pulled by a team of high caliber political advisors like Axelrod, equate to a promise. He knew what message would be received, he delivered the lines to ensure the message was received, and it was, indeed, received. Just because I wink or nod instead of giving an order, does not mean that I never gave it. There is more than one way to convey a message. And in politics, the normal trade practice is to nibble around the edges. And now I'm beginning to sound like a law student.

BTW - great cartoon at that link. It demonstrates just how stupid (in my opinion) most of his rabid supporters were. That is the caliber of intellect that equates keeping Gates at SECDEF to a continuation of "failed" Bush policies. Morons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yamiyugikun

Hi everyone,

All the mainstream news does is show the sensationalism of the civilians who got injured.

---

Leaving aside the argument about what really makes news and indeed why news is actually produced, when I explain this aspect over here I probably oversimplify it but it works in a couple of ways.

We (The collective we) having been repeatedly saying how bad Terry T, AQ or any other number of threat groups are. We repeatedly highlight breaches of International and Humanitarian Law and we offer evidence of atrocities whenever we find it. If you look back to the beginning of any of our campaigns these facts are dutifully reported and in general (with western audiences at least) we achieve what we set out to do ... the public associates bad, evil whatever with whichever group we're fighting. IN Western audiences at least the dominant narrative is that Terry T and his mates are bad.

The opposite is also true. We get on the front foot early about how we're not like Terry T, AQ, whomever and we apply a whole heap of restrictions on ourselves because we're law-abiding despite that fact that it makes our job much harder. Again we create the perception and establish a narrative that we're the good guys and people (journos included) hold us to a higher standard because that's what we said we would do.

Therefore what makes news ... Terry T and his mates doing exactly what we said he does or us doing something that we said we wouldn't do because we're better than Terry.