"Because we cannot afford to let the press and opportunistic politicians to exploit the few negative stories in order to make people think--wrongly--that our efforts are failing."

And this statement is not propaganda? Please. This is just as one-sided as what you claim the media is doing.

Why don't you post a story that troops are dying in Iraq. Follow that with a story that troops are doing good things in Iraq. Then post a story about how long it is taking to get water & power restored. Then post a story about how US & British forces are helping to provide food aid to the Iraq's.... etc etc. Balance the good with the bad.

That tells a far more realistic story about what is going on rather than trying to label "all the media" and "every politician" as the problem.

I'm tired of people trying to oversimplify complex situations.

Eric,

The point is that the media isn't doing that - we should be getting alternating stories of the success and the cost of war...we, the American people, need the full truth about the war in order to make rational judgements about what is going on.

Some of us are dilligent enough to actually search for the other side of the story, but most have to just go on their faith in the United States of America - this is a sublime thing, but Vietnam showed that even this faith can be shaken by years of half-truths...and telling a half-truth is the same, in the end, as telling a lie...when all we get on the TV and in the papers is the stories of death and destruction, we're getting half the truth and all of a lie.

None of us want our troops to be killed; I'll bet dollars to donuts that most of the "too old" men in our country are of my mind: deeply ashamed that we are not in Iraq right now - we hate to think of these young men dying while we live on, safe and prosperous in the United States. If by giving up my life I could bring one of those magnificent young men back, I would.

But I can't, so I'll live with my shame and use it to fuel my determination that this war shall be a success - and this means keeping faith with the troops and calling those who are using the war for partisan political purposes to account.

Agreed Mark to some extent....And I agree that the media will emphasize the 'sensational' and deemphasize the 'not so sensational'.

But that doesn't give us free license to do the same thing. For example, if one only researches 'the other side of the story' because he/she doesn't like what he hears on the news, then he's appying a terrific bias as well. If however, one stays dilligent and applies objective reasoning and research to find the opposite side of the story whether he agrees or disagrees, then uses that info to provide ideas for solutions, the result is generally good.

As far as the troops being demoralized. I suspect that the news reports are far less demoralizing than having to live with the fear of being shot or watching a comrade fall. Or the sadness incurred because one's tour of duty is extended. My personal take is that people of this country disagree vehemently about whether the troops should be there, but generally support the kids behind the infantry gear.

As far as politicians using the war to their advantage.... We all know every politician - the president as well - have been using the war to their advantage. We can't simply blame one party.

Now - as an aside - I want *anyone* to tell me what is up in Afghanistan 2 years later. News, bloggers, anyone? That will tell us far more about what is in store for Iraq than day to day accounts of troop deaths or benevolant acts.

I'm already hearing all the bad news from the mainline media - I come to blogs to find the balancing points - what's going well. Don't know much about the current situation in Afghanistan, but the US just turned part of the territory over to troops from New Zealand to help with the rebuilding (sorry - I'm new at this and don't know how to link). I initially saw the story on another blog, and found it again via a Google search for "Afghanistan and New Zealand".

While I do think there is a bias in many news organizations, in some fairness printing a story congratulating the Baghdad interim municipal government for cleaning up a number of sewers is simply not very interesting - it doesn't sell.

On the other hand, where are the stories that might sell, like the toy drive recently started by *Chief Wiggles*? The good news seems only to get noticed if it is promulgated by Senators.

Eric:

But that doesn't give us free license to do the same thing.

Sure it does. All of us have the same license: the Bill of Rights.

For example, if one only researches 'the other side of the story' because he/she doesn't like what he hears on the news, then he's appying a terrific bias as well.

They need to go first, though, since they started it, and since they're the ones wearing their "journalistic integrity" on their sleeves. In the meantime, someone needs to fix the damage.

Marshall was one of a Congressional team from both parties sent to Iraq to investigate this. Every single Congressman agreed with Marshall, and some had even harsher words for the media than he did. The harshest assessment from that Congressional party I can find, in fact, came from a former reporter.

In my book, that's pretty damning evidence of true media bias. Dispute it if you wish, but you're likely to look about as stubborn as Ptolemaic cosmologists did after reading Copernicus.

