Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I believe the rationale is as follows:

Soldier bashing news media for leftist bias and persuing an agenda?

Dog bites man story. Not news.

Soldier bashing administration policy?

Man bites dog story. News.

If this were a WAPO reporter/editor bashing the MSM for leftist bias, THEN it would be news by their definition.

Of course, you wouldn't see that printed either.

Posted by K at October 13, 2007 12:15 PM

The pen is mightier then the sword

Posted by at October 13, 2007 12:31 PM

That's correct, it really isn't news. Every military defeat in every democracy has always been blamed on the media. It's not that we're losing, it's that traitors are making it look like we're losing. Anyone with even a shred of skepticism of big government realizes that this excuse comes automatically, in every failure. It's not an explanation that you hear when victory is genuine.

What is newsworthy is not any of the specifics of Sanchez's finger-pointing. Even his criticism of his superiors, while it does have many valid points, does not add up. The real turn of events is simply that Sanchez has no faith in the war that he ran. Success has a thousand fathers, failure is an orphan.

Posted by Jim Harris at October 13, 2007 12:53 PM

As Limbaugh says, if it doesn't fit the news template of the MSM, or the "Drive-by-Media" it doesn't get reported or it gets changed. He found that out in spades a few weeks ago.

This is a another blaring example of the MSM's agenda/template driven propaganda. I fear for our country.

Posted by Don at October 13, 2007 12:56 PM

That's correct, it really isn't news. Every military defeat in every democracy has always been blamed on the media.

I'm sure that Mr Harris will provide us with citations for his thesis shortly.

[crickets chirping...]

Hint: we are not being militarily defeated in Iraq (nor were we in Vietnam).

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 13, 2007 12:59 PM

Hint: we are not being militarily defeated in Iraq (nor were we in Vietnam).

Those two examples will do for starters. Whatever you would like to call them, they are both self-defeats. Vietnam was a war to nowhere, and so is Iraq. They are like a bridge to nowhere, except that they are thousands of times more expensive.

But if you want more examples, there was also the French war in Algeria. And Israel's invasion of South Lebanon --- the first one, that lasted 18 years. Then too, they denounced the treachery of newspapers.

Posted by Jim Harris at October 13, 2007 01:22 PM

Yes, exactly. Self defeats (i.e., needless surrenders), because of inaccurate reporting by the press. Not military defeats.

Still waiting for you to make your case. Not holding our breath.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 13, 2007 01:26 PM

I imagine Germany in the Great War was entirely blamed on
the Jewish Media.

I'd be curious of the Confederacy blamed their defeat on the media.

India failed in the Sri Lankan campaign, that's an interesting example.

Russia failed in Chechnya, i know the russians blamed the media on that.

Belgium failed in the Congo Occupation, they sure blamed the
media on that.

Most of the decolonilzation efforts of the 1940's and 50's were
blamed on the media.

The french blamed the media for their defeat in vietnam.

Posted by at October 13, 2007 01:39 PM

I imagine Germany in the Great War was entirely blamed on the Jewish Media.

I'd be curious of the Confederacy blamed their defeat on the media.

India failed in the Sri Lankan campaign, that's an interesting example.

Russia failed in Chechnya, i know the russians blamed the media on that.

Belgium failed in the Congo Occupation, they sure blamed the media on that.

Most of the decolonilzation efforts of the 1940's and 50's were blamed on the media.

The french blamed the media for their defeat in vietnam.

Can you provide any basis for your deranged, ungrammatical and misspelled ravings, Anonymous Moron?

Do you people have any idea of how pathetic you look?

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 13, 2007 01:44 PM

Yes, exactly. Self defeats (i.e., needless surrenders), because of inaccurate reporting by the press.

No possible inaccuracies in the media can do as much damage as fictions at the top. The commander in chief himself said, four years ago, that major combat in Iraq was over. It could hardly have been less true; major combat had just started. What that meant was they had not prepared for any more major combat. 90% of the war has been off script. And that is why it can be fairly called a war to nowhere.

Since it is a war to nowhere, there will be no surrender, needless or otherwise. There is no one to surrender to. All we can do is declare victory and go home. That is the one thing that the war faction does not want to do. They will never, ever be satisfied with what they brought on.

Posted by Jim Harris at October 13, 2007 01:48 PM

I see Jim is still a surge denialist.

Jim, the surge worked and we are well on our way to winning. I know that does not fit your narrative but it is the truth.

Posted by Mike Puckett at October 13, 2007 02:28 PM

In other words, you are completely clueless as to the meaning of the phrase "major combat."

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 13, 2007 02:31 PM

Rand Stated :
", you are completely clueless as to the meaning of the phrase "major combat.""

