It has been about two years since "shock and awe." We have created a seed of democracy in the heart of the Middle East. We have given Iraq free elections. We have deposed a truly evil dictator. We have prevented countless thousands from being tortured, raped and killed by a regime that is every bit as bad as Pol Pot or a Soviet Gulag. We have brought terrorism away from our doorstep and placed it firmly in the desert. We have placed terror at arms length. So what’s the problem?
Anyone who is familiar with a transitional phase in government will realize it is tumultuous. Forming a new government is almost never a peaceful event. Many good men and women die when a nation is being constructed. This is when Iraq’s government is still weak. It has been untested. There have been many trials and there will be many more to come. A stable nation doesn’t happen overnight. It takes time for things to happen. I hate to use the Germany example but well, it fits. We are still in Germany to this day.
On television we hear about how another bomb went off killing from one to many people. We have over 1,700 servicepersons dead in this war. I know that losing just one man or woman is a tragic loss but 1,700 is a rather small number of casualties for a war that has been “in a quagmire” for two years. Some would lead you to believe that our losses show a great hemorrhage in our ability to secure Iraq. In my eyes it is nothing more than a slow leak.
Since I mentioned our casualties, I should mention that the Iraqi people lose more than we do. They are targeted when they join the Iraqi military. They are targeted when they pray. They are targeted almost everywhere. We hear about it in the news quite frequently. It’s not just the Americans who are bleeding for the freedom of Iraq. The Iraqis are fighting and dying for their freedom as well.
So what is the cause of the remaining violence in Iraq? I would suggest that a good part of it lies with the fighting between the Sunni and Muslim factions. The Sunnis had power and now it’s with the Shi’ite majority. The Sunnis had grown accustomed to their power and will to anything within their power to retain it, including blowing themselves up. The Sunnis have found a friend in terror. They believe that the more they threaten and blow things up the more power they will be able to gain in their government.
Article comments
1 - Bryan McKay
Until the main stream media starts reporting anything good that is happening in Iraq we as bloggers have a purpose. We can shine the light on the big picture of what is happening in Iraq. We can report more than just death and failure. We can be more like Arthur Chrenkoff and report some good news from Iraq for a change.
That right there seems to answer the question posed by your title with a resounding "no." The power of news blogging comes from freedom of the press. I'm not sure if this was the conclusion you were drawing - it seemed a bit unclear to me where to reconcile your main points with the original question posed. If the mainstream media chooses to report the negative outcomes of the war, then it's your freedom to post the other sides of the story. This way, we can get a full, well-rounded picture of the war that is closer to reality. Without freedom of the press, we might hear just the positive stuff, full of White House spin, and that certainly isn't good for the soliders. The only thing that hurts the soldiers is giving people anything less than a fair and honest account of what they must endure and what they manage to accomplish in doing so.
2 - Temple Stark
The answer is - absolutely. Soldiers should just fight to survive and need no other high-faluting reasons. Pshaw.
What are you / we going to do about it?
3 - Big Time Patriot
"I have come to the conclusion that good news kills terrorism and bad news makes it grow."
It would be interesting to see a graph charting this connection. It's hard to argue against such an ancedotal connection. I might argue that when there is bad news it just raises the amount of coverage in general about Iraq and that what seems like a lull in the insurgency is just a lull in the coverage.
It would be interesting to chart the amount of Iraq insurgency coverage versus the Runaway Bride and the Micheal Jackson trial.
4 - Big Time Patriot
Also, concerning World War 2, from what I have read about it, The Montgomery guy for the British was a complete wanker and if the British population had heard more about it, perhaps he could have been replaced by someone more competent and more British soldiers might have survived the war.
If you hear bad news you can put pressure to change things (such as the humvee armor debacle). If you don't hear bad news, bad things will continue to happen with less chance of ever being fixed and you are keeping the soldiers in harms way so as to preserve the popularity of the wars leaders.
5 - Lisa McKay
I always assumed that freedom of the press was one of the principles of democracy that our soldiers have fought and died for these many years. It's the job of the press, in any free society, to print the news that a government would otherwise like to suppress. Since you consider the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq a "slow leak", do you not also consider that they are the price we pay for maintaining such freedom ourselves, and fighting for it in other countries?
