Retired officer Black Five says the press wants us to lose. I think that's a little extreme, since most of the press simply comes from an "if it bleeds it leads" mindset, and doesn't grok that, in a war, good news is as important as bad news. As is a sense of perspective: it remains that for any conflict of comparable size, we continue to take record low numbers of casualties. Yet you wouldn't know that from the way it's being covered, or from the way that vile political partisans are using that as propaganda.
It didn't used to be this way. The press used to understand that patriotism and journalism are not mutually exclusive, didn't used to be afraid to be on our side, didn't used to hesitate to publish bad news but knew that good news was important too.
They're starting to get it, but barely. This latest blowup in Fallujah is still tiny in the casualties it's taking, and is resulting in severe punishment to the enemy. More than 80% of Iraq still remains peaceful. You wouldn't know that from most of the coverage. That's a problem, but then, I've said many times that webloggers are today's cutting edge of journalism. We have to take up the slack where the traditional press won't do its job right. Fortunately, with military bloggers like Black Five on the job, I'm not too worrried about it anymore.
The New York Times is reporting on the front page that there are "signs" of Sunnis and Shiites forming an alliance against the coalition. I don't know what to think of that. Is it true? Is it overblown?
I haven't seen that much reaction to this, except over at Belmont Club, which has some good stuff.
I was initially suspicious of the war on Iraq, but came around fairly quickly. To me, it was more "unfinished business." However, there was one argument against invasion that's not morally bankrupt, and that is, it won't work. While I think we've done an amazing thing in Iraq, 40 deaths a week, as it is in the past week, is about half the Vietnam War average. We can't help people who can't help themselves; that is the lesson of the Vietnam War.
The press worries the hell out of me. They still have tremendous power, and they constantly look for signs of hopelessness. You don't see the kind of detailed, patient analysis you get in many blogs.
What most folks may not realize is that most stories are designed around an emotional angle, a hook. You want to get on the front page of the NY Times as a correspondent? Find an angle that flatters the preconceptions of the editors. The editors are looking for signs of failure, of hopelessness, because that's what they believe.
At a certain point, that perception can become reality.
I don't know the solution here. The whole thing is depressing, sometimes.
Of course the press wants us to lose, or at least, they want this to be Tet.
And then, they can be Walter Cronkite.
Yeah, it didn't used to be that way. But then, the press didn't used to be composed of slimeballs.
Is that harsh? You bet. But how is it that public belief in the integrity of journalists has fallen to lawyer-like levels?
The press, being composed of members of the intelligentsia (or so they think), is under the impression that average folks are fools. So both average folks, and the truth, are treated with contempt. And after a while of this becoming the rule rather than the exception, we eventually conclude that the press are liars, cheats, and slimeballs.
So, does the press want us to lose? You bet. They're rubbing their hands with glee, because they don't care about America or Americans. They only care about their own careers as professional "gotcha" hounds, and the kudos of their peers.
The primary difference with Vietnam, other than the fact that it was a lot more bloody, was that major foreign powers--the Soviet Union and the Chinese--were funding, arming, and training the other side. But there were other important differences: a force in which a lot of those sent over there were drafted and didn't want to be there, rules of engagement that limited our people's ability to establish clear victories, and half of the nation we were helping isolated from us.
Those of us who supported this war knew there was possibility for civil war, knew there was potential for blowups. Yet it remains that the vast majority of the results have been favorable. We must not go wobbly, not let short-term setbacks cause us to waver.
Vietnam was a holding action. Holding actions tend to be extremely frustrating, since there's no way to speed things up or to force the other side to stop throwing away his men (and yours!) other than to stop holding and either surrender or attack the source of the other side's strength directly.
Unfortunately, the ultimate source of the other side's strength was heavily armed with nuclear weapons. So a holding action it was. Surrender wouldn't have been such a good idea; sooner or later the other side was going to want something important, and we'd be right back where we started, but with them stronger and us weaker. Could we then have switched to pure nuclear deterrence? Maybe, but there's good reasons to leave ourselves plenty of other options.
Our biggest mistake was using the draft. Without it, clueless people that didn't know the score could do something useful with their lives while volunteers (who constituted a large majority of the forces in-country anyway and an overwhelming majority of the combat effectiveness there) held the line as long as needed. Instead, such people decided that convincing voters that the draft was wrong was less likely to work than convincing voters that the war was wrong. So they took to convincing themselves, and everyone else, that it would actually be better for all concerned (including the South Vietnamese!) if we let the Communists have South Vietnam. Lots of people wound up with a vested interest in believing, or pretending to believe, that the war was wrong, immoral, ill-advised, and so forth.
Hopefully, our leaders won't be dumb enough to do that again.
I have to differ with you here, Dean. The biggest segment of the press [national papers, 3 TV networks, all cable news except Fox] DO WANT an American defeat, with thousands of dead GIs. Just look at blogs like Kos, Demo Underground, etc. they are not anti-war, they are Pro Islamofascist. Based on this week, Kennedy, John Fuckface Kerry, and Weasel Kerrey are right with the Press and Kos.
They'll bomb the shit out of Christians on Easter, and blame it all on Allah.
IB Bill,
War can be that; depressing. As it turns out, just a few moments ago I got one of those "why can't it be over?" feelings washing over me...I'm learning to hate war in the reality rather than in the abstract.
My faith in my nation sustains me, and my knowledge that if we don't want to have to fight in Iraq 20 years from now, we'd better finish it now...also, if we don't win in Iraq, we lose the War on Terrorism and we essentially sign the death warrant for thousands of Americans here at home. So; once more into the breech - keep the faith - right makes might.
As for the press - I think part of it might be that what I call the old-line media (CBS, NY Times, eg) are uncomfortable writing about American victories - meaning that when confronted with a story of exceptional American heroism in war and a magnificent military victory, they just don't know how to write about it...so, they'll headline the story "US Bombs Mosque" because they know how to write that story...I mean, think about it; the headline "US Troops Score Amazing Victory" would sell at least as many papers, and pull in as many viewers, as "US Screws the Pooch".
The media is a business, and they want to make money...I just don't think they know how to "make" certain news products (that and, of course, some of them really are ideolgues grinding axes...but I think thats only a small minority of most reporters who sincerely try to be what they think is unbiased).