I'm sure that's a distinction lost on the marines who died at Najaf,
for both battles.

Posted by at October 13, 2007 03:28 PM

Rand Stated :
", you are completely clueless as to the meaning of the phrase "major combat.""

I'm sure that's a distinction lost on the marines who died at Najaf,
for both battles.

Posted by at October 13, 2007 03:28 PM

Yeah, because AQI has been coming at us with tanks, artillery, lots of guys in uniforms with rifles, and some planes. After all, that's essentially what "major combat" means, right? As opposed to "guerilla" actions or "terrorism"?

And WRT Vietnam, didn't they fight off a fairly conventional invasion in 1972, with our support but with mostly their own troops? And wasn't it conventional, uniformed soldiers with tanks, and not black-pajama-wearing blo^H^H^H guerillas, that sacked Saigon in 1975? Now, *that* sounds like "major combat", to me.

Posted by Big D at October 13, 2007 03:42 PM

The idea that "major combat" only refers to enemies who have specific weapon types such as tanks and airplanes is just nonsense revisionism. It has nothing to do with real military terminology. It serves no purpose other than to make Bush look less wrong than he actually was. Not long before Bush declared the end of major combat in Iraq, Rumsfeld declared the end of major combat in Afghanistan. He used the same phrase, "major combat", even though the Taliban had just a few age-old aircraft and tanks. Rumsfeld was clearly not referring to wiping out this their token air force and token tank brigade, which in fact was achieved long before his announcement.

As for artillery, yes some of the insurgent groups in Iraq still use artillery. The Green Zone has been hit with artillery many times.

No, what Bush and Rumsfeld clearly meant was the usual dictionary meaning of major: large-scale in general. That is the only logical meaning that "major combat" has ever had. But they were both colossally wrong about that. Combat has been on the same scale after as before.

Just like Cheney was massively wrong when he said two and a half years ago that the insurgency was in its "last throes".

I don't know why you guys feel the need to tie your tongues with an obvious matter like "major combat", as if you each were the White House Press Secretary. What is the point of defending the indefensible?

Posted by Jim Harris at October 13, 2007 04:25 PM

"What is the point of defending the indefensible?"

The irony of that coming from a surge denialist.

Posted by Mike Puckett at October 13, 2007 05:37 PM

Jim,
I like this phrase "nonsense revisionism". It doesn't really mean anything, but it makes you sound smart.

What's gonna be indefensible is your house if these guys get untied in Iraq and Afghanistan by us pulling out willy nilly. It will prove to the undecided masses that we are defeatable and that we are cowards. I'd rather our troops have to fight radical Islam in the Middle East, than in the Midwest.

And just for the record, both my sons have been over there. The older one is career military and will no doubt go back. Their fear is that their kids will have this fight later, if it doesn't get finished now. I have 5 grandsons / 0 granddaughters. They don't want those sons fighting these same enemies.

So the answer is YES, even if my own sons have to go, I think it has to be done.

Posted by Steve at October 13, 2007 05:45 PM

Big D

So when 3 American brigades reduce the city of Ramadi
to attempt to kill a few hundred Al-Qaeda and Sunni Insurgents
is that Major Combat?

When more american troops die taking a single city
then died in the whole invasion is that major combat?

Posted by at October 13, 2007 05:46 PM

what's curious is the studied silence from the Right when
LtG Sanches (AUS-Ret) says the Army is living a nightmare
in Iraq. I'm just kind of curious what the opinions here are
on that.

Is Sanchez a democrat?

A terrorist?

A coward?

Why is he saying this?

Maybe he's a phony soldier?

Posted by at October 13, 2007 05:48 PM

" ",

LTG Sanchez would have to be much more specific, for me to comment.

LTG Sanchez' overall speech makes clear that elements of the nightmare include:

Media reps that care more about feathering their careers, than of living up to journalistic "ethics".

A State Department that he considered absent (or perhaps undermining?).

A general lack of the unified use of all elements of American power.

Any of these could be considered a "nightmare", without asserting that we are in a hopeless cause.

So, without LTG Sanchez's specific explanation for the "nightmare" aspect, there isn't much else to say. His comment is too general to mean anything.

Posted by MG at October 13, 2007 06:01 PM

" ",

LTG Sanchez would have to be much more specific, for me to comment.

LTG Sanchez' overall speech makes clear that elements of the nightmare include:

Media reps that care more about feathering their careers, than of living up to journalistic "ethics".

A State Department that he considered absent (or perhaps undermining?).

A general lack of the unified use of all elements of American power.

