DebateGate

General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BT on June 19, 2007, 12:20:34 PM

Title: Be Not Afraid
Post by: BT on June 19, 2007, 12:20:34 PM
Be Not Afraid

    Be Not Afraid

    You shall cross the barren desert, but you shall not die of thirst. You shall wander far in safety though you do not know the way. You shall speak your words in foreign lands and all will understand. You shall see the face of God and live.

    Be not afraid.
    I go before you always;
    Come follow me, and I will give you rest.

[From a prayer card I found on a base in Anbar Province, Iraq.]

Thoughts flow on the eve of a great battle. By the time these words are released, we will be in combat. Few ears have heard even rumors of this battle, and fewer still are the eyes that will see its full scope. Even now—the battle has already begun for some—practically no news about it is flowing home. I’ve known of the secret plans for about a month, but have remained silent.

This campaign is actually a series of carefully orchestrated battalion and brigade sized battles. Collectively, it is probably the largest battle since “major hostilities” ended more than four years ago. Even the media here on the ground do not seem to have sensed its scale.

Al Qaeda and associates had little or no presence in Iraq before the current war. But we made huge mistakes early on and are pumping blood and gold into the region to pay for those blunders. When we failed to secure the streets and to restore the stability needed to get Iraq on its feet, we sowed doubt and mistrust. When we disbanded the government and the army, and tolerated corruption and ineptitude in reconstruction, we created a vacuum and filled the ranks of an insurgency-hydra with mostly local talent. But when we flattened parts of Fallujah not once, but twice, primarily in response to the murders of four of our people, we helped create a spectacle of injustice and chaos, the very conditions in which Al Qaeda thrives.

There is no particular spark, no single bolt of lightning, errant campfire or careless cigarette flicked out a window that caused this conflagration. We walked into a dry, cracked land, where the two arteries of Mesopotamia have long pulsed water and blood through scorched lands into the sea. In a place where everything that is not already desert is tinder, sparks tend to catch fire.

When we eviscerated Fallujah, Al Qaeda, who had not been here before, swarmed in and grew like a tumor. There were many insurgent groups already infecting Iraq with many conflicting ideologies and goals, and just as many opportunistic thugs, and some that only needed the band aids and aspirin of open markets and electricity and a feeling of normality. But Al Qaeda has been trying to start a civil war here for several years; chaos speeds the decay they feed on.

During about the first three months of 2005, when I was in Diyala Province (whose capital is Baquba) I first wrote that Iraq was in Civil War. I felt the backlash from that throughout 2005-2006, and worse, we all watched the sad unfolding of greater and greater lies until now, in 2007, when the civil war is systemically toxic.

Today Al Qaeda (AQ) is strong, but their welcome is tenuous in some regions as many Iraqis grow weary enough of the violence that trails them to forcibly evict AQ from some areas they’d begun to feel at home in. Meanwhile, our military, having adapted from eager fire-starting to more measured firefighting, after coming in so ham-fisted early on, has found agility in the new face of this war.  Not lost on the locals was the fact that the Coalition wasn’t alone in failing to keep the faith of its promises to Iraqis.

Whereas we failed with the restoration of services and government, AQ has raped too many women and boys in Anbar Province, and cut-off too many heads everywhere else for anyone here to believe their claims of moral superiority.  And they don’t even try to get the power going or keep the markets open or build schools, playgrounds and clinics for the children. In addition to destroying all of these resources, and murdering the Iraqis who work at or patronize them, AQ attacks people in mosques and churches, too.  Thus, to those listening into the wind,  an otherwise imperceptible tang in the atmosphere signals the time for change is at hand.

We can dissect our Civil War, or World War II or Vietnam, but there is no way to dissect the current war. Only the residue of those prior wars remains with us today—the scars and headstones, memorial statues, history books, and national boundaries. We only dissect that which is dead. Pathologists who autopsy those wars can no longer affect the outcomes. There is little left to the corpse of a war, but the sculptors of history take the clay and give it shape and substance. But even the most masterful among the artisans—Michelangelo himself—chipping and slicing at marble from Carrara, could not breathe life into the statue of David. Twice I stood in Florence, staring up at David, clad only in his slingshot, the rock with which he would change history cupped in his hand.

But as I write these words, the explosions—cannon fire reverberating day and night, rockets exploding on base, the rumbling and crumpling sounds of car bombs—are the very pulse of this war. This war cannot yet be dissected because it still lives– wounded, angry, thrashing on the table, but alive. We can only hack into it, diagnose it, treat it, knowing each attempt at a cure affects the pulse. Doing nothing causes tachycardia. Much of what afflicts Iraq was here before America was born. But when we elected to perform surgery on this sick land, we used hacksaws and sledgehammers, and took an already sick patient and hacked off some parts while pulverizing others.

Meanwhile, there are stadiums full of people shouting at the doctors, threatening to fire them or revoke their licenses, or at the very least to cut off the lights mid-surgery. In the din of the mob, few seem to notice that the patient, screaming to be healed, is much more alive than dead. The patient roils in agony with every new cut, slashing at doctors and self. Some say we’ve done enough and it’s time for the patient to heal itself. Others are saying we should put it out of our misery, but surely this thing will live, and drag its mutilated self out of the hospital and follow us home, no longer seeking a cure but intent on revenge.

For far too long our media and government have failed to fully inform us–even to the point of lying–about Iraq. I came to this ill-begotten war searching for people who knew the truth and would tell it. After those early embeds in places such as Diyala Province, back when I first began a five month embed in Mosul, I attempted to trace what had gone right and wrong with Nineveh Province during 2003, 2004, and 2005. Nineveh is a reasonable microcosm of an ethnically, religiously and culturally divergent Iraq–clearly affected by the whole, and affecting the whole–and I got in with one of America’s best fighting battalions, the 1-24th Infantry Regiment.  They were at war.  Out of the battalion of about 700, the soldiers were awarded about 181 purple hearts. And they were winning, clearly winning, in their tough battle space.  I traveled around to many units in different provinces,  but nowhere was the pulse of this war as palpable as it was with the 1-24th, also called the “Deuce Four.” Importantly, even perhaps presciently, feeling that pulse with my own fingers in 2005 led me to a specific person: David Petraeus, the first Coalition military leader in Nineveh, a general whose many successes in Iraq were at that time already behind him.

I finally reached General Petraeus after following the Deuce Four back home. He was stationed in Kansas, though why he was in Kansas was beyond me. Having just spent most of 2005 in Iraq, I thought he should be back in Iraq where he was needed. During a phone call to his home early in 2006 we must have talked for about two-hours. He was honest, almost blunt and always cogent, and the conversation added to my growing belief that Petraeus was the doctor who might be able to save this place.

Throughout 2006, my belief grew that Petraeus should be running this war. And though I had reached my own conclusions, others thought the same.  I had seen and written about much progress during 2005, but had repeatedly written that the Civil War could undermine the effort. During 2006, people finally began to admit that there was Civil War in Iraq, and that it was growing, but as 2006 drifted into 2007 without any measurable response to increasingly untenable conditions on the ground, my confidence was eroding rapidly. At the rate things were going, I figured I might soon be standing shoulder-to-shoulder with deeply and richly experienced people like Joe Galloway, who thinks we should be out of Iraq yesterday.

