(Page 3 of 7)
Mr. Emanuel may consider my arguments merely anecdotal, and evidence of an overall ignorance of the true strategy in Iraq. Okay, then, let's address my ignorance. Remind me, in plain English, what we are trying to accomplish. Lay out our strategic objectives, in either a logical or sequential order, using milestones, responsibilities, and estimated timing. Don't use vague phrases like "rallying tribes," "secure the population," or "win back their neighborhoods." If it isn't measurable, it isn't a legitimate milestone. Please don't ask me what the milestones should be; you're the embed, you tell me. Then tell me how much longer it will take, how many more dead we should expect, how much more it will cost. If it will take another 50 years and 10,000 funerals, be up front about it, or else we'll reach our own conclusions.
p>I suspect that it's the lack of a businesslike approach that has cost this war its public support. Businesses never undertake projects without a clear idea of what the objectives are, and what costs and benefits will accrue. What Mr. Emanuel calls a "fast-food, instant gratification culture" I call a results-oriented culture. Americans will be as patient as we need to be, but we don't enjoy throwing good money after bad, and even more, we don't sacrifice our sons and daughters lightly. We don't know what victory in Iraq even means any more because nobody will tell us what the criteria are. The only data we get are casualty counts and ridiculous stories about Abu Ghraib. We are in the fifth year of this safari, and the only hide we have to show for it is Saddam's. Is it any wonder that we are disenchanted? br> -- Jim Bono br> Midlothian, Virginia /p>An excellent piece. Mr. Emanuel's assertion that the American public is ignorant of the factual conditions with respect to Iraq and this state of ignorance leads to widespread defeatism is, I think, correct.
The question is why is the American public ignorant of the factual conditions even in an age of unparalleled access to information? The president has repeatedly enumerated the reasons for the war in Iraq and against Islamic extremism.
The reason for ignorance in the American public has to do with traditional American media. American MSM has consistently reported negative information about Iraq and excluded the good. This finding has been confirmed by several studies completed by media watchdog entities. I think a good follow up piece would be an analysis of why American MSM war reporting has been so biased against the war.
p>American media bias has caused me to be increasingly skeptical of news reports. I have stopped viewing network news shows entirely. I have stopped reading newspapers entirely. I get my news on the Internet from a select list of news and opinion providers. Some of the best news and opinion available today is generated by amateurs who blog in their spare time. The quality of reporting, independent analysis, and fact-based opinion available on the Internet is clearly superior to anything available from conventional news sources. Of course, much of what is available on the Internet from amateurs is second-generation information. By that I mean it is based on first generation reporting from the conventional media. It is the careful scrutiny and analysis of the first generation reporting that adds so much value and often spotlights the ham-handed bias. br> -- Doug Santo br> Pasadena, California /p>Mr. Emanuel asks whether the average American really knows or care what the true facts of the situation in Iraq are. The short answer is that a very large plurality of average Americans do not know and do not want to know. They are much more concerned with who is winning on American Idol or Survivor than in Iraq or Afghanistan. They cannot watch a report on the situation on the ground in Iraq (if the MSM would even show such a program), because the have to watch the ESPYs, or catch the latest update on Paris Hilton's trials and tribulations, the poor dear.