Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

It's not the media's fault that reality has a "the Iraq war is a quagmire" bias.

Posted by at May 26, 2007 08:13 AM

As predicted by some of the pre-war intelligence Bush ignored, the invasion of Iraq is turning it into a terrorist recruiting and training zone. It appears that Al Qaeda has unwitting allies all the way up to the White House.

Posted by Roy S at May 26, 2007 08:24 AM

Attacking the media (and liberals such as myself) will not be an effective methiod of winning support for one or another strategies for defeating nut-juib Islam. For some reason, telling my wife a decision she made was "stupid" ("But dear, I know it was unwitting, so why are you mad?") most often proves utterly ineffectual in winning the argument.

The media is driven primarily by a desire to make money.

The Left believes the MSMs give President Bush far too much slack already while the Right believes the MSM aids al Qaeda and the posters at Daily Kos and at Red State are share an utter disgust for the major media networks. Therefore, pressuring the media either way will only persuade those already persuaded.

Finally, if al Qaeda has better PsyOps that the Pentagon, don't blame the media, hire new PsyOps teams at the Pentagon.

Posted by Bill QWhite at May 26, 2007 11:01 AM

Did any of you three actually read the article? How about this quote:
"Schroeder makes the argument for more complete context in reporting saying, “Accurate, meaningful information that spans the full spectrum of subjects, including good news as well as bad, is critical to the American people getting a true picture of the war.”"

You can't agree with that?

Posted by Habitat Hermit at May 26, 2007 12:56 PM

Two million Iraqis are now refugees. Given Iraq's population, numbers of that size make it difficult to report the "good news".

If Iraq had been stabilized with the 300,000 troops neede for the job, if the Iraqi intelligentsia did not feel the pressing urgency to pack up and leave, if there was no need for building walls around neighborhoods in Baghdad, etc. etc. it would be easier to report good news, don't you think? In the absence of real quality of life indicators that things have improved, the car bombs simply underline or serve as pointers to the situation in Iraq.

I don't think the media is being manipulated by anything other than the incompetence and folly of the war effort. And of course anyone with half a brain can then decide how best to create as much media impact as needed to advertize their efforts; this is what Al-Qaeda is doing.

So either things improve dramatically and the media then starts to report these improvements, or perhaps we need censorship of the media in Iraq so that we an control the unwitting collusion.

Posted by Offside at May 26, 2007 01:24 PM

Also, I think the continuing drop in the number of people supporting the war effort has an effect of biasing the reporting out of Iraq. For example, the support in Britain is now in the single digits! When things start to tank that badly, the media reporting looks for events that re-inforce this trend. I think that also plays into this "collusion with Al-Qaeda."

Posted by Offside at May 26, 2007 01:30 PM

Offside your posts might as well have been posted before mine:
- I don't see you claiming to have read the article and the nature of your posts indicates you haven't since you don't go into any of its details.
- My simple question based on a quote from the article went unanswered as well.

Your second post is an interesting subject where one can argue about which is cause and which is effect or to what degree respectively but if we want to actually substantiate it we have to get back to the original topic first.

Or is the quote I made simply irrelevant to all of you?

Posted by Habitat Hermit at May 26, 2007 01:57 PM

Accurate, meaningful information that spans the full spectrum of subjects, including good news as well as bad, is critical to the American people getting a true picture of the war.

That's fine, I'm all for it, but it's exactly what the war boosters don't want, despite what they say. The "full spectrum" of news from Iraq is 10% good and 90% bad. That's why there are 2 million refugees in Syria and Jordan. It's not as if Syria is a dreamland that would normally attract hordes of refugees.

Schroeder's own example is a case in point. He wants the media to play up the fact, which he finds comforting, that there are now 300,000 Iraqi Security Forces. But this "good news" isn't suppressed by the media, it's suppressed by a lack of credibility. Undoubtedly there are 300,000 names on lists somewhere. But there is no reason to trust most of these people: most of them either don't show up for work at all, or they have sectarian loyalties.

What Schroeder et al really want is not a full range of news, but a full range of conclusions and opinions. (At best. What they may really want is reinforcement of their opinions only.) But news organizations have no duty to cater to prior public opinion. If they did, the news would never change anyone's mind.

