Is this shit fair? Hell no, but it is reality and even the mighty U.S. military cannot redefine reality as it sees fit. We must live and learn, refine, be flexible, get smarter as we go.
Words of wisdom from Jackson Diehl in the Washington Post:
- Last week Arab satellite channels replayed — over and over again, in slow motion, with special graphics and explanatory narration — the videotape of an American Marine appearing to shoot a wounded insurgent inside a mosque in Fallujah. They meanwhile declined to show the tape, made available the same day, of a terrorist firing a bullet into the head of Margaret Hassan, a British humanitarian worker whose abduction outraged many Iraqis.
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Louise Arbour, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, called for an investigation of the Marine's action as well as other alleged instances of U.S. "war crimes" in Fallujah. That the Marine had already been withdrawn from action and an official probe launched did not deter them. Arbour cited — on what basis she did not say — "the deliberate targeting of civilians, indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks, the killing of injured persons and the use of human shields." The beheading of Western captives in Fallujah, and the terror imposed on the city's population by Islamic extremists before the U.S. operation, went unmentioned.
....U.S. commanders could learn something from the Israelis, who, [Israeli journalist Zeev] Schiff says, found out the hard way that "this is not World War II" and that "the legitimization of international public opinion" is needed to fight terrorists successfully. A turning point came in July 2002, when the Israeli air force killed a Hamas leader by demolishing a block of houses in Gaza: Thirteen civilians were killed, and even the Bush White House joined the international chorus of condemnation, calling the attack "heavy-handed."
Article comments
1 - Keith Sikora
In an October issue of The New Yorker, Hendrik Hertzberg wrote an editorial lambasting the policies of Vladimir Putin against Chechen terrorists, in the wake of the Russian school massacre that killed 330 hostages. He described how Putin had convinced the Chechen people that the war against Chechen terrorists was a war on them as well.
Episodes such as this
2 - Aaman
The difference between the propaganda of today and that of the 1930s is that both the State and the opposition have access to media, thereby both can convey their message, and the loudest, not necessarily the best message wins in the (global)village square
3 - Keith Sikora
should serve as a stark warning to U.S. officials that while American citizens may believe that the war in Iraq is a war on Terror, our primary objective should be to convince the people of Iraq.
While I do believe that we need to, as Mr. Olsen said, demonstrate our resolve to our enemies, I don't think that we are infallible in our behavior either, as this and our atrocities at Abu Ghraib demonstrate.
So, that's my 1 1/2 cent on it. Go Buckeyes, and get me the hell out of the politics column.
4 - Eric Olsen
thanks Keith and Aaman, excellent points both - and since we aren't perfect we have to be smarter than we have been.
And Aaman, the Middle Eastern cable channels in particular have shown a fascination with the Theater of Blood and wallow in its emotion-lathering capabilities
5 - Temple Stark
Question apropos only tangently
If there were a war on American soil, what would American TV show of attrocities against Americans?
Al Jazeera is necessary, but it has shown grave errors if it wants to hold any mantle of "objectivity." By its words it does, by its actions it does not.
"Assleak" was unneccesary. The piece sounded reasoned and reasonable until then. You don't know much about her, I assume, other then this one action.
6 - Eric Olsen
perhaps unnecessary, but she has shown a pattern of similar behavior leading to a fairly confident use of "assleak"
7 - jadester
you just can't hopw to beat these people using even somewhat similar tactics. The fact is, though this may be the only tape of something like this happening so far, i'd bet the average Arab would be of the mindset that, while the terrorists mostly seem to revel in having tapes of their executions of foreign prisoners shown on TV, the US military would take pains to stop any videos of deliberate killings of civilians being seen by the rest of the world. The US are (udnerstandably) more worried than the terrorists about their public image.
We are the outsiders in Iraq, so it is us that have by far the most work to do there.
8 - Temple A. Stark
OK,
I do realize people almost never ever use inordinate name-calling in online argument, but I thought I'd ask anyway.
:)
9 - boomcrashbaby
Focusing on name calling, while it might be wrong, but disregarding the bigger picture is about as productive as not covering the protests of Bush in Chile, because a ball player got a beer thrown on him. We need to focus.
the legitimization of international public opinion" is needed to fight terrorists successfully
THIS is what liberals have been saying ever since Bush announced he intended to invade Iraq. The response from the right has ALWAYS been 'who gives a fuck what other people think'.