Interestingly, our soldiers are dying less and less.
Statistically, they are safer in Iraq than in New York City, Washington DC, or many parts of LA.

And people were dying in horrible ways before our troops got in there. Do you value Iraqi life so cheaply?

Sorry for the snarkiness, but I get sick of people who try to use the welfare of US troops as a reason to criticize/complain. Because we are in the military willingly. Sure, some people didn't realize what they were getting into when they signed up, but we are here for a reason. We in the military are like fireman, mostly: we willingly place our lives and wellbeing on the line to save other lives. But sometimes, merely to save pets or other animals, and sometimes even to save only property.
But you take the job, you take the pay, and you take the good with the bad.
The lives lost aren't the issue. The lives saved are.

Eric,

Indeed, "if it bleeds, it leads" - and initially I pointed out that one should discount the blood and guts because this will by nature be emphasized by the media...but what is missing is the "background" and "human interest" entries in the war reporting. You know a bit of "In spite of increased attacks, coalition forces have re-opened all the Iraqi hospitals..."; this is what is missing.

And why is it missing? Thats a good question - it must lay in one of two things, or a combination of them: media fear of becoming targets of terrorists if they play up how good things are going and, of course, the deep-seated hostility to all things Republican in both the major US and foreign media.

As for Afganistan; there are parrallels between it and Iraq, but not that many. Things like the fact that Afganistan was fought over for 25 years while Iraq was not (the US military campaign didn't do a tithe of the damage to Iraq that 25 years of civil war did to Afganistan). Iraq secular/Afganistan much more religious. Iraq oil rich/Afganistan makes most is money selling opium...you get the picture.

But, from what I've read there has been a resurgence of the Taliban - or, at least, the remnants are determined to appear like they are resurging (and they are getting mighty whacked by Coalition and Afgan government troops).

There has been major reconstruction efforts, and these are sometimes sabotaged, just like in Iraq...but planting bombs does take time and risk and you can't very well blow up the well we dug for the villagers, now can you?

Afganistan has enjoyed a massive influx of refugees returning home - people with an impetus to rebuild and a vested interest in stability; and, given that the didn't want to live under the Taliban, a built-in resistence to a revived Taliban regime.

The greatest indicator of the continuing success in Afganistan is revived Afgan agriculture. Peasant farmers wont plant if they don't think they can reap what they sow - and Afganistan had its largets crop in 20 years this past harvest. Thats a good sign.

Nathan,

Thats also missed - these so-called "anti-war" people seem to think that US military is made up of cowards who blanche at the signs of danger...

I'm sure that any given trooper out in Iraq would much rather be back Stateside drinking a beer while watching a football game - and I'm also certain that none of them want to die. But its the job and this is what the military is for...and we can at least take consolation that we're winning and for each of ours that dies, dozens of theirs get sent into the hereafter.

Actually, Eric, I do mention Afghanistan now and then. The country's well under control and slowly getting better, but it takes time. Afghanistan is not my focus since we're not in any danger of abandoning Afghanistan any time soon. Iraq we are, if the relentless drumbeat of negativity isn't countered.

You'll find that Afghanistan gets talked about pretty regularly on the Command Post Global War On Terror page, by the way.

By the way, I've also posted what our casualty figures are from both conflicts fairly often, including just within the last week. About 300 dead so far, between both conflicts. It also continues to be the case that our soldiers are dying more often in traffic accidents and of random diseases like cancer and heart attacks than they are dying from combat operations. Most people serving over there haven't had a buddy killed, although they're all upset when they hear--generally through the news--that one of theirs has been killed. Some are actually there when it happens, and I'm sure it's terrible. I'm also sure that for many of them, it just makes them all the more determined that the effort be won, just like many other combat vets I know have said.

I don't have an obligation to be "unbiased." I don't believe there's such a thing as being unbiased about major world events. Instead, I state my biases openly, research and find links, and let people argue with me all they want. People are also free to seek other sources of information.

And by the way? I don't agree that if you research the other side of a story, you're applying a great bias. You're finding something fishy in what you're being told and you're investigating to see if it's fair. Now, if you're honest, if you find that there is no "other side" or that the "other side" isn't very strong, then you'll mention that. At least, I try to.

As far as the troops being demoralized. I suspect that the news reports are far less demoralizing than having to live with the fear of being shot or watching a comrade fall.