Posted by at May 26, 2007 02:30 PM

Iraq may be a Al Qaeda "recruiting and training zone" but Iraq is also an Al Qaeda DEATH ZONE as they are being killed my the hundreds every month. AQ is also rabidly loosing it's Muslim support base due to their tactics, AQ is less well thought of in the majority of the Arab world almost every day that passes.

I doubt this was a preconceived strategy but drawing the enemy into a fight on non American soil and killing him by the hundreds and at the same time diminishing his Arab street "cred" isn't a bad thing.

Posted by at May 26, 2007 03:21 PM

"I doubt this was a preconceived strategy but drawing the enemy into a fight on non American soil and killing him by the hundreds and at the same time diminishing his Arab street "cred" isn't a bad thing."

And it's only costing us about a thousand American lives a year, plus a few tens of thousands of Iraqi lives a year. But my response is a) those troops all volunteered to go over there, so it is okay if they get killed, and b) who cares about Iraqis anyway as long as we're killing al Qaeda?

Posted by Dennis Lake at May 26, 2007 04:48 PM

That's why they call it war Dennis.

Posted by at May 26, 2007 05:09 PM

Habitat Hermit,

Should I preface every one of my comments with an acknowledgement that I have read Rand's links? What a moronic thought, especially coming from someone like you. FYI, I damn well read the article and always do. Your mind reading skills are woefully inadequate to the task.

Dennis,

Even if the troops are mainly Republican and truly want to continue the fight, shame on you to suggest that they should be sacrificed. Also, you missed the increasing cost estimated to run to 2 trillion by 2013, the attention of the nation transfixed on the morass, and the fact that we should at least be concerned about the Iraqi Christians, who are certainly neither Iranian agents or Al-Qaeda and who have been truly shafted by the war. So much so that Christianity in Iraq will cease to exist. That last is one of my personal greatest concerns.

Posted by Offside at May 26, 2007 05:26 PM

Instead of accusing the media of aiding and abetting our enemies by reporting the facts, why not talk about how the White House is directly financing al Qaeda in Lebanon to fight Hezbollah? Couldn't that be called, oh I don't know, treason?

Posted by Brian Swiderski at May 26, 2007 05:43 PM

What the heck are you talking about Brian?

Posted by Offside at May 26, 2007 05:52 PM

“Accurate, meaningful information that spans the full spectrum of subjects, including good news as well as bad, is critical to the American people getting a true picture of the war.”"

Yup, and there are plenty of people who believe that the MSM has sugar-coated the news for years seeking to bolster the Administration's PR efforts.

For many people, Colbert nailed it at that press dinner more than a year ago:

But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works: the president makes decisions. He's the Decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction!

Posted by Bill White at May 26, 2007 06:37 PM

"What the heck are you talking about Brian?"

Considering it issues, as usual, from his anal orafice, it makes the same amount of sense and scent.

Posted by Mike Puckett at May 26, 2007 07:22 PM

BW, "Yup, and there are plenty of people who believe that the MSM has sugar-coated the news for years seeking to bolster the Administration's PR efforts."
They call them "Truthers"

That's pretty funny. The press giving Bush a pass. They give him crap for not wearing a seatbelt on his ranch. It will be interesting to note, if the situation gets better in Iraq, how the press reports it, if at all. That's what I expect. The reports will be about the deaths, not if they are decreasing. Any increase, even if followed by a continuing decrease will be major news. If the IA and ISF start doing a good job, we won't hear about it. At least until AFTER the '08 election.

Posted by Bill Maron at May 26, 2007 08:09 PM

Bill Maron

The news isn't getting better from Iraq.

May is on track to be the 4th most deadly month of the War.

So, we are now back to full fledged combat operations
with troops and equipment strained from 4 years of
continous battle, while the Insurgents show
massive regeneration capability.

Bush is now actively warning people that it's going to
be worse, so, what do you think the story is
going to be?

meanwhile the army readiness is in the sewer,
the guard is completely barren.
God help us if there is a real crisis somewhere.

