-
Who’s Politicizing Benghazi?
May 9, 2013 | 6 comments
-
A Tale of Two Teams and Two Stars
January 10, 2013 | 8 comments
-
Mitt Romney Just Got Himself Elected President
October 3, 2012 | 17 comments
-
Obama to Gays and Hollywood: Show Me the Money!
May 9, 2012 | 13 comments
-
Ruinous Obama Austerity
May 9, 2012 | 2 comments
The Spectacle Blog
USA Today’s military beat reporter Jim Michaels has a tremendously important op-ed in yesterday’s newspaper. Michaels explains how, at a crucial juncture in the Iraq war, in 2006, the Big Media consistently misinformed policymakers and the American public about what was really happening in Iraq.
Michaels charitably attributes this media misinformation campaign to the “fog of war.” A more candid explanation, however, must acknowledge that the Big Media is mostly anti-war, journalistically lazy and unimaginative, and all too willing to participate in the construction of a defeatist narrative that plays into the hands of America’s enemies.
In short, legacy media outlets should not get a pass for their misleading reporting. Instead, they should be held accountable for their journalistic misdeeds and their work discounted accordingly.
A big part of the problem for reporters is that Iraq and Afghanistan are unconventional conflicts and specifically counterinsurgencies. Consequently, the traditional yardsticks by which we measure military progress — success or failure in traditional set-piece battles — simply do not apply.
Rather, Michaels explains, counterinsurgencies are typically “won and lost in the hearts and minds of civilians,” which are harder to see:
Bombings and casualties should not be ignored, of course. Violence is part of war, but context is crucial. If we applied today’s standards to conventional war, the headline after D-Day would have read: “10,000 Allies Killed or Wounded in Record Violence.”
In fact, while the Big Media were highlighting the continued violence in Iraq, American Soldiers and Marines were building effective working relationships with tribal sheiks in Ramadi and Anbar province.
“It was a remarkable story,” Michaels notes:
By the fall of 2006, a gutsy and eccentric tribal leader had teamed up with [then-Army Colonel Sean] MacFarland, [commander of the 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division], who was willing to take a chance on a sheik with a checkered background.
One by one, other sheiks joined his alliance. Intelligence began flooding into the U.S. military, allowing the targeting of al-Qaeda leaders. Many of the tribes had been allied with al-Qaeda and knew its secrets.
“How did we miss it?” Michaels asks. “For all the hype of today’s 24/7 instantaneous news,” he observes, “the media were consistently about six months behind important developments on the ground in Iraq. Newspaper readers in 1876 got more timely information about the Battle of the Little Big Horn.”
This helps to explain the vast gulf in perceptions about Iraq that existed between American Soldiers and Marines on the ground there and policymakers and the public back home. Soldiers and Marines on the ground mostly believed in the American mission in Iraq and were convinced, by and large, that we were winning. Policymakers and the public, by contrast, were convinced that Iraq was a hopeless cause.
Indeed, as Lt. Col. Jim Lechner told Michaels: “We knew, at least in Ramadi, we were going to win.” (Lechner was MacFarland’s deputy.)
Ramadi, MacFarland said in Jan. 2007, had “passed a turning point,” though few had recognized it. “Soon everyone will,” he added.
As Michaels himself acknowledges, the legacy media’s manifest failures of reporting in Iraq have important implications for Afghanistan. Then, as now, the situation “looks bleak.”
Violence is increasing, insurgents are running rampant in parts of the country, and the central government is shaky. More U.S. troops are flooding into the country in a last-ditch effort to take initiative from the enemy. It looks a lot like Iraq in 2006, a time when politicians were predicting doom.
Knowing how Iraq shifted — quickly — we must ask this question about Afghanistan: Are we failing to report on developments that could turn the tide of this conflict, too?
That’s exactly the right question to ask, and the answer, I believe, is a resounding yes. The media most certainly is missing signs of significant progress in Afghanistan.