Any of these could be considered a "nightmare", without asserting that we are in a hopeless cause.

So, without LTG Sanchez's specific explanation for the "nightmare" aspect, there isn't much else to say. His comment is too general to mean anything.

Posted by MG at October 13, 2007 06:02 PM

I think Sanchez is somewhat bitter about the way his career ended and that is understandable. However, I have never understood the wisdom of taking reporters to the battle. They tend to get in the way, report biased stories to keep their editors happy and generally need quite a bit of mollycoddling. Get them out of the front lines and let the soldiers do their job.

I have a feeling that Sanchez spoke from the heart, using a freedom to express himself that he did not have as an officer. The general tone is one of utter frustration at not being able to do his job - or maybe fighting two wars - one in Iraq and one against the media.

Having said all this I have to say that I am very glad I am not serving with any of you; you'd be debating the wisdom of every order and looking for nuance in every statement. You'd still be talking when the enemy were engaging us in hand-to-hand combat.

Posted by Andy Clark at October 13, 2007 06:09 PM

I like this phrase "nonsense revisionism". It doesn't really mean anything, but it makes you sound smart.

And it's more euphonic than the other talking-point catchphrase he's peddling, "war to nowhere". But I expect to see a lot more of the latter as that fad works its way through the lefty blogs and blog commentors.

Posted by T.L. James at October 13, 2007 07:27 PM

Let me see if I understand the argument:

-Bush made mistakes.

-Bush failed to anticipate events that everyone else also failed to anticipate.

-Therefore, either we a) have lost, b) are losing or c) will lose.

-Therefore, we should either a) withdraw unilaterally, b) stop trying to win or c) admit that we can't do anything right.

I've seen variations of this argument again and again. The one thing it lacks is the one thing that matters: a coherent set of suggestions for how we should proceed that is based on something more than wishful thinking or a desire to rub other people's faces in the imagined fact of American failure. The naysayers always want us to define victory to their satisfaction, but they never want to discuss what defeat for us might look like if their wishful scenarios turn out to be wrong. They imagine a middle ground to which we can retreat without suffering future attacks.

But no middle way is possible with an enemy that wants to destroy our society. If our giving in is not an option, then winning is the only alternative, even if it means overturning the regimes of Syrian and Iran (and perhaps a few other countries). We may as well get used to the prospect.

Posted by Jonathan at October 13, 2007 07:52 PM

The surge worked and we are well on our way to winning

I am not completely sure how to explain the situation to someone who is confident that Fred Thompson will be nominated instead of those shlemiels Giuliani and Romney. If your philosophy is that positive thinking conquers all problems, then naturally you believe in victory in Iraq. You're also well-prepared to survive cancer.

But certainly there is one thing that the surge isn't doing: bringing sense to the mission.

Surge or no surge, the US mission in Iraq supports an Iraqi government that is controlled by militias that it opposes. Moktada al-Sadr still has six cabinet ministers in that government, even though they may boycott Maliki every other week. Sadr still controls the hospital network. Maliki is still pro-Iranian. Their new tribal allies in Anbar are still polygamist and Islamist. The surge buys time for no purpose; it is still a war to nowhere.

Posted by Jim Harris at October 13, 2007 10:27 PM

Nope.

It was a full scale invasion of the North Vietnam Army.

Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to look foolish spouting off about history.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at October 13, 2007 10:43 PM

Therefore, we should either a) withdraw unilaterally, b) stop trying to win or c) admit that we can't do anything right.

They should admit that they can't do Iraq right. Iraq is not all things. It shouldn't even be a fifth of the war on terrorism. Unfortunately, according to their priorities, they have made the rest of the world a fifth of the war on terrorism and Iraq four-fifths. They are fighting for the reputations rather than to protect America.

a coherent set of suggestions for how we should proceed

They should get out of Iraq and win the war on terrorism everywhere else in the world, to begin with in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They should rub their own faces in their current failure because that is what the world's best people do. They should follow the example of Boeing, which wisely postponed the Dreamliner because it is a brave big plan that is just not working. Instead Boeing can continue to build planes that make sense for itself and for America.

Bush failed to anticipate events that everyone else also failed to anticipate.

You said in another thread that the trillion dollars that the Iraq war will cost was just one of life's little surprises.

But you are wrong about that. Bush was warned about everything that he failed to anticipate, but he pushed it all aside with his axiom that loyalty is only important kind of competence. Paul O'Neill warned that Iraq would cost $200 billion --- he was fired. (If only it cost that little!) Eric Shinseki warned that it would take 200-300 thousand troops to stabilize Iraq --- they said who cares what Shinseki has to say, he's retiring. Hans Blix said that he didn't know whether Iraq had WMD --- they said that they'll find those WMD as soon they get that troublemaker Hans Blix out of the way.

