(Mentioned this in another thread, decided to give it its own when it didn’t really take off, partly because of my poor phrasing choices.)
That’s what a supposed “secret intelligence assessment” concludes, according to the Washington Times (whose ideological bent I don’t know).
Of course, the usual suspects on the conservative side are trumpeting this as more proof of how much the press hates America and wants us to lose in Iraq and loves massacring American soldiers etc. etc. etc.
But what effect did the media really have? Is it even relevant if it was a lot?
Very right wing; known as the “Moonie Times” because it was largely created by Moon and his Unification Church, and is still heavily influenced by and funded by them.
The Washington Times is pretty conservative, if it matters.
But shit like this:
If the people calling the military shots in this country allow their tactical decisions to be dictated by what the press or the people think these tactical decisions ought to be, then they should all be run out of town on a fucking rail. They are supposed to be leaders. There is a reason we put military men in charge of making tactical calls, instead of having voter referenda on them. Blaming the press for pressuring you into making bad tactical decisions is like saying it’s the fault of that cute chick you were trying to impress that you started taking heroin. It involves a fundamental inability to accept responsibility for your own fuckups.
The Press cannot give victory to either side on the battlefield.
Planning, training, equipment, supply, numbers, & motivation of the troops, decides the fight.
Blaming the Free Press is the realm of the ranting loony.
It’s also dishonest. Notoriously, the military turned back male civilians who tried to leave; they didn’t try to clear the area. I expect they wanted a high body count, and who cares if they were actually “insurgents” ? They can’t claim otherwise once we’ve killed them.