I just want to chime in on the “Iraqis not fighting fair” thing. The reason for the laws of armed conflict is not to protect soldiers. It’s to protect civilians. If you have Iraqi soldiers dressing up in civilian clothes and attacking our troops, real Iraqi civilians are just that much less safe. Same goes with putting military assets in civilian areas.
The fake surrender thing is also distrubing. If neither side can trust someone who is trying to surrender, then the war will continue until all of one side is wiped out. Fortunately, our troops will continue to accept surrender even though it’s more dangerous now.
All this “Iraqis don’t fight fair” nonsense sounds a lot like the British complaints about American tactics during the Revolutionary War. Iraqi generals learned to their detriment in Gulf War I that facing American tanks and choppers in trenches was a mistake. They will force us to fight this war on their terms, which is the source of the whining. Everyone expected a rout like last time, but it is clear that the enemy has learned from its mistakes, and the real battles are yet to come, in the streets of Baghdad, which favor the defenders and minimize the strengths of American technology. Get used to these “ungentlemanly” tactics; all is fair in war.
I’m not going to dig up a cite, but I believe in GW I we/coalition lost some 30+ planes, and several pilots were POW. I have seen them interviewed on CNN et al. There didn’t/doesn’t seem to be any effort to deny that planes were lost in GW I. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to me that given Iraq’s losses in GW I and our continued technological progress that we aren’t seeing the Air Force get shot out of the sky. Also, we have used way more cruise missles, reducing the need to send manned bombers over heavily defended targets.
On the other hand, I don’t think the public is 100% entitled to know about every loss at this point. We know Iraq’s internal communications have been disrupted, so why advertise a particular strategy that may have worked for them once or twice so that all the troops can hear about it? Let’s not forget that the war is still going on, and the gov’t has granted increadible access to the press.
The rumor sounds apocryphal. There’s no special equitment required for cleaning an M-16 that you can’t get at any sporting goods store for 3 bucks or so.
It hasn’t been too bad there this year, actually. No 7-foot snowstorms, anyway.
I’m no supporter of this war, but I fail to see why the media labeling US/UK combat deaths as “accidental” paints the military in a better light. If anything, one would think the opposite.
And, eman77, you should be able to pick up CBC transmissions there in Buffalo. Why not give them a try if you don’t like CNN?
They’ve knocked out two Abrams with Russian wire-guided anti-tank missiles.* No casualtes though.
*The first article is interesting because it has it wrong about the “anti-tank gun.” The media never gets it right the first time. The Iraqis used the Kornet.
I must confess that I am completely confused by this whole propoganda thing. Does anyone really believe that CNN is conspiring to keep Bush’s numbers up? The ultimate numbers on the president’s approval rating will only be meaningful post-war and much closer to the election. Right now, they are sky high and growing, there is no need to boost them. If there were a need to boost them, CNN would certainly not be the organization to do it. Nor would NBC, CBS, ABC or just about any other station with the possible exceptions of FOX and CBN (if you call that a real network).
I have been getting tired of hearing what seems to me to be constant droning about everything that is going wrong and precious little about what is going right. I guess it is all just a matter of what you hear, and how you hear. Maybe we just listen through our biases and reach conclusions based on perspective more than fact. I get more frustrated hearing about casualties that came about as a result of accidents than about casualties in the line of fire, so I don’t see networks focusing on helicopter crashes, etc. as being pro-allied propaganda.
Maybe the reason you keep hearing that things are going well is that things are indeed going well. All of this talk about the initial plan going to squat is speculation being paraded as fact. The original plan will, of course, be modified daily, sometimes hourly or less, depending on events, but so far, it appears that we are right where we want to be. It is funny to me that while so many people seem to think this would be a seven or eight day war, George Bush, Tony Blair, Donald Rumsfeld, and General Franks all kept saying that it would take longer. Now that it is taking longer, all of these pundits are coming out saying the plan was flawed and something is wrong because we did not win in seven days. Maybe they should have listened to the people doing the planning.