Based on my own experience in a combat zone, that is incorrect. The risk is something you are accustomed to dealing with, it sharpens the senses. It is not demoralizing. Combat is what soldiers DO, and the actual risk of being shot in Iraq is less than the risk of being killed in a traffic accident.

Reading that what you are doing is failing, is wrong, is a wasted effort, is resented by the Iraqis, is putting your country at risk, THAT is demoralizing. Having people back home communicating thier fear, thier distrust of the military, thier doubts about this "failing" effort, THAT'S demoralizing.

I've been through exactly that, and I didn't much like it.

"Combat is what soldiers DO"

Yes, but peacekeeping is not. Soldiers are well trained to identify targets & destroy them. Acting like police officers isn't their strength. I suspect this is also demoralizing.

Mark,

There are differences between Afghanistan and Iraq, yes. Don't disagree. But what I was driving at was that we (meaning us and the UN) are still there two years later. We will be there for much longer. It's a requirement to rebuild a country. That involves costs, high costs. Infrastructures aren't built in a day. Societal problems don't go away overnight.

I don't agree that its either a fear of terrorists or republicans that necessarily drives what the media prints. That discussion would take months. What I do think is driving a lot of this rage (of which the media is picking up on) is that many people tried to say, before the war, that a war like this will cost lives, money and have unforeseen consequences for years and years to come. But that seemingly was ignored. The frustration emerged and now that the problems are starting to rear themselves, people want to shout. See! Told ya.

The media has picked up on this, realized that they can sell papers with those headlines and went foreward. Right or wrong.

Eric,

True, and thus we've rapidly built up an Iraqi police force...lets not forget that Iraqi's have also died fighting our enemies, the terrorists.

The US military presence in Iraq post-liberation has been accurately described as "carefully hung flypaper". Its drawing our enemies like a magnet and this allows us to kill and capture them a lot easier than if they had stayed in their varied countries of orgin, plotting death and destruction in the United States.

In the pipeline now, from what I've read, are 60,000 paramilitary police who will over the next couple months take over day to day security operations in Iraq...the mere fact that 60,000 have come forward gives lie to the notion that the Iraqi's don't want us there, or that they aren't grateful for getting rid of Saddam. Certainly, part of the response is mere needing a job, but there are other jobs which wont be quite so dangerous....

Jeff,

"Sure it does. All of us have the same license: the Bill of Rights."

Yes, you have the right to formed biased opinions. No one disputes that. That's your right in this country.

But with every right there is a responsibility.
I am pointing out that labeling the press, media, republicans, hawks, whatever as the "enemy" and not trying be objective hurts everyone so much more and makes any situation more explosive.

Instead of 'suspecting', since we have several soldiers in this discussion, ask them.

"Mr. Soldier, do you find it demoralizing to perform peacekeeping duties?"

(Nathan, Gary, apologies if that sounds belittling; it's meant to be a cheap shot of an example of how to ask the question, if that's not obvious)

I 'suspect', from the various reports, that whether it's 'demoralizing' or not, they're damned good at it, at least in Iraq, and seem to have a better intuitive sense of how to get it done than NGOs and UN Agencies do.

Dean,

Similar to my comment Jeff. You're right, you don't have a requirement to be unbiased. In fact, a truly unbiased person is a non-entity. But one must have the wisdom to understand that labeling something in such a grand sweeping stroke isn't helping the situation.

"And by the way? I don't agree that if you research the other side of a story, you're applying a great bias. "

What I meant was that if one only tries to disprove the things he disagrees without looking objectively (or at least trying to be objective) at the things he agrees with, that's biased.....For example, if one thinks the president is doing a good job on X, and if an article decries what the president is doing on X, you're likely to look for evidence to the contrary to disprove that. That's 1/2 right. Now, if you look critically at what he does on X and find things for the president to improve on or convince yourself to the contrary, then you're more likely to be looking objectively at the issue. That's the other 1/2. That's all i was trying to say.

Dave,

UN organizations have a great amount of experience in peacekeeping operations. Paramilitary police have great experience, as do others. Combat troops don't.

Also, asking a soldier his opinion, while providing good, single case, anecdotal evidence, doesn't necessarily apply to the whole platoon. That's obvious.

