The Media Aren't the Enemy in Iraq

[120mm]

For the golfers among us:

The media is part of the course. Whining about them doesn't advance "the game" one iota.

While I detest them in my heart, I think I'd rather have them close then allow them to operate at a distance.

[Culpeper]

This goes without stating but basic rule of thumb is that the media is a detriment in a democratic society fighting a counterinsurgency war. It comes with the playing field. Nevertheless, in other wars the U.S.A. has fought, such things as the Sedition Act of 1918 were very useful for censoring the press. This is where I think the Patriot Act doesn't go far enough. Under the radar sedition needs to stop and it should start within Washington D.C. Given enough rope, any politician, on any given day, in front of any given media, will hang himself or herself. The problem is is there isn't a rope to be found within The Beltway. Go figure. Nevertheless, Condoleezza Rice would have received great press had she simply told Barbara Boxer, "Why don't you just go piss on a rope?" Well, I guess she did in her own more professional way. There is more than one way to skin a cat. Wonderful thing; a free press.

Rice criticizes Boxer's comment

"In retrospect, gee, I thought single women had come further than that, that the only question is are you making good decisions because you have kids," Rice said in an interview Friday on Fox News

[Bill Moore]

Of course we're losing in Iraq because of the media, not because we had a bad strategy. Of course all the negative news they reported simply wasn't true, or if it was I would prefer as a free citizen to simply bury my head in the sand and not hold my government accountable. That's how a democracy is supposed to work right?

Of course if our media didn't discuss the gross misconduct at Abu Ghrab the enemy never would have been aware of it. Al Jazer (sp?) and the internet and rumors on the street don't exist. We should line up all reporters and execute them if they don't report what we tell them to report. How can we have a democracy with a free media telling the people that the government is flawed?

It was the media that made a big deal out of Clinton and Monica also. What right did they have to undermine our President? Nixon of course had the right to break the law, and the American people never should have heard about it.

The only thing the media should be reporting in Iraq is the number of schools we build, wells we dig, and evil terrorists we killed. If they did we would win.

Come on guys, the media is part and parcel of a democracy. If it wasn't for the media we would be staying the course with a flawed policy. Maybe the media is actually having a positive effect?

Fortunately I am going TDY now, so I won't see your hard hitting counterattacks for a few days :-). I work on stiffening my spine while I'm gone.

Bill

[Tom Odom]

Bill


Thank you. Got your back.

best

Tom

[Tom Odom]

This goes without stating but basic rule of thumb is that the media is a detriment in a democratic society fighting a counterinsurgency war. It comes with the playing field. Nevertheless, in other wars the U.S.A. has fought, such things as the Sedition Act of 1918 were very useful for censoring the press. This is where I think the Patriot Act doesn't go far enough. Under the radar sedition needs to stop and it should start within Washington D.C. Given enough rope, any politician, on any given day, in front of any given media, will hang himself or herself. The problem is is there isn't a rope to be found within The Beltway. Go figure. Nevertheless, Condoleezza Rice would have received great press had she simply told Barbara Boxer, "Why don't you just go piss on a rope?" Well, I guess she did in her own more professional way. There is more than one way to skin a cat. Wonderful thing; a free press.

Rice criticizes Boxer's comment

To the contrary, I would thank Boxer. The question was in full:

Who pays the price?" Boxer asked Rice, who is unmarried and doesn't have children. "I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with immediate family.

"So who pays the price? The American military and their families."

I believe that question needs to be asked repeatedly and in a loud voice; certainly it is one I would put in front of every neo-conservative and I would keep asking it until each one finally answered, "Someone besides me."