Some folks attack Joe for his opinion, saying he was never a soldier, what can he know? But that argument is facile at best. There are deep reservoirs of wisdom from people who never wore uniforms; in fact, most people never were soldiers. And there are few journalists who know more about the American military in the last four decades than Joe Galloway, who’s been on enough frontlines to know things usually only combat soldiers know. Furthermore, this is not a “soldiers only” matter. Most of the people who will be affected by the outcome will never wear a uniform.

But today, based on what I know first hand about this war, I respectfully disagree with Joe and the crowd of people who share his view that this war cannot be won. On this one point, because I just happen to be a person who has seen this doctor operate on a part of this patient, and I was able to see first hand that the work he did in 2003/4 is still holding today, I think we don’t call the code unless and until Petraeus says so.

In the short time since Petraeus took charge here, Anbar Province – “Anbar the Impossible” – seems to have made a remarkable turnaround. I just spent about a month out there and saw no combat. I have never gone that long in Iraq without seeing combat. Clearly, some areas of Anbar remain dangerous—there is fighting in Fallujah today—but there is also something in Anbar today that hasn’t been seen in recent memory: possibilities. There are also larger realities lurking up on the Turkish borders, but the reality today is that the patient called Iraq will die and become a home for Al Qaeda if we leave now.

But now the AQ cancer is spreading into Diyala Province, straight along the Diyala River into Baghdad and other places. “Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia” (AQM) apparently now a subgroup of ISI (the Islamic State of Iraq), has staked Baquba as the capital of their Caliphate. Whatever the nom de jour of their nom de guerre, Baquba has been claimed for their capital. I was in Diyala again this year, where there is a serious state of Civil War, making Baquba an unpopular destination for writers or reporters. (A writer was killed in the area about a month ago, in fact.) News coming from the city and surrounds most often would say things like, “near Baghdad,” or “Northeast of Baghdad,” and so many people have never even heard of Baquba.

Baquba has been an important city in this fight for several years, and for various reasons. It’s critical to keep in mind that AQM and others had the specific goal of starting a civil war, and this was plainly clear by early 2005. When the Golden Dome was obliterated in Samarra in 2006, and blood gushed into the streets, the politically inconvenient truth about the malignant potency of Al Qaeda was undeniable. In a perverse anniversary commemorated earlier this month, the two lone minarets left standing in Samarra after the 2006 bombing, were unceremoniously flattened in attacks that resulted in reprisals nearby in Babil Province and as far removed as Basra.

At least part of the reason we are not seeing even wider-spread open-necked reprisals for the recent bombings (though the reprisals have been serious) is because our current leadership under Petraeus is adroitly pushing political buttons behind the curtains. Based on things I saw, heard, and even videotaped while out among Iraqi tribal leaders in Anbar, unseen hands are reaching out and finding peace with tribes where others found war. Based on what I see all around Iraq, and not just in Anbar, I believe intuitively that most of this war can be ended through smart politics.

Smart politics is not transparent. The best politician leaves no traces of his handiwork in the resolution of complex issues, because if the resolution is to hold, the local parties must be able to claim responsibility with confidence, even to the extent of believing they did it themselves. Further, success in complex negotiations involves compromise, which (after open hostilities) can be perceived as caving and taken as indication of undue influence from outsiders. That kind of perception gets people killed over here.

Smart politics leaves more people standing  with  their heads, and so discretion has to be seen as vital to the war effort. Reports claiming that no political progress is happening here because the Iraqi parliament seems stalled are tantamount to claiming that when the US Senate bogs down the stop lights don’t work on Main Street USA. At the same time, no one is interested in going for the broomstick once they’ve seen the man behind the curtain, so smart politicians don’t let that happen, especially when the stakes are this high.

Al Qaeda was never at this table and no one is planning to set a place for them now. They are mass murderers anywhere they can be: Bali, Kandahar, London, Madrid, New York and now, Iraq. This enemy is smart, resourceful and tough, and our early missteps created perfect conditions for the spread of their disease in Iraq.

Political solutions only work with people interested in a resolution where all parties can move forward. Al Qaeda is more interested in an outcome where they dominate through anachronistic anarchy. Our philosophies are so fundamentally different that fighting is inevitable. They want to go backwards and are willing to kill us to do so. We are unwilling to go backwards, and so they started killing us. Finally, we started killing back, but only seriously so after they rammed jets into our buildings, by which they hoped to cause the same chaos and collapse in America (where they failed) that they are fomenting in Iraq (where they are succeeding).

The doctor has made a decision: Al Qaeda must be excised. That means a large scale attack, and what appears to be the most widespread combat operations since the end of the ground war are now unfolding. A small part of that larger battle will be the Battle for Baquba. For those involved, it will be a very large battle, but in context, it will be only one of numerous similar battles now unfolding. Just as this sentence was written, we began dropping bombs south of Baghdad and our troops are in contact.

Northeast of Baghdad, innocent civilians are being asked to leave Baquba. More than 1,000 AQI fighters are there, with perhaps another thousand adjuncts. Baquba alone might be as intense as Operation Phantom Fury in Fallujah in late 2004. They are ready for us. Giant bombs are buried in the roads. Snipers—real snipers—have chiseled holes in walls so that they can shoot not from roofs or windows, but from deep inside buildings, where we cannot see the flash or hear the shots. They will shoot for our faces and necks. Car bombs are already assembled. Suicide vests are prepared.

The enemy will try to herd us into their traps, and likely many of us will be killed before it ends. Already, they have been blowing up bridges, apparently to restrict our movements. Entire buildings are rigged with explosives. They have rockets, mortars, and bombs hidden in places they know we are likely to cross, or places we might seek cover. They will use human shields and force people to drive bombs at us. They will use cameras and make it look like we are ravaging the city and that they are defeating us. By the time you read this, we will be inside Baquba, and we will be killing them. No secrets are spilling here.

Our jets will drop bombs and we will use rockets. Helicopters will cover us, and medevac our wounded and killed. By the time you read this, our artillery will be firing, and our tanks moving in. And Humvees. And Strykers. And other vehicles. Our people will capture key terrain and cutoff escape routes. The idea this time is not to chase al Qaeda out, but to trap and kill them head-on, or in ambushes, or while they sleep. When they are wounded, they will be unable to go to hospitals without being captured, and so their wounds will fester and they will die painfully sometimes. It will be horrible for al Qaeda. Horror and terrorism is what they sow, and tonight they will reap their harvest. They will get no rest. They can only fight and die, or run and try to get away. Nobody is asking for surrender, but if they surrender, they will be taken.

We will go in on foot and fight from house to house if needed. We will shoot rockets into their hiding spaces, and our snipers will shoot them in their heads and chests. This is where all that talk of cancer and big ideas of what should be or could be done will smash head on against the searing reality of combat.

These words flow on the eve of a great battle, but are on hold until the attack is well underway. Nothing is certain. I am here and have been all year. We are in trouble, but we have a great General. The only one, I have long believed, who can lead the way out of this morass. Iraq is not hopeless. Iraq can stand again but first it must cast off these demons. And some of the demons must be killed.