6 - gracefulboomer
Well, I certainly think you are entitled to your opinion. But there are so many factors that affect war perception and reality.
Remember Bernie Shaw and Wolfe Blitzer- CNN live coverage- standing on the hotel balcony- missile whizzing by behind their heads during a surgical strike in '91? Although I'm sure reaction varied widely, everyone stood up and applauded and high-fived at my location. Now, for a little dash of irony, our surgical strikes- air power- wildly successful by any measure in Bosnia and Kosovo was covered also by the media at the urging of the U.S. military in that case to counteract false claims of genocide. I don't recall the same reaction. So maybe with media coverage there is right, left, loonies, and somewhere in the middle a baseline or at least a modicum of truth.
I had the privilege of attending a series of lectures at the Armed Forces Staff College in Norfolk during the 1968-1972 time frame. Best memory is an estimate of 32.
Great military analysts- strategic, tactical, political, and incorporating good background history on treaties, international relations, and our geopolitical changing goals. Lots of shorthand here, apologize.
Fascinating. During that time period of course the comparison was based on WW1, WW2, Korea, and Vietnam. Compare and contrast with overview of the above mentioned factors. The media's role and effect (as I recall) was a favorite during the audience participation open lectures, much less so surprisingly with the 'real deal' guys. I am not though discounting that media coverage is a factor. 'Remember the Maine"
Basic grist always came to Take Point A by whatever means necessary, Secure Point A with enough troop strength and re-supply to Take Point B, Secure Point B with enough troop strength and re-supply to; C,D,E,F etc... achieve Unconditional Surrender. Confiscation, Control and Destruction of Weapons Arsenals. Disarmament. Secured borders locked down to prevent a repeat - (re-supply of troops and weapons). Huge military presence-military law- with gradual transition back to stable civilian control.
Just listed the classic tactical WW2 war-time strategy employed as contrasted with Vietnam and certain elements of current Iraq strategy as another factor.
Isn't it possible that we consumers of news exaggerate the tension and that hopefully somewhere the analytical types take both the political bloviates and the media into consideration but base their conclusions on evidence, reports from the field, lessons learned.
Maybe in 10 years we will get to read some dynamite edifying accounts of the early years of the War with Iraq.
7 - William Morris
It would be interesting if the mainstream media were to start doing things right for a change to see what would happen. Things might get a lot better in a hurry but I dare say I don't think we will see that any time soon.
8 - billy
trust me you are way off base.
the media does not report the potentially 100000 innocent people in iraq who died in the war. Moreover, they cover a london bombing of 50 people as if the messiah has come to lift bush's approval rating, but when 50 people per day die in terror attacks in iraq, noone bats an eyelash or reports it. nor do they show our soldiers coming home in caskets.
overall you can thank the press for sanitizing this in bush's favor about as much as is possible.
9 - gracefulboomer
Sorry, Liza, did not mean to blow by your post. I wasn't at all disagreeing with you but rather responding to the orginal question.
Here is a well-worn but still nifty quote:
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." (Excerpt from "Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star," May 7, 1918.)
Maybe your viewpoint depends on what your definition of 'is' is.
10 - Mustang
Field Marshal Sir Bernard Law Montgomery was not a wanker, assuming that you mean a loser. He began his military career in 1908, so we can assume that he had a great deal of military experience leading in to World War II. He defeated Germany's finest general (Rommel), and we can assume that "wankers" are never promoted to the rank of Field Marshal. However, it is true that he had one hell of an ego, which is to be expected of the very few people who reach such lofty positions, and he was stubborn. Taking losses on the field of battle does not at all suggest that he was some kind of an idiot; in war, there are no guarantees because your opposition is probably just as talented as you are. There are so many factors in an engagement that it is impossible to list them here, but along with strategy and tactics, there is the huge problem of logistics. If you were referring to Operation Market Garden, it was an almost unsurmountable task to begin with.
