Why we'll never win another war ever again

[JohnnyMack]

So I'm watching TV last night and one of the big 3's National News comes on and the lead story goes like this (I'm paraphrasing here obviously, but you get the idea):


Allegations are surfacing tonight that U.S. troops fired on civilians after the troops were attacked by a suicide car bomber on a populated road in Afghanistan.

Now I wasn't there so I can't tell you exactly what happened. I don't know that the U.S. troops didn't get over excited in all this. I also don't know that if in the firefight Taliban troops killed civilians. I don't know how many of the reported dead and wounded civilians are dead and wounded because of the car bomb.

The point is that it doesn't matter. A war will never again be fought the way a war needs to be fought. The media just won't allow it.

[jk the sooner fan]

thank you for recognizing this!

[sanantoniosooner]

I'd argue with you.

But you're right.

[crawfish]

Very true.

Many futuristic movies show the media being controlled by the gov't. I don't think that's necessary - the media is being invalidated by the sheer amount of spin and misinformation. We simply don't know what to believe anymore.

I usually feel I don't truly know an issue unless I've gotten liberal, conservative and moderate slants on it, and put together a coherent story that seems to match all viewpoints. It's a heck of a way to get your news.

[sanantoniosooner]

If you believe everything you are bound to be right sometime.

[n8v_ndn]

I came to this realization awhile back too. Remember at the start of this operation when the media ran stories like 'For the first time in history, journalists are embedded and on the frontlines from the beginning!'? I didn't feel I needed that access and I wondered how much this would hinder our soldiers.

[fadada1]

there's a very easy solution to this:

DON'T ALLOW THE MEDIA IN A WAR ZONE!!!! PERIOD!!!!

"embedded reporters" are putting our troops at risk in a number of ways. 1- it's another person to look out for, 2- they aren't trained in military operations, 3- i'll bet they comprimise positions more often than we think (geraldo), 4- our troops may become "gun shy" and hesitate because they know they are on camera, and may question a needed response to a situation.

[Okla-homey]

When I was in staff college in the early nineties, we were subjected to the Clintonian DoD party line that "imbeds" were good because they would be persuaded by their close contact with their assigned units that we were the "good guys." The status quo is an outgrowth of that philosophy.

That notion has been soundly thrashed IMHO.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

After seeing 60 minutes last night, I am thinking we should shut down the innerweb, or at least prevent inter-country crossing of information on the innerweb without severe controls.

I am surprised that the DoD or some entity hasn't shut it down. It is in the national security interests to prevent the jihadists from communicating on the innerweb.

That and prevent all journalists to wait some prescribed period of time before they can file their reports.

[royalfan5]

After seeing 60 minutes last night, I am thinking we should shut down the innerweb, or at least prevent inter-country crossing of information on the innerweb without severe controls.

I am surprised that the DoD or some entity hasn't shut it down. It is in the national security interests to prevent the jihadists from communicating on the innerweb.

That and prevent all journalists to wait some prescribed period of time before they can file their reports.
Better do the postal service and parcel delivery too then.

[King Crimson]

well, it's really not the media that's the issue. as pitiful as they are at "the news" the assumption here is that what they say such as "firing on civilians" affects popular public opinion and then the elected officials representing them have to double over backwards in all kinds of pretzel logics of contradiction to stay elected.

there's a disconnect here in the original post. it's real easy to scapegoat "the media" (the so-called both sides do it constantly)....but it's less easy to see that it's consumer driven like everything else in the media market. the real logic at play is that there is a belief that if the media say something like "firing on civilians" that it has effects in public/popular opinion....to which policy then must remake itself......in this example, to the detriment of winning the war.

so, it's a little awry to say the media do this all on their own. they are a mirror of our social system....albeit a deformed one driven by profit motives mostly....but a reflection nonetheless. you can't take citizens/consumers of news/viewers out of the equation....media do not exist on some planet unto themselves....which is apparently "planet scapegoat".

i personally find the MSM (which includes FOX and Rush) unwatchable except as a hanging curveball of a critical exercise in "what is happening, but with no explanation of causes but merely catch phrases and bogus "analytical categories" that make difficult issues into easily digestible parts of a simplistic worldview".....and essentially a morality play with all the emotional sophistication of the puppy dog gets a new home or polar bears finally mating at the zoo stories that are soon to follow. so, we don't think the world is a "downer"...'cause downers are bad for ratings. but, again, it's consumer driven. if the ratings weren't there, it wouldn't be like that.

obviously, the question of troop position is a different one altogether.