And while the battle rages, that prayer card will be in my pocket:

    Be Not Afraid

    You shall cross the barren desert, but you shall not die of thirst. You shall wander far in safety though you do not know the way. You shall speak your words in foreign lands and all will understand. You shall see the face of God and live.

    Be not afraid.
    I go before you always;
    Come follow me, and I will give you rest.

http://michaelyon-online.com/wp/be-not-afraid.htm
Title: Re: Be Not Afraid
Post by: Plane on June 19, 2007, 12:32:41 PM
So is this the beginning of the surge?
Title: Re: Be Not Afraid
Post by: BT on June 19, 2007, 12:40:37 PM
The surge has been going on for while.

This is an escalation.

Title: Re: Be Not Afraid
Post by: Michael Tee on June 19, 2007, 01:17:17 PM
Fucking bullshit.  But pretty well-written bullshit.

The metaphors are ludicrous.  Iraq is the patient, America the "doctor."  The "doctor" comes to heal the patient, but the patient is thrashing around on the table and needs to be held down so the "doctor" can "heal" him.  Al Qaeda is the tumor the patient and the doctor have to fight off.  Al Qaeda is going to be "excised."

I guess with a few minor twists, the same metaphor could have been used by Hitler or Goebbels in respect of occupied Poland, or occupied Yugoslavia or Greece.  The invading Nazis are the "doctors" and the "patient" thrashing around on the table (Greece, or Yugoslavia or Poland)  needs to be held down so he can be "cured" of the tumor of "Jewish Bolshevism" (the guerrillas) which will be "excised" by whatever current anti-guerrilla operation is underway.  This general or that general is finally the "right man" for the job (all his predecessors having failed miserably.)  He - - finally - - will "cure" the "disease" which none of the other "doctors" (S.S. generals) have been able to do because they were bad "doctors."

Magical-thinking twaddle?  Probably.  Realistic appraisal of the outcome of a policy which sends in more troops and puts them on the ground in deadly confrontations with the enemy?  Also possible, but not as likely.

What about the "diplomacy" claim - - the local Sunni are turning on al Qaeda because they are so evil?  What's the point?  Evil they may well be, but everyone there knows all about Abu Ghraib and Falluja, knows the Americans themselves are pretty fucking evil.  I think the locals are a lot smarter than the Americans.  They tell the Americans what they want to hear and meantime there is no way in hell they are going to gracefully accept a "democracy" in which the Shi'a have more votes than they do.  Does Michael Yon really believe these guys are ready to kiss and make up with the Americans?  He must be really dumb.  There is no way in hell they are not going to revenge themselves on the Americans who have raped, tortured and murdered their own family members.  What's done was done, and it does not get washed away.  Or forgotten.  Or forgiven.

This is one more bullshit claim in a long list of bullshit claims.  Today a huge battle to wipe out al Qaeda.  With a Great New Leader.  Next year a huge battle to wipe out al Qaeda.  With a Great New Leader.  The year after that a huge battle to wipe out al Qaeda.  With a Great New Leader.  At some point, the incredible gullibility of the American people, made unnaturally stupid by their worship of their thuggish military, will have to run out.  Maybe not this time (obviously, since BT is now posting this crap like a new message of hope and light at the end of the tunnel) but sooner or later.
Title: Re: Be Not Afraid
Post by: BT on June 19, 2007, 03:36:27 PM
It is just a story of what is happening on the ground.

You can give your propaganda machine a rest.

Title: Re: Be Not Afraid
Post by: Michael Tee on June 19, 2007, 03:42:22 PM
<<It is just a story of what is happening on the ground. >>

It's a story we've all heard many times before, in many different versions.  I still like the MacNamara version of the story, complete with maps, graphs and charts.  But this one's not bad.  It relies more on good writing, less on the graphc arts.  Gives a wider scope for bullshit.

<<You can give your propaganda machine a rest. >>

I'll be happy to, as soon as YOUR propaganda machine stops turning out crap like that.

Title: Re: Be Not Afraid
Post by: BT on June 19, 2007, 03:51:50 PM
Like i said it is a story from the ground. Reasonably unbiased to the discerning eye. Just because it says good things about the effort does not make it either untruthful or propaganda.

It is what it is.

Just as your reaction is what it is. Telling.

Title: Re: Be Not Afraid
Post by: Michael Tee on June 19, 2007, 08:29:37 PM
<<Like i said it is a story from the ground.>>

And like I said, it's a story we've all heard many, many times before and in very similar circumstances, so that some of us are able to discern what it really is.

<<Just because it says good things about the effort does not make it either untruthful or propaganda. >>

No, that's quite true, to recognize it as the lying propaganda bullshit that it really is, you have to put it in context (the context of a losing war, another "miracle solution" in a long series of snake-oil "solutions" suddenly discovered by a lying government and a wearying public disgust that can't be denied much longer) as well as to analyze the picture for its logical flaws.


<<It is what it is. >>

It sure is.
Title: Re: Be Not Afraid
Post by: BT on June 19, 2007, 09:55:10 PM
The assumption you make, that the author is a willing dupe of the military, is based on nothing more than your wish that that be so.

Yon is self and reader funded. So is Michael Totten, who focuses more on Lebanon and Kurdistan. I have posted both in here.

These people have no obligation to spin for their masters like the MSM.

These are citizen journalists. Reporting what they see.

And we are better for it.

Title: Re: Be Not Afraid
Post by: Michael Tee on June 19, 2007, 10:05:19 PM
Yon is ex-military with an obvious pro-military bias.  If the military needs more time than it originally claimed for the "surge" to work, Yon will do what he can to extend that time.  As the article you quoted so obviously demonstrates.  I'd like to see a "citizen journalist" like Cindy Sheehan get the same kind of access to military bases and operations as this guy so freely waltzes into.  He's a part of the Death Machine just like the paid killers of the USMC or Special Forces are.
Title: Re: Be Not Afraid
Post by: BT on June 19, 2007, 10:36:17 PM
Other than listening to your prejudices, you know this how.

And if Cindy wants to pay her way over there like both Michaels have, she should be able to report the war from her point of view.

Title: Re: Be Not Afraid
Post by: Michael Tee on June 19, 2007, 10:57:15 PM
<<Other than listening to your prejudices, you know this how. >>

Well, I back-tracked your link to  his own blog and learned that he was ex-military.  Browsed through some of his macho crap and found, for example, that during an alley fight with Resistance forces, he grabbed a soldier's rifle and fired at the Resistance fighters.  You figure it out for yourself, if he gets that close to the troops on combat missions, how close does he have to be to their officers?  Citizen journalist, my ass!

<<And if Cindy wants to pay her way over there like both Michaels have, she should be able to report the war from her point of view. >>

In your dreams.  You don't get embedded just by asking for it.  Somebody in the government has to pick you.

Title: Re: Be Not Afraid
Post by: BT on June 19, 2007, 11:06:18 PM
Joe Galloway did the same thing in Nam. and he is against the war in Iraq.

So your point flounders.

Title: Re: Be Not Afraid
Post by: Michael Tee on June 19, 2007, 11:53:09 PM
How does my point flounder?  This guy is ex-military, pro-military, writes with an obvious military bias, is tight with the Army brass (or could never get to go on combat missions given the current policy on controlling press coverage) and obviously knows what opinons the Brass want to see in his writings, and delivers it for them.