Posted by anonymous at May 26, 2007 09:22 PM

"while the Insurgents show
massive regeneration capability."

...by being cleansed from Anbar.

Posted by Mike Puckett at May 26, 2007 09:54 PM

"why not talk about how the White House is directly financing al Qaeda in Lebanon to fight Hezbollah? "

Mr. Swiderski,

Are you by chance referring to American materiel support to the Lebanese Army?

Are you suggesting that:

a. the Lebanese Army is a front for Al Qaeda in Lebanon, or

b. there are members of Al Qaeda in Lebanon in the Lebanese Army, or

c. the US is knowingly and directly arming non-Lebanese Army members of Al Qaeda in Lebanon, or...

So, please, let us discuss this very serious, considered claim of yours. Just as soon as you clarify what specifically you are claiming.

Respectfully submitted,

Posted by MG at May 26, 2007 11:40 PM

I'm beginning to wonder if removing Robert Oler was the wrong solution, he might have had a moderating effect on some other posters. Only wondering though as it's nice to avoid having to scroll past his irrelevant posts.

Offisde; way to go on strawmen and what I guess are attempted insults.

Quoting myself "I don't see you claiming to have read the article", this is not the same as telling you to "preface every one of my comments with an acknowledgement that I have read Rand's links" (your words). It's only simple observation and one I hoped you and the others who had posted could respond to by talking about the actual content of the article and its arguments.

But don't worry about it, it has become a moot point by now.

Me saying "the nature of your posts indicates you haven't since you don't go into any of its details" is also an observation.

Offside said: "What a moronic thought, especially coming from someone like you."

Yes it would be a moronic thought but as it happens it only exists in your lack of reading comprehension. I also wonder who "someone like me" is supposed to be since you have next to zero knowledge about me, I guess you prefer vague ad hominem attacks?

Offside said: "Your mind reading skills are woefully inadequate to the task."

It might interest you to learn that when words like "guess" and "assume" are used it has nothing to do with telepathy.

I'd like to complement you on your choice of nickname Offside.

Posted by Habitat Hermit at May 27, 2007 05:51 AM

That should be "compliment" not "complement".

Posted by Habitat Hermit at May 27, 2007 05:57 AM

Mike

How many insurgents were in Iraq in 2003? 2004? 2006? 2007?

There are as many insurgents in jail as dead as in the field.
Which means they have regenerated 300% in 5 years.

Sure, we can play whack a mole and chase them around.
but we can't bring them to battle and defeat them.

Besides we need to decide if we are fight al-qaeda or
iraqi insurgents. if we are fighting al-qaeda, the iraqi's don't
like it because we made their country a battlefield.
if we are figting insurgents, well, there are lots more
out there.

Posted by anonymous at May 27, 2007 10:44 AM

"There are as many insurgents in jail as dead as in the field.
Which means they have regenerated 300% in 5 years."

I don't accept your screwy math and your assumptions.

Posted by Mike Puckett at May 27, 2007 11:04 AM

Hermit,

I'm not guessing about you. You've already told us that you were some sort of Scandinavian refugee living in the United States so you could work on your English grammar. I notice that you are using this comments section for the same purpose. Complement, heh. Perhaps you should stick to the latter instead of being an agent provocateur in a foreign country.

Regards choice of "nickname (!)", you obviously think yours is profound. Grand habitat delusions. Heh.

Posted by Offside at May 27, 2007 11:06 AM

"Al Qaeda has made allies, witting or not, of the western press"

Oh, it's witting, all right.

The press idiots are so self-centered that they haven't even considered what would happen to them if Al-Q were to win.

(Hint: They'd be the first to have their heads chopped off.)

Posted by Barbara Skolaut at May 27, 2007 04:51 PM

I don't accept your screwy math and your assumptions.

Well that's the wonderful thing about living in a free democracy. You don't have to. And the reason you don't have to is because the brave American insurgency fought a valiant "war of terror" against those pesky British imperialists.

Posted by Adrasteia at May 27, 2007 05:28 PM

...and apparently your right to post absolute nonsense while consuming mind-altering substances as well.