The new Commander of U.S. Central Command, General James N. Mattis, for instance, said this after returning from a May 2010 trip to Afghanistan:
The hardest thing for me to convey is that progress and violence can co-exist…. “How can there be progress?” we say. “Look at these IED attacks.” The fact is there is progress.
Indeed, as the Virginia Pilot reports:
The Pakistani army has made strides in eliminating safe havens used by the Pakistani and Afghani Taliban, [Mattis] said, and there’s been a falling out between the two groups…
Schools are another sign of progress. Girls who were prohibited from education under the Taliban are now going to class.
“This enemy does recognize the danger of education to young people, and what it could do to their message,” he said…
The American people should not lose faith now, he said.
“The only way we can lose this war is if we lose it in Paris and Brussels, in Berlin and Washington, if we lose it in the bars in Boston and the living rooms of Illinois. That’s where we would lose it.
“Because our message is stronger, our troops are plenty skillful, and the ferocity and ethical approach to fighting that our troops represent is what eventually turns a skeptical population against the enemy and over to our side.”
In short, I wouldn’t bet against our Soldiers and Marines because they’re that damn good. But I would discount reporting by the legacy media because they’re that badly biased and inept.
View all comments (34) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by John R. Guardiano
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/08/12/media-misinformation-about-ira
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Odds and Ends
- Confessions of a Soft-Drinking Newspaperman
- The Mole in Don Draper
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Alan Brooks| 8.12.10 @ 5:35PM
"Knowing how Iraq shifted -- quickly -- we must ask this question Afghanistan: Are we failing to report on developments that could turn the tide of this conflict, too?"
Iraq shifted because the necessary personnel were shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq. You know, you don't need to be cagey on everything-- it is not always necessary.
C Bowen| 8.12.10 @ 6:54PM
"Winning hearts in minds" is imperial Left agitprop. The US started bribing in a more rationale manner, and violence subsided. I though AmSpec was adult commentary?
Mike| 8.13.10 @ 10:05AM
Excellent post. Bribing the Sunnis was something that could have been done earlier and curtailed the violence sooner. Dumsfeld was probably opposed to it.
However, the whole thing will fall apart. The money has stopped. The violence has increased and the Iraqis will revert to form.
A massive waste and tragedy.
John R. Guardiano| 8.12.10 @ 8:33PM
C Bowen,
It's very sad and disappointing that you can't credit the great work done by our Soldiers and Marines in Iraq. Instead, you have to caricature their efforts as simply "bribing" Iraqis.
You're wrong and know not of what you speak.
Financial inducements certainly were helpful to turning around Iraq. But it took a lot more than money to defeat the iron grip of al-Qaeda there. It took U.S. troops on the ground, supporting and training our Iraqi allies over a period of several years.
Regards,
John
William R| 8.12.10 @ 10:54PM
Iraq is truly one of this Nations biggest blunders. Possibly second to Wilson getting the United States involved in World War One.
Ken (Old Texican)| 8.13.10 @ 8:37AM
John G.
First of all, thank you for your service.
Second, all of you who have served and are reading this...Thank you.
Third, C Bowen is demonstratively very ignorant.
"None is so blind as he who will not see."
Alan Brooks| 8.16.10 @ 8:19AM
"It took U.S. troops on the ground, supporting and training our Iraqi allies over a period of several years."
But you are playing down how the personnel for the surge in Iraq had been transferred from Afghanistan, which affected the situation in Afghanistan. What will you write now: that the transfers had a negligible effect in Afghanistan?
Alan Brooks| 8.16.10 @ 8:22AM
... just you watch, Guardiano will not reply, or make excuses.
C Bowen| 8.12.10 @ 9:12PM
"financial inducements", subsidies, bribery--are you serious, John? Lets push this ethic envelope on the subject of journalism--how much do you make off the tax payer as a consultant?
John Guardiano| 8.12.10 @ 9:17PM
C Bowen,
I make more than I did as an enlisted Marine serving in Iraq.