I don't know what you hope to prove by dragging Joe Galloway into this - - different guy, different war, different times, different regulations, etc.  Do you realize that in Nam anybody could hail a taxi, ask to be driven to the front lines and find himself in a combat zone without even once asking the brass for permission?  That's exactly WHY they instituted the process of embedding, i.e. press control.  They don't WANT a free press inquiring at will into this thing.  They want guys like Michael Yon to report on how it's all going, not David Halberstam.
Title: Re: Be Not Afraid
Post by: BT on June 20, 2007, 12:08:51 AM
IU study finds that news reports by embedded war correspondents in Iraq were objective
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 17, 2006

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- A new Indiana University study of news reports by television reporters embedded with American troops in the early days of the Iraq War found little support for critics who question the journalists' objectivity.

The study, which appears in the upcoming 50th-anniversary edition of the Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, found that while embedded reporters described events in very personal ways, their reports were not slanted in favor of Allied forces as a result.

Julia R. Fox, IU assistant professor of telecommunications, and Byungho Park, a doctoral candidate in that department, compared the use of personal pronouns in Cable News Network reports filed by embedded and non-embedded journalists about the Pentagon's "Shock and Awe" campaign.

They found that embedded reporters were more likely to use first-person singular pronouns -- such as "I" and "me" -- but added that the context of their reports suggests they were not aligning themselves with troops.

"Non-embedded reporters were actually more likely to use the broad-ranged 'we' than embedded reporters, who never used it," they wrote in their paper, "The 'I' of Embedded Reporting: An Analysis of CNN Coverage of the 'Shock and Awe' Campaign."

http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/3486.html
Title: Re: Be Not Afraid
Post by: Michael Tee on June 20, 2007, 01:30:05 AM
Ridiculous and pathetic.  Based on the reporters' use of pronouns such as "I" or "we" an assistant professor and a grad student find that the pronoun counts show the objectivity of the reporters.  Presumably a reporter who says "I didn't see any rapes" is more objective than a reporter who says "We didn't rape anyone."   What a crock.

Why do you think the Pentagon ordered the "embedded reporter" concept after WWII, Korea and Viet Nam were all more than adequately covered by reporters who did not require embedding? 

Embedding is a mechanism which provides more control over the press.  That should be as obvious as the nose on your face.

Besides which, this is a ridiculous sidetrack.  Yon is a pro-military hack as I've already demonstrated.  He enjoys the favour of senior brass, without which he would not be able to circumvent the regulations which require reporters to be embedded with the troops.  The senior brass which permit him to by-pass embedding routine and regulations would not dare to do so if he bit them in the ass with his reports.  He is sending out the message they want him to send, plus a little dressing up as independent on things that don't matter any more.  ("Yeah, we really fucked up at Falluja" etc.  NEVER, "Hey this "surge" is fucked, man, it ain't workin")

THINK about it for just 10 seconds - - what would the brass do if this guy's reports really bit them in the ass, told the country the surge was doomed to failure, Petraeus was an incompetent sycophant, etc.?  SOMEBODY would hit the roof - - how did this guy get in with the troops?  Why didn't he apply for embedding, where we only give the places over to our known friends?  How would they answer that?  "Oh, don't worry chief, I have this IU study that proves embedding doesn't guarantee administration-friendly reports?"  You know where they'd tell him to stuff that IU report?  They wouldn't TELL him, they'd stuff it themselves, Abu Ghraib style.
Title: Re: Be Not Afraid
Post by: Plane on June 20, 2007, 01:44:09 AM
"- - what would the brass do if this guy's reports really bit them in the ass, told the country the surge was doomed to failure, Petraeus was an incompetent sycophant, etc.?"


[][][][][][][][][][][][][]

They would think he was working for CBS.
Title: Re: Be Not Afraid
Post by: BT on June 20, 2007, 03:47:50 AM
Tight with the Army Brass, my ass.
**************************************************************************
In a counterinsurgency the media battle space is critical. When it comes to battling for public opinion, rallying support, and forcing opponents to shift tactics and timetables to better suit the home team, our terrorist enemies are destroying us. Al Qaeda’s media arm is called al Sahab—the cloud. It feels more like a hurricane. While our enemies have “embedded” “journalists” crawling all over the battlefields, we have “an embed media system” that is so ineptly managed that earlier this month there were only nine reporters embedded with American troops in Iraq. There were about 770 during the initial invasion.

The Ubiquitous Car Bomb: scenes like the one depicted here, of soldiers responding to sectarian bomb attacks, are among the most common images of Iraq that Americans see represented in news coverage.

While many blame the media for the estrangement, part of the blame rests squarely on the chip-laden shoulders of some key military officers and on the often clueless Combined Press Information Center (CPIC), who don’t manage the media so much as manhandle it. While many if not most of the Public Affairs officers are professionals dedicated to their jobs, a few well-placed incompetents cripple our ability to match and trump al Sahab. By enabling incompetence, the Pentagon has allowed the problem fester to the point of censorship.

My experience both as a soldier and then as a writer and photographer covering soldiers has been overwhelmingly positive, and I feel no shame saying I am biased in favor of our troops. Journalistically worse, I feel no shame in calling a terrorist a terrorist. I’ve seen their deeds and tasted air filled with burning human flesh from their bombs. I’ve seen terrorists kill children while our people risk their lives to save civilians again, and again, and again, and again. I feel no shame in saying I hope that Afghanistan and Iraq “succeed,” whatever that means. Yet I would feel unbearable shame if I were to remain silent about our military’s ineptitude in handling the press. This subject is worthy of a book, yet more immediate are the portends of a subtle but real censorship.

Censorship is a giant among words. Not to be used flippantly. Censorship is a word like “murder”: Break Glass Only in Event of. . . . The word “censorship” is like a hand grenade so powerful that no arm can throw it far enough, and so a writer better be serious before pulling the pin. To understand the gravity, we must first clarify meaning. Censorship for reasons of operational security is acceptable, desirable and important, and so this writer does not cry censorship when the CIA denies a request for full access to its files, or when Delta Force will not permit an embed. Got it. No explanation needed. No cry of censorship. In fact, I have turned down offers to embed with other Special Operations forces on grounds that the limits on what I could write would not be worth the danger and expense.

“Censorship” may conjure images of pages with black marker redactions or movie studio censors measuring cleavage. But censorship occurs whenever authorities willfully limit information that citizens without security clearances can access. Certainly, redacting sensitive details from materials already produced is one form of censorship. But I would argue that preventing the material from ever being developed in the first place is another more egregious form. Further, whether we institute censorship as a prime directive or back into it “accidentally” through incompetence, the result is the same. And in either case, once the matter has been brought to the attention of the military and the Pentagon—which I have quietly done—and still the matter is not rectified, then it crosses a line.

For generations journalists have been allowed to “embed” with various military units such as our infantry. Infantry is perhaps the most dangerous, underpaid and unglamorous job on the planet. Infantrymen are called grunts, trigger pullers, cannon fodder and ground pounders. Long hours, low pay and death, death, death. If they survive, they get a welcome home party. Sometimes. And that’s it: Thanks. Since World War II, journalists were given wide latitude to travel with the infantry, though few can stand it for long. Up to last year, this war was no different. A journalist could stay out with the infantry for as long as he or she could take it. I spent most of 2005 in Iraq and most of that was with infantry units in combat.