My original comments on this were just to point out that there are many factors involving troop morale (how demoralized they are, i don't think anyone can say. Maybe not at all). But to say that the only reason the troops are demoralized is because the media touts a negative story is incorrect.

Mark,

If you have a link on that, I'd be interested to read it.

The morale issue is based in part on a misunderstanding of the word.
It doesn't mean, "Gee, we're having so much fun."
It means you feel that what you're doing is both worthwhile and is being done effectively, and that you and your unit are doing a valuable part of it.
Good morale can co-exist with heavy casualties and miserable living conditions. Bad morale can be found in garrison where the food is regular and only institutionally bad and the work is easy. It depends on the commander and the mission.
There are lots of differences between combat and peacekeeping, and between either of those and police work. The primary difference is whether you shoot first, on suspicion, with all available arms, or not.
Putting up with sillivilians who will provoke you for fun, with black marketers who have lousy excuses, with businessmen trying to get a delivery after curfew, are all frustrating. But combat is not satisfying, either.
It's not as big a difference as you might imagine.
Some of the "failures" such as the Marines firing into a crowd just after the end of major combat activities are not failures due to having poor training or not being MPs. They were fired at from a crowd. If there was one thing they could have done, it would be to have had on hand snipers equipped with frangible bullets (so that the target keeps all that stuff to himself and the bullet doesn't pass through him to kill somebody else nearby) as described in Haney's book.
The jarheads were under fire in a combat situation which had, as a deliberate tactic by the bad guys, a crowd of people surrounding them.
That's not a thing MPs can do better than combat troops.

Eric,

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I generally suck at linking - a google search will, however, swiftly bring you to the relevant reports from about a month ago re: Iraqi paramilitary police recruitment.

Eric:

But with every right there is a responsibility.

You are perverting this concept.

Every right corresponds to a responsibility, but that responsibility implements that right, and is necessarily imposed on those who would deny that right. For example, the right to free speech entails the responsibility of the government not to limit my speech, as governments throughout history otherwise have done.

You are asserting that people who have free speech have a responsibility to be objective. No such responsibility exists in the general case. If you believe I am wrong, post the legal or moral case for such a responsibility.

I am pointing out that labeling the press, media, republicans, hawks, whatever as the "enemy" and not trying be objective hurts everyone so much more and makes any situation more explosive.

We have posted our evidence that the label (specifically, the label of "biased" as applied to the media) is 100% factual and correct, based on the unanimous testimony of a bipartisan Congressional task force assigned to investigate the issue. You have yet to produce anything but rhetoric to challenge this assessment.

"Objectivity" is a means to ascertain truth, not an end in itself. "Objectivity" as a means brought us the Enlightenment; "objectivity" as an end brought us "peace in our time". There are times to be nuanced, and times to see the truth and act on it. This is one of the latter times. Deal with it.

Eric,

The U.N. may have a lot of experience at peacekeeping, but that doesn't mean that they are any good at it. On the contrary, their missions in Rwanda, Kosovo, etc. were unimaginably horrendous failures in terms of their stated mission objectives (i.e. protect civilians). If U.S. military forces were ordered to stand down and allow mass killings of civilians under their noses, there would be a mutiny. Blue helmets did exactly that at Srebrenica...why on earth would we trust these guys with the lives of ANY civilians, if we had a choice in the matter?

Sam,

We seem to trust them well enough in Afghanistan.

Jeff,

"You are perverting this concept."

No, free speech has some inherent responsibility associated with it. We all know that we can't yell fire in a movie theatre. That's part of the relationship between free speech and responsibility of having that right. When free speech interferes with the common good, that's a violation of that agreement. The nuances of the details are continually being worked out in the courts. We are fortunate to live in a country that defines free speech very liberally.

"We have posted our evidence that the label (specifically, the label of "biased" as applied to the media) is 100% factual and correct, based on the unanimous testimony of a bipartisan Congressional task force assigned to investigate the issue. You have yet to produce anything but rhetoric to challenge this assessment."

I don't believe that I have even tried to disprove that assessment. That's not my point. What I am taking note of is the tendancy to find one case of bias and to take it too far. I can't call Dick Cheney an obstructionist because the GAO says he impeded their investigation. I can only accurately say the he obstructed their investigation. In the same vein, you can at best conclude that in the matters of Iraq, congressional investigators found bias in reporting. That doesn't mean that all journalists everywhere are biased against the war. Far from it.