Could we have won in seven days? Easily. Of course we would have killed multiple thousands of civilians and destroyed Iraq in the process. I suspect we will find that the plan that is going forward is different than the plan everything thinks they are watching.
As to issue of fighting fair, I was joking with one of my British friends the other day that we would probably still be complaining about the stamp tax if the Brits had not lined up in straight lines while we were picking them off from behind trees. That may have been pre-Geneva convention, but war is war. You do what you have to do to win. Only the losers get prosecuted for war crimes.
Maybe it’s time to do away with some common misconceptions.
(1). Journalists do go out themselves and find news. In fact in the overwhelming majority of cases journalists get tipped off. That means that someone provides them with information, and usually that someone has a reason to do so.
which leads to the discussion of misconception (2).
(2). Journalists themselves confirms facts, check sources, or waits for confirmation before publishing a story. See, our major news agencies have an economic incentive to provide “news”, “good tv” and the likes. Contrary to what is taught in journalism class, this interest more than once weighs heavier than “providing accurate information”.
Ergo, we get news reports where pentagon (and others) can plant stories like “Iraq launches squds on Kuwait”, “Chemical war plant found”, “8000 iraqi soldiers give up” and so on…
No one said guerilla tactics won the Revolutionary War; only that they occurred, and that the British were appalled by them. Precisely what is happening in Iraq; guerilla tactics are scattered and tactically ineffective, but nevertheless, people are using them to paint the enemy as barbaric and cowardly.
The reporting media will report what will sell, regardless of which side it’s on, IMHO. I cannot believe there is some kind of gov’mnt conspiracy to keep the truth from us, or even that such a thing would work. There are too many various and sundry out there who would love to find something – anything – that would give them fame and glory for getting the inside story of some failing on the part of a politician or group of same. Many of the members of the press are staunch liberals and would be very happy to make the current administration look bad, even if they have no desire to undermine the strength of the country or the well-being of troops or civilians.
The various media reporters were slavering at the mouth to get at Nixon (a Republican) and Johnson (a Democrat), not to mention the salacious fascination with Clinton’s various “situations.” They’d have reported a scandal about Mother Teresa as soon as anybody else.
I don’t know which stations you get in Buffalo, but to see some of the New York network news, you would think the coalition forces were experiencing daily routs. I myself check out FOX, CNN, the 3 major networks, MSNBC. Sometimes Drudge on line. Plus the New York Times. The different perspective from these sources is very interesting and helps give a more complete picture.
BTW, I also agree with astorian; sure there were some guerilla tactics during the American revolution, but a very major part of the success was the cooperation of the French and the Dutch, plus the fact that the British had other priorities in Europe, just to summarize briefly.
MLS: Conspiracy is a strong word. Is promotion of “good publicity” and down-playing of “bad publicity” in the interest of the american war effort? Certainly. Are people in US civil and military administration above withholding or thwarting information when it serves this interest? Certainly not.
Concerning the reporting media, what do you think of my 2 points above?
At first glance, I though this said "Iraq launches squids on Kuwait’ and I had a mental image of a giant squid rampaging Godzilla-style through Kuwait City.
Randy: Yes, sometimes, but not always. Woodward and Bernstein, for example, would not write something based on only one person’s word when they were investigating the Watergate incident and its ramifications. And as I said before, there are plenty of journalists who would love to trip up anybody in authority.
I agree that it would be foolish to believe everything you see in print just because “it’s in the newspaper.” Unfortunately, many people limit themselves to only one news source, and have not developed critical thinking skills. Even worse, that one source is often the evening news, which emphasizes the visual.
Obviously in wartime it is impossible for civilians back home to get the full picture, because that would mean the enemy would have it, too, and we really don’t want that. I trust that at least most of the people who are opposed to the current war still would not want Hussein to know exactly where the troops are going to be tomorrow morning, or what they’re planning to do next.