I went to Iraq initially at the provocation of military friends who insisted that what Americans were seeing on the news wasn’t an accurate reflection of the reality on the ground. Two friends of mine died on two consecutive days. When the charred remains of one were strung from a bridge in Fallujah, I put aside a book I was writing to attend the funerals. In Colorado we laid to rest a Special Forces friend who’d been killed in Samara; then on to Florida for the funeral of the friend who’d been murdered and mutilated in Fallujah. A photo of the dangling corpse won a Pulitzer. April 2004 was a nexus month. Photos from Abu Ghraib were first published then.

It took the remainder of the year for me to purchase or borrow the equipment I needed and just as long for me to save up for a new camera, satellite phone and laptop. Like most of the people who would later be called “alternate media” I bore these expenses myself, including the flights to Iraq. I had no media affiliation. I went, saw, wrote and photographed. There was a dearth of information about the daily experiences of our troops in the US media and my work filled some of that void.

Faces of the Future: Iraqis place a high value on education, and getting schools running again was often the most urgent post-invasion request. Perhaps suggesting a common interest for many Americans, this picture of young Kurdish schoolgirls is the most frequently viewed photograph on my website.

My military background helped me navigate the system, and most importantly it provided me with the critical context that informed all my observations. I didn’t need to be told when to duck, or what not to photograph. I believe now as I did then: the government of the United States has no inherent right to send our people off to war and keep secret that which it has no plausible military reason to keep secret. After all, American blood and taxpayer money is being spent. We have a right to know how our soldiers are doing, and what they are doing while wearing our flag. The government has no right to withhold information or to deny access to our combat forces because that information might anger, frighten or disturb us.

By allowing only a trickle of news to come out of Iraq, when all involved parties know the flow could be more robust, the Pentagon is doing just that. Although some of the conspicuous media vacuum is likely due to this being the most dangerous war in history for journalists—more dangerous than Vietnam or even World War II when journalists were allowed to land on D-Day—some of the few who will risk it all are being systematically denied access for no apparent reason.

This blockade is occurring simultaneous to the Pentagon’s efforts to shape the news by outsourcing millions of dollars to public relations firms to buy favorable words. This hackneyed effort has the unintended consequence of putting every reporter who files a positive story under scrutiny as a possible stooge. A fraction of those dollars spent on increasing transportation support might persuade many more reporters to request an embed, if they had a reasonable expectation of being able to get to the units and get stories filed on time instead of wasting days, sometimes weeks stranded in logistics limbo.

The media people I encountered in Iraq were not looking for four-star accommodations. They new full well what to expect from a war zone. They just didn’t want to be stuck on the sidelines unable to do any part of their jobs, held up for reasons that almost never have anything to do with combat. With the level of risk and expense, is it such a wonder that so many never bother going back?

There’s little comfort in the supposition that this mess might be more the result of incompetence than censorious policy toward media. After all, what does it matter whether the helicopter crashed because it ran out of gas or because someone didn’t tighten the bolts on a rotor?

Our country possesses supremely one-sided air and weapons superiority, but this is practically irrelevant in a counterinsurgency where the centers of gravity for the battle include public opinion in Iraq, Afghanistan, Europe and at home. The enemy trumps our jets and satellites with fantastically one-sided media superiority by maintaining an organic “embed” system with “journalists” spread all over Iraq and Afghanistan to publicize their deeds. The lowest level terror cells have their own film crews. While al Sahab hums along winning battle after battle, the bungling gatekeepers at CPIC reciprocate with ridiculous and costly obstacles for the embedded media covering our forces, ultimately causing harm to only one side: ours.

In September, when the popular “blog conglomerate” Pajamas Media reported there were only nine embedded journalists in Iraq, readers lashed out, blaming a cowardly media. But the reality is convoluted. The Pentagon is permitting an extremely limited number of journalists access, while denying other embed requests that would have been permitted only a year ago.

Researching this op-ed, I contacted a Marine officer in charge of tracking media in Iraq. In mid-September, USMC Major Jeffrey Pool was tracking only nine embedded reporters. Three were from Star & Stripes, one from the Armed Forces Network, another from a Polish radio station who was with Polish forces, and one Italian reporter embedded with his country’s troops. Of the remaining three, one was an author gathering material for later, leaving two who might report to another important center of gravity: the American citizens.

Although this number is in constant flux, on the day of Major Pool’s report there was approximately one independent journalist for every 75,000 troops. Most embeds last for a matter of days. So, how are our troops doing in Iraq? Afghanistan? Who knows?

The balance of media comes mostly from the “Baghdad News Bureaus”—who because of the fantastic danger generally gather information from the safety of the Green Zone by using Iraqi stringers,—and from the media advisories generated by CPIC.

The Dangerous Unknown: the outcome of the mission in Iraq, and to a large extent that of Great War on Terror, depends largely on strength of a people we know little about.

But there are people who would go to war and report on our troops. Walt Gaya, a highly skilled photographer who received two Purple Hearts last year as an infantryman, recently got two invitations to embed with combat troops. The first invitation came from the 4th Infantry Division, and the second was from Brigadier General Dana Pittard to embed with military training teams. I’ve had invitations from countless outfits. Yet, when Walt and I requested embeds, Lieutenant Colonel Barry Johnson, the Director of the Combined Press Information Center in Baghdad who controls all Iraq embeds, dismissed both requests out of hand.

Johnson, who has been described as “the most quoted man in Iraq,” was quoted saying, “We don’t turn down embeds at all. When we get a request, it may be very specific or broader. We go to the unit involved. They manage their own embeds. We don’t force them to take anyone; we’re not going to force anyone to interact with media. We may offer advice and talk to them about their reasoning. In the end, we respect the wishes of the unit.” Walt and I both had requests, and in each case the commanders had put their wishes in writing. In both cases, Johnson denied the embeds. Somebody is not telling the truth. Either Walt and I are lying, or LTC Barry Johnson is. The documentation is clear.

After issuing his terse denial, LTC Johnson was pressed for an explanation during a radio interview. He said something about being worried about me because I have no insurance. Listening to the tape of Barry Johnson’s radio interview, I wondered, “How would Johnson know whether I have insurance? He never asked.” Johnson told the interviewer that he had been in communication with me. This was sort of true. But not in the way he implied, because the only words Johnson ever sent my way were in an email he sent to me on 18 July 2006, where he wrote:

    Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

    Mr. Yon;

    I do not recognize your website as a media organization that we will use as a source to credential journalists covering MNF-I operations.

    LTC Barry Johnson
    Director, CPIC
    www.mnf-iraq.com

Had LTC Johnson made his concerns known to me, he would have learned that before Walt Gaya attempted to embed, Walt and I had approximately a dozen phone conversations about his insurance policy in regard to covering his time in combat—even though CPIC never requested anything about insurance before, during, after or since. Johnson was lying when he said that his decision was based on insurance status.

At the same time Walt and I were being given the brush, a blogger named Chad Hunt was heading for an embed in Afghanistan. (These slots are not controlled by Johnson.) When I asked Hunt if he had insurance, he replied, “Do you think I need it?” No one had asked him about insurance, which didn’t surprise me because it is not part of the standard process during which all embeds sign a detailed Hold Harmless agreement covering matters of injury, dismemberment and/or death.