[85Sooner]

In WW2 there would have been some fraging at this point. I am surprised its not happening now.


Ooops sorry mister reporter you were in the way. RIP

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Maybe it's going to take some additional 9-11-type attacks to change the minds of the media?

[Okla-homey]

Maybe it's going to take some additional 9-11-type attacks to change the minds of the media?

ding-ding-ding...we have a winnuh!

[Okla-homey]

Sorry, folks, it's not the media, it's us.
We have no stake in this war. By we, I mean jaux and most folks who read this (jk is one exception I know of, sorry if I miss others).

We are still going to games, BBQing, getting on the drunkytown bus, worrying about our next job, and checking out youtube. We talk about victory and kicking arse but what are we willing to risk for victory? It will take more effort than we are willing to give.

I respecfully dissent. We all have a stake. The very fact we can do the things you cite are proof positive that the policy is working. I hate to use the old tire-worn "away game" analogy, but there it is. I predict that if, in 30 mos. after GWB leaves office, the new guys decide to redeploy our forces, there is going to be hell to pay. Book it.

[FaninAma]

If we didn't have a Jerry Springer/Oprah Winfrey type of national intellect in regards to learning about important issues in this country the media wouldn't be able to get away with the type of slanted reporting they are presenting.

Let's face it, the general population of this country is intellectually lazy in regards to the amount of time and effort they spend trying to educate themselves about issues that will affect their quality of life as well as that of their children and grandchildren.

It makes me nervous to start hearing comments that it's OK for the government or military to screen the media reports coming into the country.

I am OK with the notion of the military not allowing reporters to near the actual fighting but if they totally ignore the media then the misinformation would be even worse.

We as individuals have to be responsible enough to critically analyze the issues that the media is reporting on and recognize that the media is ever increasingly made up of individuals with an agenda and who really have less expertise on the subjects they cover than many of the readers.

In other words, consider the source.

[PAW]

Maybe it's going to take some additional 9-11-type attacks to change the minds of the media?

I wonder about that, but if true . . . their minds will be changed at some point.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

QUESTION:
1)so, it's a little awry to say the media do this all on their own. they are a mirror of our social system....albeit a deformed one driven by profit motives mostly....

2)i personally find the MSM (which includes FOX and Rush)

ANSWER:1)The MSM is driven more by ideology than profit. If it was profit, they would have backed the war effort all along, instead of always trying to sabotage our own troops and president.
2) YOU WISH the MSM included FOXNEWS and Rush. Those two are members of the New Media or Alternative Media.
You, of course know what I have said is true, but refuse to accept it, for some reason.

[royalfan5]

The only worthwhile media is CNBC and the economist.

[fadada1]

my overall opinion... the media has zero, nadda, none, and absoultely no business in a war zone. for a short time, i was involved (meaning, i was in training) with naval special warfare. that being said, there are things that men do on the battlefield that we simply don't need to know about. ther are people (some of whom i still know) that are doing things that most can't fathom. it should stay that way.

war is a dirty, mean, nefarious business. imo, when you start to involve a segment of the population that get's their military information and knowledge from the history channel, bad things happen when they see it up close and personal. by that, i mean it's "live and in color." people don't fall down when they get shot, like in the movies - bodies are destroyed in real wars. and civilians get killed in real life (unlike the movies).

i think many of the media members (reporters and producers) want to think they understand what war is all about, but they don't. bad things happen when bullets fly... VERY bad things. people change when they are faced with life and death - they make poor decisions... the make heroic decisions. what reporter has the right to judge any soldier in a combat situation????? not a single one, if you ask me.

[OhU1]

I still want to know what we will win and how we'll know we won when we do win.

[fadada1]

I still want to know what we will win and how we'll know we won when we do win.
when we make iraq a democratic nation full of christians that eat at mcdonalds.