Regards,
John
C Bowen| 8.13.10 @ 7:22AM
I already knew that. Why did you not feel it necessary, ethically speaking, to disclose your financial inducements in this post?
John Guardiano| 8.13.10 @ 9:42AM
Because there are none, obviously. The only pay that I get for my writing is from the publications themselves. I was writing when was 8, 18 and 28 without any (or very little) financial inducement.
Moreover, being outspoken, as I am, on contentious issues does me no favors -- believe me! All I can say is thank goodness for the wisdom and prescience of the American founding fathers and for the First Amendment that they bequeathed us.
In any case, stop changing the subject and address the issue at hand: media misinformation about Iraq and Afghanistan. USA Today's Jim Michaels has written a great and seminal op-ed. Address his points, and mine.
Regards,
John
C Bowen| 8.14.10 @ 3:39PM
Okay--I recall the New York Times used its front page to print the most ridiculous Judith Miller stories about Iraqs weapons capabilities, and I can pick up the current NYT and see that we have to stay in Afghanistan until women are allowed to vote and they have good schools.
And no, John--I was not thinking they gave you money above or below the table, only that you have a common front to maintain as a matter of employment.
This column here was about how Marines are good nation builders...
So--ball back at you--what is the history of the phrase "winning hearts and minds"--is is rooted in traditional Right/real politik or is more from the minds of Left agitprop?
As to the ethical front, I would contend that the behavior of the Pentagon Pundit Campaign (dubiously legal to begin with and was shut down) and the use of various fronts for defense contract firms creates the environment where the Wikileaks chaps can appear as operating on a level playing field--who by the way, show, according to the Pentagon, that the MSM is not reporting what is really going on.
When you write and publish to a "Republican" media, I would think, you would want to set a higher tone.
Your a good sport, John. Good Luck.
Alan Brooks| 8.16.10 @ 8:08AM
We can salvage Iraq, though. And there's no going back to the status quo ante of Saddam.
FastJohnny| 8.12.10 @ 9:28PM
Funny, I kept telling people around that time that the media was misrepresenting the situation there. People would not believe me because they trusted outlets like the NYT, WashPost,m etc.... My sources were my friends and colleagues who were 'feet on ground' in Iraq. Friends of mine who served in Iraq came home with impressions that were just the opposite of the lamestream media and it was from that I deduced that someone was lying...and it wasn't my friends. Some years later, here we are and here I am proven right. Funny how all those libtards who refused to look objectively at the situation are now saying " I never said that". Back then it obviously didn't fit in with their agenda and now they can't admit they were wrong. My brother in law (I call him commie Bob), ranted and raved at me when I suggested that the media wasn't being completely honest with the American public, now he won't say anything. Our military is highly professional and knows their job, it is made up of young men and women who are not only trained to the highest proficiency, but are smarter on average than most of the American public. Those who were there and were on the front lines knew what they were seeing and couldn't beleive what the press was saying when they came home.
William R| 8.12.10 @ 10:57PM
What We Can Learn From Woodrow Wilson’s Great Blunder
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/powell-jim5.html
Alan Brooks| 8.16.10 @ 8:10AM
Next you'll go on about Lincoln's great blunder;
then Washington's great blunder.
Plus don't forget Columbus...
cautiousOne| 8.12.10 @ 11:54PM
to all who serve(d), please accept my sincere thanks. You guys are the best.
Ken (Old Texican)| 8.13.10 @ 10:33AM
Well John G,
There is a bright side to this coin. If we American citizens simply sit down on the job, rather than accept serfdom... and bring the country to a halt, The Mikes and the C Bowens and the media will howl for ALL OUT WAR...against us!
Then we will get to see a "pro-war" media, and see if they are any good at that. (smile)
John Guardiano| 8.13.10 @ 10:42AM
Thanks, Ken. I honestly don't mind criticism. In fact, truth be told, I welcome it; I really do! But substantive criticism, which you can discuss and debate, is very different from cheap shots that unfairly impugn a writer's motives or reasons for writing.