Johnson’s denial (printed above) was unconditional and not couched with a request for more information. And even if Johnson failed to recognize my online magazine as a media outlet he was willing to work with, this still didn’t address the fact that the VFW had also agreed to publish Walt Gaya’s work. Is Johnson claiming he doesn’t recognize the VFW magazine with its approximately 1.8 million subscribers? Or is something else clouding his judgment?

Once Johnson pulled that insurance card on radio, I checked back with Chad Hunt about insurance on 20 August and asked if the PAO had asked him about his insurance arrangements. Hunt’s email response, “Nope. What is that?” Hunt headed for Afghanistan, and on 3 September I emailed, “Did you get insurance?” “Yes, I’m here and no insurance.” Chad Hunt, like most alternative media, paid his way to war. As he explains on his website:

    “I have paid for the cost of the plane ticket, body armor, kevlar helmet, ballistic glasses and all the other gear. I never expected to make money off of this and I even had one agency tell me that they would not back me ‘because embedded images don’t sell.’”

LTC Johnson, “the most quoted man in Iraq,” has repeatedly gone on record decrying the lack of press coverage in Iraq, all while alienating the last vestiges of any press willing to spend month after month in combat with our people. Meanwhile, Johnson has become a major media source while squeezing out nearly all other voices. Instead of courting the media in an attempt to win the war for “hearts and minds,” the trend seems to be stiff-arming it at the expense of our troops and their families. LTC Barry Johnson may be winning all his petty personal battles but he is losing the media war. The Pentagon has been notified but has failed to rectify the situation.

Other PAOs, such as USMC Major Jeffrey Pool and Army LTC Stephen Boylan, do not fit the pattern described here. As I stated at the outset, many PAO officers are extremely hardworking and dedicated. Unfortunately for Major Pool and the rest, all their hard efforts seem to disintegrate at the same point in the system where LTC Barry Johnson exercises an arbitrary veto power in what has become his fiefdom in Baghdad, and his bosses do nothing to fix their sinking ship.

The enemy knows that in modern-day counterinsurgency the media is an extension of the battle space. When Zarqawi began losing some of his media battles by broadcasting videos of hostages having their heads sawed off, Zawahiri scolded him in a note later recovered in raid:

    “However, despite all of this, I say to you: that we are in a battle and that more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media. And that we are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of our Umma. And that however far our capabilities reach, they will never be equal to one thousandth of the capabilities of the kingdom of Satan that is waging war on us. And we can kill the captives by bullet. That would achieve that which is sought after without exposing ourselves to the questions and answering to doubts. We don’t need this.” [Translation: just shoot them, dummy.]

During the beginning of the war when some of us called an insurgency an insurgency, our patriotism was questioned. Is there any question now? Are those just a few “dead-enders” that we are “mopping up”? When I called a civil war a civil war a full year ahead of the media, out came the dogs. “Unpatriotic” was among the more charitable names hurled my way. When I predicted success in Mosul even while the guns were hot, many mainstream journalists thought I was hallucinating. But there was tremendous progress in Iraq in 2005, and I reported it, all while warning about the growing civil war that could undermine everything. I reported extensively on a unit that was getting it right, and I was mostly alone as a reporter in Mosul.

Early this spring, when I reported from Afghan farms about this year’s bumper opium crop (about six months ahead of nearly anyone else), people thought I was using that opium. Mark this on your calendar: Spring of 2007 will be a bloodbath in Afghanistan for NATO forces. Our British, Canadian, Australian, Dutch and other allies will be slaughtered in Afghanistan if they dare step off base in the southern provinces because practically nobody is screaming at the tops their media-lungs about the impending disaster. I would not be surprised to see a base overrun in Afghanistan in 2007. And when it happens, how many will claim they had no idea it was so bad and blame the media for not reporting it?

Exiting with Unanswered Questions: This photograph was taken as troops from the First ID began leaving Iraq in February, 2005. It was part of a dispatch entitled “Mission Impossible,” written after a soldier asked me “How much do the people at home know about the progress we have made over here?” That the answer is still such a disappointing “Not much” is a blunder the military needs to correct before attempting a counterinsurgency war.

The media does matter. Our troops are naked without it. Our people probably would still be driving down Iraqi roads in unarmored Humvees were it not for the likes of journalist Lee Pitts, who posed the now infamous “hillbilly armor” question through a National Guardsman to the Secretary of Defense.

Seven days a week I communicate with wounded service members and families of service members killed in action. They ask, “When are you going back?” They long to hear the details—good, bad or ugly—that bring them closer to their loved ones. Some get impatient and short with me, perhaps not realizing that LTC Barry Johnson has the final say and he doesn’t recognize my work as warranting an embed on his watch.

So here we are again. How many will read this and prepare to throw down over definitions like they have done before? To the list of words people fought over when they should have fought for the problems to be solved, let us now add “censorship.” I write here charging it, but I am really shouting “FIX IT!” We don’t have six months or a year to dither about definitions and whether this censorship is a product of incompetence or is some election season subterranean policy. Just fix it! Make it go away! Al Sahab is kicking Barry Johnson’s teeth in. Someone show the chump some mercy and call the fight before it’s too late.

Walter Cronkite probably said it best when he issued these words years ago: “I firmly believe in the necessity of military censorship but there is considerable danger to the democracy when in the guise of military censorship our government engages in political censorship.” There was a time when Walter Cronkite was the most trusted man in America, and America allowed Cronkite to deliver good news and bad without shooting the messenger. When the venerable veteran traveled to Vietnam he postulated that we would not win. President Johnson is said to have remarked to an aide, “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost America.”

The current President of the United States should know today that if we lose the media, we will lose Iraq, Afghanistan, and the entire “war on terror.” If our military cannot win the easy media battles with writers who are unashamed to say they want to win the war, there is no chance of winning the hearts and minds of typical Afghans and Iraqis and both wars will be lost. And some will blame the media. But that will not resurrect the dead.
Title: Re: Be Not Afraid
Post by: Michael Tee on June 20, 2007, 08:33:28 AM
"- - what would the brass do if this guy's reports really bit them in the ass, told the country the surge was doomed to failure, Petraeus was an incompetent sycophant, etc.?"


[][][][][][][][][][][][][]

They would think he was working for CBS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ROFL (against all my better instincts)
Title: Re: Be Not Afraid
Post by: Michael Tee on June 20, 2007, 08:43:41 AM
<<The current President of the United States should know today that if we lose the media, we will lose Iraq, Afghanistan, and the entire “war on terror.” If our military cannot win the easy media battles with writers who are unashamed to say they want to win the war, there is no chance of winning the hearts and minds of typical Afghans and Iraqis and both wars will be lost. And some will blame the media. But that will not resurrect the dead.>>

Pathetically transparent.  The guy admits he's pro-military.  Why not?  How can he hide it?  He gets into these public catfights with Army press officers, (no real harm done) criticizes policy etc.  BUT THE ONE POLICY HE BACKS IN THE HILT IS TO CONTINUE THE MISSION TILL VICTORY.  That's his real function.  Tell the people it's working.  And since the people no longer trust the usual messengers, the government sets this guy up as a rebel - - "Hey, believe him if you won't believe us.  He's not one of us."