;)

[Hamhock]

how about the time a few years ago, when we did a beach landing and the cameras were there waiting on us?? where was that? somalia??

[FaninAma]

I still want to know what we will win and how we'll know we won when we do win.

Iraq is only one battle in the war, albeit an important battle. The fact that there are so many ready to give up already would seem to bode ill for this country.

[fadada1]

how about the time a few years ago, when we did a beach landing and the cameras were there waiting on us?? where was that? somalia??
yes, somalia. and those guys were P!SSED!!!!!!

fyi, we were there long before the stuff we saw on TV. trust me on this one.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Iraq is only one battle in the war, albeit an important battle. The fact that there are so many ready to give up already would seem to bode ill for this country.It's VERY unfortunate for all of us, IMO. We have this chance to nip it in the bud, so to speak, but if we cut-N-run, it's going to come at us bigger and way badder.

[Hatfield]

http://zaydoun.blogspot.com/Images/rivera.jpg

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

http://zaydoun.blogspot.com/Images/rivera.jpgNeeds a narrative from you.

[OhU1]

Iraq is only one battle in the war, albeit an important battle. The fact that there are so many ready to give up already would seem to bode ill for this country.

Yeah I hear ya.

We are fickle about war in this country. We seemed all but eager to rush into Iraq though IMO the case was not made what Iraq had to do with "terror" - at least relating to the U.S.

This "war on terror" seems about as nebulous and winnable as the "war on drugs". In the meantime politicians can claim they are doing something about the problem and being tough.

[OklahomaTuba]

I still want to know what we will win and how we'll know we won when we do win.

A better question to ask is, what does Al Qaida and Iran win if we lose or cut and run away.

[fadada1]

http://zaydoun.blogspot.com/Images/rivera.jpg
okie state's next starting offensive guard???

[GrapevineSooner]

I'm thinking that's Geraldo giving away military secrets on Fox News.

Caused him to lose his embedded reporter credentials IIRC.

[OklahomaTuba]

This "war on terror" seems about as nebulous and winnable as the "war on drugs". In the meantime politicians can claim they are doing something about the problem and being tough.

If you are comparing the GWOT to the war on drugs, You must have missed the two nations we invaded, the two new democracies we helped establish, the thousands of troops we have on the ground in those two nations, and the thousands of terrorists we have killed or captured.

[Hatfield]

Needs a narrative from you.


:confused:

people are griping about the media.
that is a shot of geraldo drawing a map in the sand of where our troops were.
that was ignorant on his part.
seemed relevant to the thread.

[KABOOKIE]

We'll never win another war because most punk kids and young adults in this country care more about American Idol than what Mr. Raghead Jihad is doing.

[JohnnyMack]

I was using a specific example to illustrate a broader point. This has nothing to do with Iraq or Afghanistan specifically more I was commenting on the way information is dispersed to the general public. This has been happening for at least 30 years and I can't see it changing anytime soon. Fan you made a great point about considering the source when watching the news. I guess it's just frustrating that we as the general population have to work so hard to disseminate the information that comes at us. The apalling slant put on that story last night just made me shake my head. Instead of taking the time to line out exatcly what took place in the engagement they decided to villify the actions of our troops and make those responsible for the situation a non-factor.

I can just imagine the radio broadcast of the news in 1944:


Today, farmer Jacques LeMaire and his family, along with 8 heads of cattle were shot dead by American soldiers outside the French village of St. Mere Eglise. The American soldiers claim they were returning fire on a German machine gun squad that was holed up in the LeMaire's barn and that the farmer and his family were caught in the crossfire. One member of the LeMaire family survived and said that the American troops were firing wildly about, shooting everything that moved. :rolleyes:

[Hatfield]

i don't know that it is an attempt to villify our troops due to the "allegedly" type bs language.

in today's world of instant access to news/info/etc. it seems they don't feel they have time to find out what happened and report on it...they have to be first to get it out there...and if they are wrong they can always just bury a retraction somewhere on page 29.

news needs to be called "what might have happened"

sucks.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I was using a specific example to illustrate a broader point. This has nothing to do with Iraq or Afghanistan specifically more I was commenting on the way information is dispersed to the general public. This has been happening for at least 30 years and I can't see it changing anytime soon. Fan you made a great point about considering the source when watching the news. I guess it's just frustrating that we as the general population have to work so hard to disseminate the information that comes at us. The apalling slant put on that story last night just made me shake my head. Instead of taking the time to line out exatcly what took place in the engagement they decided to villify the actions of our troops and make those responsible for the situation a non-factor.