Now as to whether freedom of the press is "hurting our soldiers," I doubt it. In the Marines, we didn't really care what journalists wrote, or what editors approved or published. It did not change our daily lives one bit. Did news articles give aid and comfort to the enemy? Hard to tell. It is easy to make such a claim, but difficult to say with any degree of certainty. Did the press have an effect on the folks back home? Definitely, but this is not so much a problem with the press as it is with the readership. Remember that news papers are written at the 8th grade level for a reason.
So there are a lot of variables in this topic, not to mention the relationship between journalists and their editors. It is not a perfect system, but freedom of the press is one of our most important institutions. We don't have to agree with what they say, or how they report. Without the press, who else would we have to cuss at?
11 - SFC Ski
Uh, Temple? "Soldiers should just fight to survive and need no other high-faluting reasons", I hope you were sarcastic. Soldiers do of course fight to survive, but they also usually have a reason for being there in the first place.
For my part, I and most of the Soldiers I work with ignore the press by and large, we know what they write before we finish reading the headline.
I am always surprised on the rare occasions I read articles that aren't 100% negative from the start.
12 - Temple Stark
It was sarcasm. Sorry. I thought I was becoming famous for it.
Shame you're not about the press. I see a 1001 positve stories on CNN, Network news in newspapers - real challenging stories about great men and women and their achievements.
It has lessened, of course and I'll leave you to decide why.
Maybe I see more. Depends on what you're looking for I guess.
13 - Temple Stark
Reading the thread. A lot of great comments.
14 - SFC Ski
I figured it was sarcasm.
I don't know which news you read or watch, but I see far fewer than 1001 positive stories. If there is a positive story, it is not given the front page bold type treatment. IT isn't just Iraq coverage, it's the media in general.
15 - jcrue
Mustang - Here's another quote to go with the Roosevelt one from the last (D) president:
"There is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you can love your country but despise your government." - Bill Clinton
Just my two cents.
16 - Maynard
If the Press isn't free to report what they want, and people's Speech isn't free to be critical of government policies, then what is the point?
Not saying that we should go around shouting out military secrets, or out Intelligence agents, or anything like that.
I'm just saying that those two freedoms, guaranteed by the first Amendment, help to define our country, don't they?
Take those away and it isn't America any more, it's statist totalitarianism with fundamentalists running the government. With those freedoms in place, it's still a country the people can actually do something about if they don't like what's happening.
to quote the great Gonzo, "fuck censorship"
17 - Maynard
Speaking of freedom of the Press and free speech. The powers that be just closed the Goldberg thread. I read the comment policy, and just re-read the thread. WTF?
18 - billy
this is a dumb title because even if it were true, which it is not, it would be irrelevant. freedom of speech is not negotiable for anyone, the troops, me, you, osama bin laden. it doesnt matter how any of them feel about anyone else's speech. that doesnt make the right go away.
19 - Jeremy H. Bol
I think I'm gonna need to write an article about the purpose of titles later. This is borderline Hee-larious.
Okay, the title is molded around a strongly held theory by many that bad press can cause deaths. Both sides, lefct and right, have both held and refused that theory at different times. It's an active talking point and an attention getter. According to popular journalism practices as long as the story basically relates to the headline it's close enough. I'm sure that I didn't answer the question to everyone's satisfaction. That wasn't the point of this endeavor. The point was the piece that everyone else seemed to miss.
I am absolutely NOT advocating media censorship.
I'm suggesting they make the effort to get out of the Baghdad hotel once in a while and talk to the Army Corps of Engineers in the field or the groups assigned to getting the schools the supplies they need. It has to be the regular media doing this.
Sure, we can do it as a combined effort but we, as bloggers, do not have anywhere close to the effect that a face on television and/or radio does. Does your site get over a million viewers in a one hour timespan? Didn't think so. The MSM still has more power in their little finger than the entire sphere holds. Our only effect is the rare opportunity with an indie media, like BC, gets the opportunity to talk in the MSM. We can start it but the MSM needs to follow suit.
I hope that helps to clarify a bit.
..Oh, forgot, we're doing a quote meme here: