Military/academic reaction to radical groups/biased news?

[Ken White]

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.

[Schmedlap]

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?

[jmm99]

re: this Schmedlapism:

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:

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

[Schmedlap]

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.

[Brandon Friedman]

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.

[Schmedlap]

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.