I can just imagine the radio broadcast of the news in 1944:

:rolleyes:kudos

[Jeopardude]

ANSWER:1)The MSM is driven more by ideology than profit. If it was profit, they would have backed the war effort all along, instead of always trying to sabotage our own troops and president.
2) YOU WISH the MSM included FOXNEWS and Rush. Those two are members of the New Media or Alternative Media.
You, of course know what I have said is true, but refuse to accept it, for some reason.

This response and your inability to follow a friggin' Chelsea Handler routine show you're not to be taken seriously.

1) Did you see the Bush news conference before the Iraq invasion? Did you see the coverage of Colin Powell's UN speech? How can you say the media tried to sabotage this from the get-go? (and covering the events is not "sabotaging" it either). Those pussies didn't question anything.

2) FOX News is MSM. Period. They're a 24 hour news channel. They have programming a la CNN. Sure they get talking points from a higher up in the morning and wear their beliefs on their sleeve, but they purport to be fair and balanced like all the others.

And I won't mention that one man. I've sworn that since I saw a relative of mine afflicted with advanced Parkinson's whose symptoms are manifest. I saw what agony he was in and the horrible twisted spasms that coursed through his body. I then thought of your namesake's grotesque mean-spirited impression of a person with a disease to make a political point, it was apparent he will never be mentioned again by me. He's worthless.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

This response and your inability to follow a friggin' Chelsea Handler routine show you're not to be taken seriously.

1) Did you see the Bush news conference before the Iraq invasion? Did you see the coverage of Colin Powell's UN speech? How can you say the media tried to sabotage this from the get-go? (and covering the events is not "sabotaging" it either). Those pussies didn't question anything.

2) FOX News is MSM. Period. They're a 24 hour news channel. They have programming a la CNN. Sure they get talking points from a higher up in the morning and wear their beliefs on their sleeve, but they purport to be fair and balanced like all the others.

And I won't mention that one man. I've sworn that since I saw a relative of mine afflicted with advanced Parkinson's whose symptoms are manifest. I saw what agony he was in and the horrible twisted spasms that coursed through his body. I then thought of your namesake's grotesque mean-spirited impression of a person with a disease to make a political point, it was apparent he will never be mentioned again by me. He's worthless.Were you at the Chelsea Handler show at 8PM yesterday in Tempe?

[Osce0la]

I stopped believing the media when they said Rich Rodriguez was going to be the next head coach at Alabama - and they said Saban would be coaching the Dolphins in 2007. :D

[def_lazer_fc]

i think most people know the media is b.s. it's all been dilluted into talking points. they never actually report on anything imo. they take what the politicians say and leave it at that, never taking the time to say, "hey, what a second. what just came out of your mouth is complete b.s." even when they have past recordings to prove when politicians are lying, they still roll over to em. i think what jon stewart said when he was a guest on 'crossfire' summed up the current state of our media. they finally got rid of that show, maybe hannity and colmes will be axed next.

[usmc-sooner]

Sorry, folks, it's not the media, it's us.
We have no stake in this war. By we, I mean jaux and most folks who read this (jk is one exception I know of, sorry if I miss others).

We are still going to games, BBQing, getting on the drunkytown bus, worrying about our next job, and checking out youtube. We talk about victory and kicking arse but what are we willing to risk for victory? It will take more effort than we are willing to give.

I had stake in it. I think most Americans don't actually realize what's at stake. They take their news with whatever slant fits them, add that to certain people deliberately trying to tank the war support. But I agree for most people it doesn't hit close enough to home.

[def_lazer_fc]

so are the conservatives here saying dissent is frowned upon?

[Jerk]

so are the conservatives here saying dissent is frowned upon?

No, I do it all the time myself. See the global warming thread.

[OhU1]

so are the conservatives here saying dissent is frowned upon?
Conservatives and GW fans/apologists are not necessarily one in the same.