When the next terrorist attack occurs on American soil and it is proven that Al Queda either had third party help in it, or did not even participate in it, it won't be anti-American to say "I told you so."
10 - Eric Olsen
so anyway, the one difference I allow myself here as opposed to "mainstream media" writing is the deeply satisfying luxury of calling assleaks "assleaks"
11 - Tim Hall
Does Dawn have exclusive rights to the word "Assplow"?
12 - Eric Olsen
modestly, that one is mine as well, but she wields it much better
13 - Mark Saleski
dawn is indeed the countess of potty mouth.
14 - urthshu
Good post. Athena was writing about this as well from her vantage point in Jordan. Almost a spotlight review of al-Jazeera.
15 - copygodd
i've always been partial to "assclown" myself.
16 - SFC Ski
This thread has veered way off topic because everyone falls into the name calling trap. It would be nice if we could be civil, and nicer still if people would respond to the questions posed instead of throwing up a smokescreen of abuse.
Eric, I understand your position, but it isn't as easy as it sounds to make everyone like us and get the job done.
Though history has largely proven WWII to be a good war in the minds of all but those who oppose war in general, in itself it was not without controversy. You can read historical accounts, or talk to the few vets alive to see that combat and killing is not always a black and white event. Throughout WWII, as in many conflicts, there were people asking if it was all worth it, if there was a time to stop short of forcing unconditional surrender, if the killing was to a good end, those debates continue to this day.
I can only imagine what the mindset of that Marine was after several days of high intensity conflict, and unless any of you are combat veterans, that is the best you can do as well.
Is it unfortunate that we have an open media that can publicize these things? Ultimately in my opinion, no. What is unfortunate is that these images which are based on fact can be used and twisted to meet someone else's viewpoint.
There is undeniably a battle for the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqi people, as well as world opinion. There is also much more to the Iraqi conflict than most people are taking, parts rather than the whole. Does rebuilding the infrastructure of a country and toppling a tyrant give us free reign to kill and torture? Of course not, but to ignore the fact that alot of that is being done to our credit is to ignore significant success. This war is far from over, and is more than the military offensives currently being conducted.
Mr Diehl's idea that Israel has somehow made Palestinians less hostile is disingenous at best. No matter how well military force is applied, their will be those who do not like the use of military force, period. NOt only that, the Palestinians see themselves as one people, and are more unified against Israel. Many Iraqis see themselves as Iraqis, obviously, but in a less nationalistic sense, they are split by tribal, religious and "racial" lines. In a way, Iraq is much more like Yugoslavia pre and post Tito, various faction held together under a totalitarian, but never one people. We know what happened after Tito died, and the removal of Hussein had a similary catalytic effect.
There are those who disagree of the rightness, necessity, conduct, and ultimate outcome of this war, but I personally am still optimistic that while IRaq qill not be a closed case for a few more years, it will ultimately be viewed as a success by history, we just get to live through all the messy parts most history books don't dwell on.
17 - Eric Olsen
Ski, excellent and important points. My point is not that we will be able to be "perfect" or that war can ever be sanitized or ambiguity ever erased, but that we should now concentrate more on the PR side of it than we have. Note that Diehl didn't say Israel is no lnger killing terrorists, but that they are being much careful about how they do it, both for the sake of their own consciences and to reduce the PR fodder.
18 - SFC Ski
A big part of the problem, IMO, is that good news does not make headlines, sell papers, lead in the nightly news or fuel controversy. There are many on this forum alone who take even one casualty, on any side, to be unacceptable, therefore the whole war is unacceptable.
I think if people were to really appreciate the difficulties that the miliatry is going through in Fallujah, with a resulting increase in casualties to our own forces, versus the idea that we could very well just raze the whole city a la the Russians in Grozny, it might make a difference, but I really doubt it.
Again, the idea of one casualty invalidates all other successes, there can't be good PR in a situation like this.
19 - RJ
"i've always been partial to "assclown" myself."
Me too, ever since the genius Phil Hendrie introduced me to the term...