Best

Tom

[Culpeper]

Aw, come on, Tom. The questioning was tacky and unprofessional. It was hype and made Boxer look like an idiot. We all know who is paying the ultimate price in this war. Using herself and the Secretary of State as examples takes us back to the America First crowd before WWII when Charles Lindbergh came back from Nazi Germany and stated the rivers flowed with chocolate and women were stay at home moms. The Secretary of State herself has sacrificed more of her life than Boxer has where this war is concerned. Boxer is a pimple on an elephant's ass. She has absolutely nothing to offer in the way of solutions. Just plays the "sedition is patriotic" game by labeling it as dissent. It's pandering and provides aid and comfort to the bad guys. Boxer wants to save the lives of those that are making the ultimate sacrifice? She should bring up such rhetoric in the right time and place. What we need is another George Creel. Some of you guys act like any good news is suspicious and soak up "unidentified sources" and "requested to remain anonymous because the person is not required to speak to the press" as gospel and just. The media is the last place I'm going to look for any facts. And I'm certainly not going to compliment any politician, of any stripe, that is pandering to the press no matter what their position may be. Let's not forget that this is an all volunteer military that is meeting enlistment goals. There is no draft. Boxer needs to ask the volunteers why they are enlisting in the military knowing we are at war. Why are some of these men and women, adults, joining to make the sacrifice? You can't blame the economy or lack of educational opportunities. It is easier to get an equally paying governmental civil job or go to college than it is to enter into today's military. So, the question is, why are these people joining the military during this time of armed conflict? Not whether the Secretary of State, a woman, can make good decisions concerning war because she doesn't have any children. I'm surprised that you seem to condone this sort of political showboating.

[Uboat509]

This was nothing more than political grandstanding as per SOP. The real question that we should be asking is "Who pays the price if we fail in Iraq?" The answer is simple. We all do. The so called neocons have gotten a lot of flack, some of it deserved. They did not understand how to fight this enemy but I give them credit for recognizing that it is an enemy that needs to be fought, and not just with a few cruise missiles. In any case, whether or not we SHOULD have gone to war in Iraq, the fact is we DID. We do not have the luxury of engaging in endless defeatist hand wringing. Yes, the war was initially mishandled by people who alternately thought we would be welcomed as heroes or that we could just intimidate the enemy into submission with our technology and firepower. It took entirely too long but the administration finally took action to correct the mistakes. Everything that I have heard and/read about LTG Petraeus suggests that he is the right man for the job. This is not the time to throw in the towel and run. The price of victory will be great but the price of failure will be far greater.

SFC W

[Tom Odom]

I support a political debate as envisioned under the Constitution. Debate and dissent is not sedition.

The grandstanding has gone on on both sides. This was a snap shot taken from one side of the field.

As for neo-cons recognizing "that it is an enemy that needs to be fought," the problem is a failure to define that enemy and what defeating him requires, what it will cost, and what the results may bring.

Best

Tom

[slapout9]

Tom, you said a lot in this statement!

As for neo-cons recognizing "that it is an enemy that needs to be fought," the problem is a failure to define that enemy and what defeating him requires, what it will cost, and what the results may bring.

Very well said.

[Culpeper]

I support a political debate as envisioned under the Constitution. Debate and dissent is not sedition.

The grandstanding has gone on on both sides. This was a snap shot taken from one side of the field.

As for neo-cons recognizing "that it is an enemy that needs to be fought," the problem is a failure to define that enemy and what defeating him requires, what it will cost, and what the results may bring.

Best

Tom

Debate and dissent is loyal opposition. Sedition is making comments that may disrupt the recruitment of the armed forces, among other things.

[marct]

Debate and dissent is loyal opposition. Sedition is making comments that may disrupt the recruitment of the armed forces, among other things.

Culpepper, by analogy, then, it would have been sedition for anyone to say anything against Hitler in Germany. It appears to me that you are advocating a really dangerous precedent, here. "Democracy", at its root, is rule by the people (actually, tribe - "demos" - but that's nitpicking on my part ).

At the core of any working democratic system, republican, constitutional monarchy or insane kludge (yeah, I'm thinking of France now), is the idea that everyone should have the ability to say what they think no matter how stupid, pig headed or opposed to entrenched interest groups (like politicians) that may be.

Nobody with two neurons to rub together and a knowledge of human history would say that "democracy", in any of its forms, is "perfect". In the West, we trace "democracy" back to Athens - such a wonderful "democratic" state where maybe 10% of the population could vote. I should also point out that Athens lost their big war because of demagogues, politicians such as we see today (Alcibiades comes to mind). If Athens had had a free press, then that might not have happened.

Sedition should, to my mind, be restricted to acts that material damage the social contract of the democracy in which they operate, not to speach acts that oppose what many people disagree with. Once "sedition" is applied to any who disgree with the rulers of the society, then you no longer live in a democracy.

Marc

[Steve Blair]

My particular rant about Boxer and her ilk is that none of them give a spotted's rat's backside about the military and their families UNLESS there is political gain to be made from it. Same goes for the MSM. CBS has been running stories about military families and the like for the past week or so. I submit that they didn't care about them before, and will stop caring as soon as there's no ratings gain to be made from it.

When I was in high school, I went to a school in Germany (West Germany at the time) that had a fair number of Army kids in it. They moved every year to year and a half. I never saw anyone showing any concern about that then, and still do not now. When I worked at Fort Riley I saw guys coming back from TDYs to Kosovo only to be shipped off to Korea within a week or two. No prime-time coverage of that one. People would be killed in training accidents, and you never saw a "they give all" blurb or someone in Congress burbling about the price their families paid.

Sorry for the rant, but anytime someone like Boxer or Ted Kennedy or the neo-cons get on a high horse and starts "feeling" for the military I just want to scream. If there was no gain to be had they'd be calling for budget cuts, ignoring servicemembers and their families, and voting to raise their own obscene pay and benefits. Two party nepotism at its finest.

And now I'll return to my reclusive historical self...

[marct]

Marc: You're correct in a way about the Civil War. I really hate to see the PC police going after this, because (like most historical things) it is really difficult to pare it down to "one right answer."

2nd time posting this - my computer seems to be post-modern <wry grin>.

Totally agree, Lincoln was a "Union Man" to he core - regardless of the price.

Lincoln could also flex a great deal in terms of states' rights (and did so many times with Maryland, Pennsylvania, and others), but he was also capable of being very ruthless in the pursuit of his goal. Both he and Grant are, I feel, misunderstood and manipulated by would-be historians (and social scientists) with agendas. Too often we look at individuals without having an understanding of the times and places that created them and their attitudes.

Totally, true, Steve!

And Marc, I'm aware of the contributions Canada made on the Western Front. I've always felt that Dominion troops were grossly misused by the British. Rule Britannia at its finest. And Wilson...for someone who has gone down as a "peace president" he sure made wide use of the military. His record in Central America is riddled with interventions and "gunboat diplomacy." But he tends to get a pass because he was a Democrat (IMO, anyhow).

"Rule Britannia at its finest". Yeah <sigh>. We - the Canadians, the ANZAC troops, the Indians paid the price of that. I remember before he died, my Grand-Uncle gave me his first editions of Seigfried Sasson and Rupert Brook. I read them to my intro classes. Several years after he gave them to me, I was singing Brittain's War Requiem. I remember falling apart during the solo interludes which used Sasoon's poetry.

Two years ago, I had the opportunity to go over to Caen with the Carleton choir as part of the 60th anniversary celebration of the D-Day invasions. DND refused us permission to sing at one of the Canadian graveyards. Our conductor, who is from New Orleans, said nothing and arranged for us to show up there to sing anyway. There was a DND photo op group there - 15 bureacrats and 60 vets. The bureacrats didn't realize we were singing until the second song. The vets appreciated it (I still have the Legion pin one of them gave me), and the bureacrats hated it. As a side note, the Gott verdamnt bureacrats wanted to take a photo op, but had forgotten to bring a flag - guess who provided it?

Canadians have always been misunderstood by most people. We tend to be quite, polite and pretty nice - until we get pissed: then watch out! The Brits pissed us off in WWI and the Americans did so in WWII (witness the little "off-duty trip" taken by the Cameron Highlanders after D-Day). I always try and define Canadians, to Europeans, as the Anglicans of North America "we are Americans who don't accept the suzerainity of Washington."

My particular rant about Boxer and her ilk is that none of them give a spotted's rat's backside about the military and their families UNLESS there is political gain to be made from it. Same goes for the MSM. CBS has been running stories about military families and the like for the past week or so. I submit that they didn't care about them before, and will stop caring as soon as there's no ratings gain to be made from it.