But no middle way is possible with an enemy that wants to destroy our society.

The truth is that our pro-Iranian adventure in Iraq only makes that destruction more likely. But if you are not prepared to believe that, then you should at least heed this: When Giuliani was asked about failure in Iraq, he said that "we have to be ready for that too". If elected, he will handle Iraq the same way that he handled his Senate race against Hillary Clinton. (Although that's quite an if, given that he will be up against her again!) For some, it will be another of life's little surprises.

Posted by Jim Harris at October 13, 2007 10:54 PM

Guiliani will not be the nominee.

He has far too much baggage to secure the Republican nomination.

Posted by Mike Puckett at October 13, 2007 11:22 PM

My question is this: why the strange aversion to lower case letters? Surely one of the major skills of a general is the ability to communicate clearly to subordinates and superiors. Long paragraphs written entirely in capital letters would seem to run counter to that.

Posted by Will McLean at October 14, 2007 06:40 AM

I doubt he transcribed that.

Posted by Mike Puckett at October 14, 2007 08:11 AM

I think a healthy dose of criticism is a good thing. Ask any top notch athlete or performer and they will probably admit that they are extremely critical of their own abilities and that is what causes one to strive for perfection. The mainstream media does have that responsibility to remain highly critical of our actions militarily. It is one of the reasons I think our armed services acts as professionally. It is that professionalism that in part is what is winning this war for us. The Iraqi people deal with the thuggery of the Al Qaeda and then deal with the U.S. and they see the remarkable differences in how business is handled. They choose to side with us because we are earnest, capable, and respectful.

I would not say that our military commanders are so thin skinned that they are unable to take this criticism. I am certain that feed off of it to strive for more and consistently exceed expectations. I believe that where they draw the line and being to grow anger of the actions of the mainstream media is when they being to carry the other teams banner and help to spread the enemies propaganda to diminish what we have accomplished and obfuscate the republic's perceptions. Even when the enemy is incapacitated and life begins to return to normal for the Iraqi's to the point when refuges actually want to return their will always be the self doubt and naysay of the MSM and their lefty rhetoric. Nothing, it seems, will ever be good enough for them.

Posted by Josh Reiter at October 14, 2007 06:50 PM

Well said Josh Reiter and I bet each and every one of those athletes and performers (and anyone else) assumes everyone would understand that they're talking about constructive criticism.

Posted by Habitat Hermit at October 15, 2007 04:22 AM

The mainstream media does have that responsibility to remain highly critical of our actions militarily. It is one of the reasons I think our armed services acts as professionally. It is that professionalism that in part is what is winning this war for us.

That is true to an extent, but tragically the establishment's willingness to listen to criticism is too little, too late. It is true, for instance, that the Pentagon no longer puts torturers and murderers above the law --- if they are uniformed soldiers. If they are mercenary contractors or CIA interrogators, the establishment still isn't listening; they can still torture and murder people without punishment. In the most recent incident, contractors gunned down two Armenian Christian women in Baghdad.

The rule of law for the American occupation is a grave issue, but it is small potatoes compared to the wooden ears at the top. When people warn that the Iraqi government is pro-Iranian, or that Kurdistan is seceding from Iraq in all but name, the White House just doesn't want to know. They do not understand the nature of Iraqi sovereignty, and therefore the nature of what they are fighting for in Iraq. They do not want to be told that the Iraq war has no logical strategic goal.

Posted by Jim Harris at October 15, 2007 07:46 AM

I wonder why the people quoting Sanchez's talk about a "nightmare" don't also quote this:

America has no choice but to continue our efforts in Iraq. A precipitous withdrawal will unquestionably lead to chaos that would endanger the stability of the greater Middle East. If this occurs it would have significant adverse effects on the international community. Coalition and American force presence will be required at some level for the foreseeable future. Given the lack of a grand strategy we must move rapidly to minimize that force presence and allow the Iraqis maximum ability to exercise their soveriegnty in achieving a solution.

Posted by Annoying Old Guy at October 15, 2007 11:32 AM

Russia still occupies Chechnya;as it did 150 years ago they have a proxy baby warlord, which
the New York Times has just whitewashed. India
is still active in Sri Lanka. The Belgians no longer have any influence in the Congo (Zaire &
the Democratic Republic)and Rwanda; which as not been a good thing. The mukhtars and sheiks of Ramadi and Fallujah, have finally come to realize
that we're the lesser evil compared to AQ in Iraq

Posted by narciso at October 15, 2007 08:21 PM

Post a comment