""Objectivity" is a means to ascertain truth, not an end in itself. "

I in no way claimed that objectivity was an end. Objectivity helps a person solve problems rationally. It helps eliminate bias. My point originaly was that claiming that "all the media" is biased because "they are biased" is akin to the pot calling the kettle black.

I am not a terrible fan of our media, but I am neither a fan of overgeneralizations.

Actually Eric, we don't. There is no significant U.N. Peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan. The main body of troops there are members of the Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) Coalition - mostly NATO partners. There is a supplemental force in Kabul manned by the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), which is a Security Council mandated force but this organization should in no way be confused with a blue-helmet peacekeeper mission. The ISAF assists the Afghan Interim Authority (AIA) in the maintenance of security and in the training of police. The bulk of the policing and peace keeping in Afghanistan is done by uniformed Afghanis backed up by OEF forces.

The U.S. is training of the Afghan National Army (ANA), currently 5,000 strong and growing and the Germans are training the Afghan police force. In fact there are an estimated 70,000 Afghanis under some form of command and control structure supporting the AIA. Not a lot of blue helmets to be seen at all.

Thanks for the correction Robert. Perhaps the ISAF is what gave me the impression that the UN had a substantial presence in Afghanistan.

Just for my own interest I looked around for where UN peacekeeping operations were going on today. Here's the link I found. un peace keeping roles

It seems to be quite a few places. If anyone has a more detailed overview, I'd like to read it. Google doesn't seem to give me an overview like I want.

A dear friend has a son age 21 serving with the 101st in Mosul. His morale is fine but he is looking forward to coming home in early 2004. When told by his worried mother that we get nothing but news reports of dead ambushed GIs and car bombs and the war is looking very bad to those back home, he was baffled. He says things are quiet where he is. They don't really have a lot to do and suffer a lot from boredom. Granted he is pretty young and isn't spending a lot of time reading newspapers or listening to news of the war but from his perspective things are going well. He knows that a small number of fellow soldiers have been killed and are being killed, he is not depressed or losing his grip.

As far as being unbiased in airing our views about the necessity or lack of it for this war, if the professionals choose to constantly show bias in what they report, why do we have the responsibility to be objective? The news of this war from day one has been a political tool of those who oppose our President on every issue.

The media speaks with a very loud voice in our society and have succeeded over the past 30 years in shaping our society to believe that the left-wing agenda is "moderate" and those who oppose most of that agenda are "right-wing extremists" or neo-conservatives.

They haven't been truthful or fair in much that has been said in all that time.

jane m,

"As far as being unbiased in airing our views about the necessity or lack of it for this war, if the professionals choose to constantly show bias in what they report, why do we have the responsibility to be objective?"

Because, simply, it makes an argument on either side of the debate so much stronger.

"Combat is what soldiers DO"

Yes, but peacekeeping is not. Soldiers are well trained to identify targets & destroy them. Acting like police officers isn't their strength. I suspect this is also demoralizing.

Get a grip. There are plenty of soldiers over there who are working in their military specialties. The majority of the troops are NOT trying to be police. Unless you have spent time in the military, and especially in combat, don't try to talk to me about morale or fear or what a soldiers job is.

Do you HAVE that experience, Eric?

Eric,

UN organizations have a great amount of experience in peacekeeping operations

UN organizations have a great deal of experience in standing by and watching while innocent civilians are slaughtered by the thousands. See Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Liberia just for starters.

Gary,

What I find interesting (speaking as someone who has never served {g}) are the after-action reports I've seen come out of Afghanistan and Iraq; especially the latter.

Apparently (for at least some units) the percieved challenge is that a particular unit had to engage in warfighting, then peackeeping, then back, in a single day. They found it difficult to, as it were, change mental gears that quickly amongst missions.

The gist I got was that they felt the need to train for a more fluid enviornment.

Eric,

I can sum it up quickly: the UN sucks at peacekeeping. :) Any other questions?

Ok, some of the answers here may sound a bit smart-ass, but (I suspect) it's because the posters have been aware of this weakness in the UN for years.