Too freakin' true! Personally, I always appreciated the Britsh gentry and the Colonial aristicracies that actually led their troops. I would love to see Boxer on the front lines, along with a bunch of others (Jack Layton comes to mind).

Sorry for the rant, but anytime someone like Boxer or Ted Kennedy or the neo-cons get on a high horse and starts "feeling" for the military I just want to scream. If there was no gain to be had they'd be calling for budget cuts, ignoring servicemembers and their families, and voting to raise their own obscene pay and benefits. Two party nepotism at its finest.

And now I'll return to my reclusive historical self...

<grin>. "Some of my best friends are in the military..." Need we say more?

Marc

[Culpeper]

Hmmm, I think I like that phrase - "and opportunity cost of democracy". Actually, I suspect that we agree more than we disagree. Dissent against a government policy should always have some cost attached to it if it is to be taken as "real" rather than soi disant posturing.

Exactly! If we must define our "enemy" than we must define the limitation of loyal opposition at home. To draw this line would result in those abusing such right of opposition to yell, " dissent is patriotic", or "McCarthyism!". But this cost must and should be on a peer-to-peer platform rather than the government having to enact a sedition act once again. Nevertheless, I was a little surprised at the opposition to the Patriot Act without even a compliment that it didn't contain the spirit of typical sedition act. A person should be called on the platform using the very same right said person is abusing by his or her peers. It is called freedom of expression and it is an absolute two-way street. When it comes to dissent there should always be an opposite and equal reaction. I'm not one to let a person get a free ride on the back of the First Amendment if I feel it is counterproductive for the nation. One thing I notice is that when people are harping about their right to dissent and you bring up sedition all of sudden the room gets quite. That is because most complainers don't even know the definitions of the word. They only know it must be a bad word. And it is in America. True sedition is a threat to our democracy and not a right and should be recognized and dealt with on a popular basis. Cindy Sheehan referring to the President as Hitler in a public place is not only showing off her complete idiotic concept and lack of respect for history but is an act of sedition because there is actually no comparison between Hitler and the President and is an attempt to incite rebellion through propaganda. Cindy should go back in time and try to exercise her freedoms as a Jew or a Gypsy under Hitler and see how far she would get. She should be told this in the loudest of voices every time she speaks by her fellow citizens. It doesn't matter that outside of her little cocoon of supporters no one really cares what she states. It doesn't matter that some West Texas beer drinking roustabout hasn't run over her yet with his 1989 customized Ford 4x4. She should be made to pay for her remarks by her peers using the same rights that she is abusing. And in the same respect, the media should be held accountable for covering her stories as if it is meaningful.

[AFlynn]

What really gets me is all the grandstanding about "supporting the troops" while simultaneously slashing the holy hell out of the Veterans department.

I don't know if I'd go so far to say that she's trying to incite rebellion; it's not as if she's calling on the members of MoveOn.org to go into the hills and form paramilitary groups. I do see what you're saying, however.

[Culpeper]

We, Canada, had almost 500,000 troops in that war out of a population of 8 million total. WE were the ones who broke the Germans at 2nd Vimy Ridge; not the Brits, not the Yanks, and not the French.

I am one of the few Americans that actually can brag about the fact that Armistice Day is an international day of remembrance and not an American holiday. From an American point-of-view the actual decision to go to war and and military infrastructure and build up afterwards is the precursor of how America goes to war to this day. You have to remember that our army had only about 200,000 troops at the start of the war. We ended up creating enough divisions to accommodate nearly 4 million men in a very short amount of time. This during a time of the great flu pandemic. In fact, many believe that the pandemic can be indexed to this military build up. My grandfather had no illusions of the Yanks saving the day. Just a few words on a few occasions about the reality of that war. He did once describe what happened on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month to my mother. In his sector the guns on both sides went silent and everyone climbed out and simply started trading stuff with each other. For a good American perspective on the war I recommend "Yanks" by John S.D. Eisenhower.