Posted by Mike Puckett at May 27, 2007 05:31 PM

Well Puckett

show how you graduated High School and do the numbers.

Please cite your sources and assumptions.

Posted by anonymous at May 27, 2007 05:32 PM

Assertions do not make numbers. We cannot add hypothetical unicorns and faeries in the real world.

Lay out, explain and defend your equation instead of making the Transterrestrial equivilent of a 'netflix' commercial. Show us you completed 5th grade.

Posted by Mike Puckett at May 27, 2007 06:53 PM

I feel that the press has been very biased in regards to their Iraq reporting. Pres. Bush can't have a press conference about any other subject without reporters questioning him about some perceived folly in Iraq.

During WWII the press didn't always have to be told to report news a certain way. Because, back then they actually felt something called Patriotism for their country and believed in its success. I think people had a better drive to make the most of that situation because they had just pulled themselves out of the Great Depression. They saw how bad things could really be and fall so quickly from such good times not long before.

Nowadays, people take things for granted and make these assumptions that there will always be another chance. I am a believer that things can change quite a lot in a short amount of time. How we conduct ourselves in this Middle East campaign will speak a lot towards our gumption and perseverance.

Sure anyone can sit in this neutral 3rd-party position and take sniping shots of barbed criticism towards anyone and everything. You know what? any contrarian just might be right much of the time. However, as Dr. Phil says to that one family member who just can't stop tearing everyone in the family down is, "So, how is being right all the time working out for you?".

This is a war of perceptions at this point. We can sit and see the things that Al Qaeda says and see how deluded they can be. In essence, we will have to match their delusion per wit and start to drive their voice out of the discussion with our overriding concerns.

Posted by Josh Reiter at May 27, 2007 07:20 PM

Offside wrote:
"Scandinavian refugee living in the United States"

I live in Oslo, Norway as you will (re)discover if you read some of my past comments. Entertaining that you managed to botch even something as simple as that and then go on to make yourself look like a troll.

Don't bother dreaming up any more inanities, I'll simply ignore you.

Posted by Habitat Hermit at May 27, 2007 08:34 PM

Pres. Bush can't have a press conference about any other subject without reporters questioning him about some perceived folly in Iraq.

The reason is that his entire war mission in Iraq is ill-conceived, but he would rather be a punching bag of the press than admit that he's wrong. In fact, as long as he can win politically, he doesn't even think that it matters. He's doing a victory lap right now, not because of any real victory in Iraq, but because he got his war money without a timetable.

Posted by at May 27, 2007 08:45 PM

puckett

I'll lay it out nd try to use small words for your benefit.

The DoD claims there are 20,000 active insurgents in Iraq.

The DoD is also holding 20,000 insurgents in prison camps.

The DoD claims to have killed 20,000 insurgents to date.

In 2005, the DoD claimed there were no more then 20,000 insurgents.

That means we killed or imprisoned the Insurgents 200% and
yet we still face as many as before, hence 300% regeneration.

what are your numbers?

Posted by anonymous at May 27, 2007 11:57 PM

"The "full spectrum" of news from Iraq is 10% good and 90% bad."

What are you basing these numbers on? News reports?

Pot calling the kettle... come in kettle...

Posted by Norm at May 28, 2007 04:21 AM

What are you basing these numbers on? News reports?

Well, the "numbers" should not be taken literally, but were rather a manner of speaking. The actual situation in Iraq is bad for Iraqis and even worse for American interests. What I am "basing it" on is certainly not counting "good" vs "bad" reports, but rather by looking at the way that the news pieces together into the whole truth.

There are plenty of war boosters with blogs, in the Army, and in parts of the paid media who dig for "good news" in Iraq. Almost invariably this good news is selective, wishful, qualified, speculative, and/or downright misleading. It doesn't hang together; often the supposed good news is an "improvement" of a situation that wasn't supposed to be bad according to older good news.

The selective nature of the good news goes hand in hand with its inconsistency, and it reflects poorly on the people who like to play up this news. For instance, a few months ago one of the supposed big signs that the surge was "working" was that Moktada Sadr had "fled" to Iran. So last week Sadr comes back, but very few of the war boosters say anything about it.