Casey,

"Ok, some of the answers here may sound a bit smart-ass"

I guess so. But fortunately many of the responses in this link obviously showed some thought & study. That helps all of us gain a better understanding of the world so we can go forward. :)

Eric

Yes, I know you are right in encouraging objective discourse even on such an emotional subject as war. It does make the argument better, clearer, more rational and fair, I agree. I knew I was being a bit stupid to question the need for objectivity. I just wish the media was held to the same standard. I know propaganda when I see it and I just hate to see all sides (including right-wind radio - ugh)getting away with it.

However, I do believe that truth is not always just the facts. Where the truth lies in different minds is usually found in an individual's (or group's) "interpretation" of those facts. Even science is subject to interpretation. And interpretation is ALWAYS going to be influenced by the "values", the "world-view", or the "perspective" of those searching for meaning in any given set of circumstances. The Palestinian's or Israeli's truth is much different than my truth. I look at each's predicament in a totally different context than they. It's a wonder any of us every agree on anything when you think about it.

Eric:

We all know that we can't yell fire in a movie theatre. That's part of the relationship between free speech and responsibility of having that right.

This is incorrect.

The government has two responsibilities: to not limit the speech of its citizens and to ensure public safety. When the government considers someone yelling "fire" in a theatre, they must deal with a contradiction of those two duties, which can only be resolved by weakening one of them.

No such contradiction exists for "objectivity".

In the same vein, you can at best conclude that in the matters of Iraq, congressional investigators found bias in reporting. That doesn't mean that all journalists everywhere are biased against the war. Far from it.

Very true. Now, please point out where the Congressmen indicted "all journalists everywhere" in anything.

I am not a terrible fan of our media, but I am neither a fan of overgeneralizations.

Or, it would seem, of generalizations of any kind, excessive or not.

No one is perfect, and no assessment is perfect, even beneficial ones. Yet, you would have no assessment that isn't perfect; you seem to prefer the bias of the status quo, which has the potential to make things much worse for both us and Iraq.

I find that much more revolting than any excess of "media-bashing" that may exist in the mind of people who have really looked into the problem.

Jane:

I completely disagree with the idea that "the truth is not just in the facts."

I distain subjectivism. No subjectivist has ever taken me up on my standing invitation to blow his/her own head off with a loaded .357 Magnum and then discuss our respective perceptions of the event.

The truth--or parts of it--is very often obscured from our view, but that doesn't give us license to substitute our subjective opinions in its place.

I am incredulous that anybody that watches the news regularly wouldn't find that the Media / Press reporting is almost exclusively anti-Bush, anti-administration, anti-conservative, negative and extremely biased to the N th degree. The Media/Press is also highly critical of the Iraq war and has become inflammatory in aiding the anti American forces. The Media / Press has unquestionably cost the lives of many Americans due to the encouragemnet it has offered anti American forces. The Media / Press also tends to support any politicial position that is liberal, highly liberal or ultra liberal.
Personally I am embarrased that we have a Media Press that engages in so much anti American rhetoric. There are many in the Media / Press that will not even wear am American Flag lapel pin. One should also be cognizant that the Media / Press probably considers itself as the fourth arm of Goverenment. The Media / Press wields tremendous power and the news anchors are celebrities collecting very large salaries. The Corporate Media / Press itself is a money machine. It thrives on murders, rapes, local disasters, bad traffic accidents, child molestation, destruction, death, biased reporting, fraudelent reporting, deceptive reporting, and condemnation of conservative values or morality. There used to be a fairly high standard in the Media. No one said even hell or damn and when Dagmar showed cleavage in 1953 on the Jerry Lester tv show it made front page news. Now the standard bar is so low that if it goes much lower, you will need a shovel to dig a trench to find it.
Ron Ford

Jonathan

You may disdain subjectivism but all facts are subject to the interpretation of those who hear or observe them. The question "Why?" must always accompany the discussion of the facts. The debate is centered around the logic applied to the facts observed and the conclusions reached. The least biased argument will often prevail at least in the rational mind.

I consider myself to be an objective observer of the facts. Once I possess the information required, I draw my own conclusion as to the truth of any situation as best I can. However,
I have yet to meet any totally unbiased person.
Some are more rational than others but bias is inescapable in the human mind.