No - - he's not one of you.  But he does what no MSM reporter can do without an embed permit - - accompanies troops into combat.  As if the poor helpless brass has no control over who accompanies their troops into battle.  What pathetic bullshit the "government" has been reduced to.  Truly pitiful.  And still more pathetic that there are some Americans willing to believe this bullshit charade.
Title: Re: Be Not Afraid
Post by: _JS on June 20, 2007, 11:52:32 AM
Is it the job of the media to "win wars" for the United States, or any other nation?

I have to admit, it still makes me laugh to hear all of this "MSM" garbage and how horribly slanted and "liberal" the media is.

My parents are good friends with an auto mechanic from the former East Germany. I've watched DDR-FS and Aktuelle Kamera, but this guy lived it. Y'all bitch and moan about the slanted media, but this was the real thing. The funny thing is, he compares the US media to the DDR's, but not as some similar leftist bullshit. To him it is similar in the way it is contained and holds the government to so much high regard. Talking with him about the pre-Iraq War media and contrasting it to the DDR was really remarkable.
Title: Re: Be Not Afraid
Post by: sirs on June 20, 2007, 01:05:56 PM
Is it the job of the media to "win wars" for the United States, or any other nation?

No.  And is the job of the media to undermine both the effort at "winning wars" and a sitting Republican President's policy attempts to win the war against militant Islam?   Especially when currently none of those policies have been deemed illegal or unconstitutional, by any judicial body, outside of clarifying that American citizens detained here in the U.S. can't be designated as Enemy Combatants

Title: Re: Be Not Afraid
Post by: BT on June 20, 2007, 01:20:51 PM
It is the medias job to report the truth.
**********************************

While the embed process can be improved, such as by ensuring the journalists are mobile and have access to electrical power, I have only one major suggestion for the future. Make sure thought is given to placing embeds at places and levels appropriate for their organizations. My experience will illustrate why this is important. I was embedded at brigade headquarters and saw everything the brigade commander saw. All the other Time and Newsweek embeds were at lower levels. Just after the sandstorm-enforced halt in the assault on Baghdad, Time sent me the copy for that week’s cover story entitled “Why Are We Losing” and asked me to find comments to feed into the story.

That day I saw Colonel David Perkins of the 3rd Infantry Division and talked to many of his officers. Their reaction to the story was, “Tomorrow we laager up to refuel and rearm. The next day we move out to hit the Medina Division. It’s beat up, facing the wrong way, and does not know we’re coming. The day after that we ride onto Baghdad International Airport.” After a few calculations, I figured out Time was going to declare the war lost on the same day we entered Baghdad. This was not good.

I sent a note to Time telling them they were about to look very foolish. Unfortunately, I was alone in my estimation of the situation. All of the talking heads on TV were shouting about disaster. However, expert talking-head opinions on the threat Saddam’s paramilitaries were posing to the 3rd’s supply line were not in line with the reality I was witnessing. Battlefield commanders in Iraq, rather then being alarmed at attacks on the supply lines, were thankful, “Isn’t it nice of them to come out of hiding in the cities and attack across open desert to be slaughtered.” In addition to the talking heads, most of my fellow embeds were echoing the disaster sentiment. When you are living in the dirt with an infantry platoon, it is easy to miss the progress that becomes visible when you get the big picture at a brigade headquarters or higher. After a six-hour meeting, the compromise at Time was to rename the story “What Will It Take to Win.”

Newsweek went with the cover story “Quagmire” in big red letters, which allowed Time to claim a major journalistic coup by not looking as foolish as Newsweek.


http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/whos-responsible-for-losing-the-media-war-in-iraq.htm


Title: Re: Be Not Afraid
Post by: Michael Tee on June 20, 2007, 01:40:13 PM
Unfortunately the "victory" that this quack was proclaiming was quick to dissolve in the months following, as the Iraqi Army melted into an underground Resistance movement which is going to be around for a very long time.  They switched tactics on an American Army which was just too damn dumb to pick up on it.  "Quagmire" IMHO was not an inappropriate headline at all.  That is what Iraq is, a quagmire.  Oh, well, leave it to this guy to find a new sunny outlook on the disaster.  That's what he's there for.
Title: Re: Be Not Afraid
Post by: _JS on June 20, 2007, 02:13:24 PM
No.  And is the job of the media to undermine both the effort at "winning wars" and a sitting Republican President's policy attempts to win the war against militant Islam?   Especially when currently none of those policies have been deemed illegal or unconstitutional, by any judicial body, outside of clarifying that American citizens detained here in the U.S. can't be designated as Enemy Combatants

That is a very strong allegation. Where has the media engaged in a collective effort to undermine the United States military?

Where has the media engaged in an effort to undermine the United States government?

That would be tantamount to treason Sirs, not just reporting on something with which you disagree or dislike.
Title: Re: Be Not Afraid
Post by: Michael Tee on June 20, 2007, 02:15:13 PM
<<Especially when currently none of those policies have been deemed illegal or unconstitutional, by any judicial body, outside of clarifying that American citizens detained here in the U.S. can't be designated as Enemy Combatants>>

I think sirs is on to something.  A new standard for criticism of the sitting President:  criticize only what has been determined to be illegal or unconstitutional in the courts - - but as long as the policy is legal, support the guy to the hilt, no matter how misguided, stupid, wasteful or counterproductive it may actually be.  What's particularly sweet about this new standard is, that with the Supreme Court packed with Republican flunkies, less and less of the agenda is going to find itself in the "illegal" category anyway .

Interesting, too, that by reporting the truth from Iraq, the media is seen to be "undermining" the "President."  Truth sucks, if you're a conservative.
Title: Re: Be Not Afraid
Post by: _JS on June 20, 2007, 02:16:15 PM
Quote
It is the medias job to report the truth.

No offense Bt, but the US Military is not known for being the great dispenser of objective truth. Where do you suppose the media gets this "truth?" Directly from the Stars and Stripes?
Title: Re: Be Not Afraid
Post by: sirs on June 20, 2007, 02:39:40 PM
No.  And is the job of the media to undermine both the effort at "winning wars" and a sitting Republican President's policy attempts to win the war against militant Islam?   Especially when currently none of those policies have been deemed illegal or unconstitutional, by any judicial body, outside of clarifying that American citizens detained here in the U.S. can't be designated as Enemy Combatants

That is a very strong allegation. Where has the media engaged in a collective effort to undermine the United States military?  Where has the media engaged in an effort to undermine the United States government?

Every time you see completely flamable and distorted stories of supposed mass Korans being flushed down the toilet, is undermining the U.S Military, Intel gathering programs, & it's government.  Every time you read a distorted story that implies mass eavesdropping on pretty much every American citizen is undermining the U.S Military, Intel gathering programs, & it's government.  Every time you read stories that paint the military as treating every enemy combatant as if we're AlQeada, minus the all the food specific to Muslims, prayer times & Korans we don't have to provide, is undermining the U.S Military, Intel gathering programs, & it's government.  Every time you read stories as to how bad the war is in Iraq, with all the prerequisate poll #'s, minus ANY of the substantive stories demonstrating the progress being made is undermining the U.S Military, Intel gathering programs, & it's government.  Every time you read a story from the MSM that pretty much shows only one POV is no longer a news story, but more so propoganda, is undermining the U.S Military, Intel gathering programs, & it's government.  The vast amount of ommitted stories are what's truely undermining the U.S Military, Intel gathering programs, & it's current government.


