Strategypage on American press

[cema]

Fighting the enemy in Iraq is simple, compared to figuring out what news editors are thinking back home.

They compare modern American press with WWII Japanese propaganda. An interesting angle, but the text is a bit shallow. Well, the article is not scientific, and it is very short. And unsigned, for some reason.

Comments

[watertank.livejournal.com]

Are we still fighting the war in Iraq? I am surprised. I thought the mission was accomplished four years ago.

[cema.livejournal.com]

Yes, it was accomplished. It's a different war now.

[watertank.livejournal.com]

Well, the president didn't ask the Congress for another authorization, so it must be the same war. I hope you are not implying that the President dragged the country into a new war using the old authorization.

[cema.livejournal.com]

I don't really care much what it looks like from the legal point of view. I am talking about what is going on on the ground. It was a full-scale war, now it's a police operation.

One could argue that it is more than an operation, more like a police "war". I would agree with the first part.

[watertank.livejournal.com]

If the war, in its current form, is illegal, then the people who are conducting a "police operation" in Iraq are criminals.

I understand that you are more concerned about the situation on the ground. But from this perspective our actions in Iraq are no different from what the Soviets did in Afghanistan. It looks pretty much the same: the military is fighting insurgents.
Now, since this is our military, then the press should always support our operations and condemn theirs. Right?

[cema.livejournal.com]

Закон что дышло.

Afghanistan did not present any danger to the USSR. On the contrary, it has been under the Soviet influence since well before the invasion of 1979. A better analogy for Afghanistan would be a number of the US invasions of several American states, such as Panama.

The "military is fighting insurgents" aspect is there, but it's too broad. In the (so called) Palestinian territories, the (Israeli) military is also fighting insurgents. But the situation is obviously very different.

I will leave the last question without an answer since it is a rhetoric one.

[watertank.livejournal.com]

The last question is not a rhetorical one. Should the answer be no, then we must admit that there are situations when our press should not support our military. And after that we need to examine whether our current "police operation" in Iraq is one of those situations. Otherwise, anybody who's disagreeing with the military is an agent of enemy propaganda and a traitor.

With the "закон что дышло" approach we could go even further and say that the Bush administration holds the "дышло" now, so we can do away with the First Amendment. The press must cheer for the war in Iraq.

[cema.livejournal.com]

there are situations when our press should not support our military

If the press is in the news business, then it should not support anyone, but instead try and make an honest effort to supply the public with information about what is going on.

The current administration has not presented a strong case for the war, relied on unreliable sources and misplaced priorities. This only fed (and continues to feed) those who are blinded by the hatred of the Republican party or Bush Jr. As a result, now there are two groups of people, on the "left" and "right" sides of the conflict, whom I cannot take seriously. Fortunately, there are other people too.

[watertank.livejournal.com]

I hate to disappoint you, but most of the press is not in the news business. News as facts doesn't sell. Social psychology research shows that people believe stories much more than facts. That is why science is so difficult for many - one have to learn a whole new way of thinking, which is often useless in everyday life. It's been shown that scientists themselves have trouble relying on facts rather that fiction in areas outside of their expertise.
Here are the facts for you
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm

What can you say about the difference between "real war" and a "police operation"?

[cema.livejournal.com]

News as facts doesn't sell.

I know.

most of the press is not in the news business

True. And, of course, the job of the "press" cannot be reduced to just news business.

However, someone needs to bring the news (facts) to the public. The public tends to think it's the job of journalists, and journalists tend to think likewise.

This may be changing, however. For example, I do not rely on the professional news sources (TV/radio, newspapers) as much as I used to, but they cannot be completely avoided. I do rely more on the Internet, I mean the blogs (a newspaper online is still a newspaper), assuming a blog is an unfiltered voice of a specific person. Then it is easier to get the spin of the source and, so to speak, "unspin" it. Nobody is perfect, but some sources are more reliable than others. But this is just the news; there is also "opinion", and here it is more difficult to tell experts from wannabes.

What can you say about the difference between "real war" and a "police operation"?

The goal is different. Therefore, the rules are also different. As a consequence, actors are likely to be different too (military versus police).

As an example: it is not unknown for military forces to engage in police operations, but their mode of operation, training, etc is so different that it is hardly possible to avoid mistakes, excesses, and various bad repercussions.

[watertank.livejournal.com]

This is an interesting conversation. Let's focus on just one of its aspects ( we can discuss others later).

Specifically, let's examine how our reasoning works. We look at the data and see, arguably, a pattern of slightly increasing numbers. There's nothing in the data that tells us that the nature of the conflict had changed two months into the war. I know it, you know it, everybody knows it, but the data doesn't show it. This means that some other data is missing. What is it? How did we arrive at the conclusion that what our troops are doing now in Iraq is a "police operation", not a "regular war"?

What do you think?

[cema.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I am a bit busy. Will try to answer it later today or tomorrow.

[cema.livejournal.com]

How did we arrive at the conclusion that what our troops are doing now in Iraq is a "police operation", not a "regular war"?

I was talking about my opinion of not so much what the actions are but what the goals are. In terms of actions, police (usually special teams, like SWAT or OMON) can use a lot deadly force in a single operation, and a military team may use less than deadly force, so there are plenty of border cases. I think that considering the goals is more meaningful, especially from the broad point of view of the strategy. (I cannot say anything useful about tactics anyway.)

So the conclusion, in this case, is just one step away from the definition. Of course, we can argue about definitions etc.

I also think that, being civilians, we need to concentrate on the strategic goals. Most of the issues that are important for the civilians (assuming we accept the societal, that is, civilian control over the military and police) are of the strategic level, not tactical.

[watertank.livejournal.com]

I also think that, being civilians, we need to concentrate on the strategic goals.

So, what in your opinion are the strategic goals for the current US operation in Iraq? Are they the same as the ones in the beginning of the war? If not, when did they change and why?

[cema.livejournal.com]

Are we talking about the goals the US administration pursues or the goals I would like to see it pursue?

[watertank.livejournal.com]

I am interested in the strategic goals you see as an informed voter, as well as your evaluation of the administration's ability to deliver on them.

[eovdedn.livejournal.com]

If it is a police operation, all comparisons with WWII are moot yet tasteless. Strange choice of a point to ponder on.

[cema.livejournal.com]

It's my opinion, not that of the (anonymous?) author of the referenced article. And not that of the (majority of the) press corps.

But the comparison of the mode of operation of the press is interesting.

[eovdedn.livejournal.com]

Comparing the enemy propaganda with friendly or scathing criticism (or viewing this comparison as anything but intellectual dishonesty) is what troubles me. By the way of illustration: one could accept FDR lying to mobilize the nation in a global war; one should not accept lying to people about the course of a police operation with no clear goals and questionable means.

[cema.livejournal.com]

It's troubling in a way, but we can set it aside for a while and just enjoy the fun of it. And I do not see it as intellectual dishonesty. I see it as a shot in another (metaphorical, however) war that seems to be going on between the press and the military forces. Or, taken more broadly, between the left and right wings of the political spectrum.

one could accept FDR lying to mobilize the nation in a global war

I do not know about that. Certain things permissible when a nation is at war are not permissible during peaceful times, and certain decisions taken during a war may have side effects which would not be otherwise allowed.