Meanwhile crucial bad news is consistent and runs deep. And probably the worst of it is that no one with any authority in Iraq has any real loyalty to the American mission. An article in the New York Times yesterday explained that many of the militia members killed the US forces turn out to be members of the Iraqi army. When the Army brags that it has trained 300,000 Iraqi troops, it's a crock, because it has trained both sides (and a lot of deadbeats).

Disloyalty to the mission runs all the way to the top. Bush has called prime minister Nouri al-Maliki "the right man for the job", but there is no way that Bush really believes that. Maliki has been a friend of Iran for 30 years and an ally of Moktada al-Sadr for 4 years. When Bush pals around with Maliki --- and with even more hardline Islamists such as Abdul Aziz al-Hakim --- that is almost an admission of defeat all by itself.

There certainly is a degree of sensationalism and oversimplification of the "bad news" side as reported on TV. (On the other hand, there are many weeks when the TV news tends to tune out from Iraq entirely.) But behind that there is an ocean of other bad news that isn't reported all that much. Any time that bad news is skipped, the "good news" types tend to take it for granted, because they are already sore about the bad news that wasn't skipped. If nothing else, the steady stream of American casualties, even though it is shallow news, does show that the US is unable to establish security in Iraq.

Posted by at May 28, 2007 10:07 AM

But now on his third deployment in Iraq, he is no longer a believer in the mission. The pivotal moment came, he says, this February when soldiers killed a man setting a roadside bomb. When they searched the bomber’s body, they found identification showing him to be a sergeant in the Iraqi Army.

“I thought: ‘What are we doing here? Why are we still here?’ ” said Sergeant Safstrom, a member of Delta Company of the First Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry, 82nd Airborne Division. “We’re helping guys that are trying to kill us. We help them in the day. They turn around at night and try to kill us.”

Sounds like the ARVNs who were the best source of
supply for the VC.

Posted by anonymous at May 28, 2007 06:40 PM

Mr. Anonymous,

When SGT Safstrom asked his chain of command that question, what answer did he get?

Thanks,

Posted by MG at May 28, 2007 07:34 PM

Offside: What the heck are you talking about Brian?

I refer to the regime's clandestine support of Sunni militants (e.g., al Qaeda) in Lebanon to combat Hezbollah as part of its new "strategery" of confrontation with Iran.

Mike: Considering it issues, as usual, from his anal orafice, it makes the same amount of sense and scent.

Are you ever not proud of being ignorant?

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh/

MG: Are you by chance referring to American materiel support to the Lebanese Army?

No. I refer to clandestine financial, materiel, and apparently active covert operations support of Sunni militants in Lebanon--many of whom blend continuously into the al Qaeda tableaux--without any form of Congressional approval or oversight. The White House is using money thrown at it by the previous Congress, under the guise of generalized Iraq funding or "war on terror" expenses, to essentially create al Qaeda networks in places where it has not previously been significant. They view this as "necessary" to combat the influence of Iran, basically pissing on the graves of the 9/11 victims for yet another delusional geopolitical theory.

Moreover, the regime isn't just concerned with limiting Iran's power, but is convinced that it intends to provide nuclear weapons to Hezbollah for use against the United States. In other words, they believe--with every bit as much psychotic conviction as they did about Iraq--that the US will be attacked with nuclear weapons if Iran obtains them. It is therefore a significant minority possibility that the regime will commit US forces to preemptive war against Iran under the War Powers Act and attempt to force Congress to back its play in a (most likely) nonnuclear Strangelove scenario.

Are you suggesting that: the US is knowingly and directly arming non-Lebanese Army members of Al Qaeda in Lebanon, or...

No, I am suggesting that the Cheney regime is knowingly and directly arming Sunni militants in Lebanon, some of whom are al Qaeda, as part of its new psychotic fixation on Iran. I am also stating that this is, fundamentally and unambiguously, TREASON.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at May 28, 2007 08:22 PM

If you want toknow more abotu Sgr Saftrom, please
contact the 82nd Airborne PAO.

Posted by anonymous at May 29, 2007 07:59 AM

Post a comment