That would be tantamount to treason Sirs, not just reporting on something with which you disagree or dislike.

You're right
Title: Re: Be Not Afraid
Post by: _JS on June 20, 2007, 03:07:19 PM
Every time you read a story from the MSM that pretty much shows only one POV is no longer a news story, but more so propoganda, is undermining the U.S Military, Intel gathering programs, & it's government.  The vast amount of ommitted stories are what's truely undermining the U.S Military, Intel gathering programs, & it's current government.

Why is there another point of view to every story? When there is, why is it the job of the media to find every point of view and report that?

I've read plenty of stories of helping out in Iraq, I did not imagine them so they must have been reported. Regardless, it is not the job of the media to show a war in a positive light. That is not "undermining the U.S Military, Intel gathering programs, & it's current government." They have the right to choose their stories, not have them chosen for them. I don't recall a great deal of positive stories on Kosovo or Bosnia either. Yet, that doesn't make the media biased or even worse - treasonous. It is not their job to paint the war effort to your satisfaction or the president's.

That would be tantamount to treason Sirs, not just reporting on something with which you disagree or dislike.

You're right
[/quote]

Yet, you have no real evidence upon which to make such a serious allegation. What would be interesting is if you lived in a country that had a real media. The U.S. media is like an olympic boxer with all the protective gear and rules. Some of the other countries have media that don't hold punches quite as much.
Title: Re: Be Not Afraid
Post by: sirs on June 20, 2007, 04:12:33 PM
Every time you read a story from the MSM that pretty much shows only one POV is no longer a news story, but more so propoganda, is undermining the U.S Military, Intel gathering programs, & it's government.  The vast amount of ommitted stories are what's truely undermining the U.S Military, Intel gathering programs, & it's current government.

Why is there another point of view to every story? When there is, why is it the job of the media to find every point of view and report that?

OBJECTIVITY and CREDIBILITY, especially on such polarizing issues, such as war.  Especially when the POV being provided is the same one, repeated adnauseum


Quote
That would be tantamount to treason Sirs, not just reporting on something with which you disagree or dislike.

You're right
Quote
Yet, you have no real evidence upon which to make such a serious allegation.

1st amendment
Title: Re: Be Not Afraid
Post by: BT on June 20, 2007, 07:31:31 PM
Js

Did you even read the accompanying piece. Both Time and Newsweek were ready to o with verdicts based on their vantage point
yet only Time was cautious enough to at least verify reports up the line that painted an entirely different picture.

The military didn't paint the picture. Time and Newsweek painted it. One got it semi right. The other wrong.

And Yon didn't write the article Mikey if you read the eexcerpt and followed the link you would know that. Not that facts matter to you.

Title: Re: Be Not Afraid
Post by: sirs on June 20, 2007, 07:44:13 PM
It is the medias job to report the truth.
**********************************
I was embedded at brigade headquarters and saw everything the brigade commander saw. All the other Time and Newsweek embeds were at lower levels. Just after the sandstorm-enforced halt in the assault on Baghdad, Time sent me the copy for that week’s cover story entitled “Why Are We Losing” and asked me to find comments to feed into the story.....All of the talking heads on TV were shouting about disaster. However, expert talking-head opinions on the threat Saddam’s paramilitaries were posing to the 3rd’s supply line were not in line with the reality I was witnessing. Battlefield commanders in Iraq, rather then being alarmed at attacks on the supply lines, were thankful, “Isn’t it nice of them to come out of hiding in the cities and attack across open desert to be slaughtered.” In addition to the talking heads, most of my fellow embeds were echoing the disaster sentiment.....Newsweek went with the cover story “Quagmire” in big red letters, which allowed Time to claim a major journalistic coup by not looking as foolish as Newsweek.

Is this not precisely the point I was referring to??






Title: Re: Be Not Afraid
Post by: _JS on June 21, 2007, 09:50:38 AM
OBJECTIVITY and CREDIBILITY, especially on such polarizing issues, such as war.  Especially when the POV being provided is the same one, repeated adnauseum

Credibility simply requires that they get their facts straight. Of course they should do that. Objectivity? By providing every point of view? That's beyond ridiculous and you know it.

Quote
1st amendment

You proved treason with the 1st amendment. I think that is more of a defense argument than a prosecutorial one. It actually requires evidence to prove a crime Sirs, not whining about how "they" don't like your politics.
Title: Re: Be Not Afraid
Post by: _JS on June 21, 2007, 09:54:04 AM
Js

Did you even read the accompanying piece. Both Time and Newsweek were ready to o with verdicts based on their vantage point
yet only Time was cautious enough to at least verify reports up the line that painted an entirely different picture.

The military didn't paint the picture. Time and Newsweek painted it. One got it semi right. The other wrong.

A few thoughts Bt:

1. You and especially Sirs complain about objectivity. Yet, you accept this story on its face. Where is Time and Newsweek's version of events? Are we sure that this is what really took place?

2. Assuming this is correct, what would give a news magazine the impulse to run with such a cover?

3. What do you propose as a solution (Bt and Sirs)?
Title: Re: Be Not Afraid
Post by: BT on June 21, 2007, 12:28:54 PM
Ultimately news is a commodity for consumption, much like breakfast cereal.

It can be packaged and presented differently but it is left up to the consumer to pick the product best suited for their needs.

You ask why Time or Newsweek chose to go with a different perspective on the mach on Baghdad. I don't know. You ask if Time and Newsweek have offered up a defense. Again i don't know.

But it does seem to me when getting it wrong is tantamount to lying that paradigm should apply across the board.

Or is the Rather school of journalism the status quo.

Mikey's beef iis that the author is ex military, embedded with the approval of the PAO and is obviously biased. The same could be said for the major newsweeklies ( ex-military status unknown)  if and when they venture from the Green Zone. Some how he doesn't seem to be consistent.

Title: Re: Be Not Afraid - The Real Story
Post by: Michael Tee on June 21, 2007, 12:33:22 PM
I think guys like BT are missing the real story in Michael Yon and others like him.  These guys are living proof of the complete collapse of U.S. government credibility.  The government can't get its message out effectively because nobody believes them any more.  They have been caught in lie after lie, and now only a shrinking hard core of true believers bordering on "fruitcake" status pays any attention at all to anything they say.

Hence the Michael Yons of the blogosphere.  Without getting embed permits ('cause they're "rebels!!") they nevertheless manaage to get all the benefits of an embed, accompanying the troops into combat, skipping in and out seemingly at will, and still manage to write "angry" blogs denouncing administration "blunders" just so long as the "blunders" they so freely denounce are related to peripheral items such as the media wars or past policies.  Of course, they will never denounce the PRESENT policies, or the PRESENT military leadership, because that's really what they're tasked with selling to the public.

Of course, in the end, their lies and bullshit will be exposed as were the administrations, and they will become "yesterday's men," but another few desperate months will have been tacked on to the Bush administration's losing effort to subdue Iraq.