And the notion that we "bribed" our way to victory in Iraq is overly simplistic, wrong and quite unfair to our troops. It unfairly denigrates their efforts.
In any case, thanks for your kind words.
Regards,
John
Ken (Old Texican)| 8.13.10 @ 11:55AM
John, you earned the kind words.
I'm in an interesting situation. I am writing a novel, (FICTION), and for the very first time...I have not plotted it in advance...because I am discovering the plot as I write along.
Heh...I keep discovering thoughts I never knew I knew.
My working title is "THE NAYS OF TEXAS".
If I can't get it published by a major "House", I have determined to publish it on line by October first...God willing. I hope you will not enjoy it.
(sad smile).
S.L. Toddard| 8.14.10 @ 9:45AM
"And the notion that we "bribed" our way to victory in Iraq is overly simplistic"
Or that we even HAVE a victory.
Alan Brooks| 8.16.10 @ 8:27AM
We CAN probably salvage Iraq.
What you might really be saying is you just don't want that to happen, Toddard. If lose in Iraq, you are vindicated.
It's the Israelis, Toddard-- quick! blame them.
TennesseeVolunteer| 8.13.10 @ 12:58PM
John, thanks for the great article and taking the time to interact with posters. More authors on the websites should do so.
Thoughtful people that weigh the facts are not taken in by the MSM.. Unfortuately, we have a large majority of our American public who are unconscious (I certainly was into my mid 30's!)
Keep writing informative, reasoned articles and your truth will find the waiting ears of the public. Our present economic situation is bringing many more people that are searching for the truth. They don't want writers mischaracterizing the other side, or either side! They want facts backed by common sense reporting and reasoning. You have done that in your article. Well done,
NOV. 2, 2010, OUR INDEPENDENCE DAY!
WhitemoonG| 8.13.10 @ 1:01PM
John Guardiano:
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU
for your service to our country in hostile areas, and likewise to all Americans, as well as those from other countries contributing to the COALITION.
And, needless to say, THANK YOU for your CONTINUED SERVICE in providing articles for those of us who are always greatly concerned about systemic media distortion and filtering of what is overemphasized, and what is studiously IGNORED.
As for evidently smarmy eggheads like C Bowen and the like, I'm always struck with how frequently the narrative behind the highly refined arrogance and hauteur can rapidly shift, frequently trying to deep six yesterday's "profound" analysis.
Example: Remember when, as much for political reasons as anything else, progress in Iraq SEEMED to us to be stalling, with great debate about the surge, funding it, etc?
Funny, how rarely one sees anymore clips of the Messiah in January 2007 informing us that it wasn't even possible that the surge could help or work, and any policy maker still even considering it wasn't a serious person.
I guess this is the Messiah's version of "We are NOW at war with EAST asia, we've always been at war with east asia."
It's always either hysterically funny or revolting for media or university eggheads (most of which have never so much as run a hot dog stand!) to "bless" us with their soliloquies as to who's not a "serious person," such as Chris Matthews' unbelievably obnoxious handling of a guest with a different view of the AZ immigration thing, who got shouted off before getting all of 4 words in.
W.L. Barton| 8.14.10 @ 2:24PM
Comparing the Bush/Cheney debacle in Iraq, and Afghanistan, leaving before the job was over, to d-day is only something a right wing crazy could make.
And Obama is a fool for not removing all troops within the first year in office, and let the chips fall where they may. The deficit whiners, the ones who created the deficit beginning with tax cuts in 2002, and unecessary wars, with their lies to whip up the non-FAUX Roger Ailes right wing, are the deficit owner ragmuffins.
Alan Brooks| 8.16.10 @ 8:30AM
"ragmuffins" ??
No way- they are very well off!
WhitemoonG| 8.14.10 @ 11:38PM
W.L .Barton: Some questions from a "right wing crazy";
After the tax RATE cuts of 2002, this truly stimulated the economy such that there was a sizeable INCREASE in government tax revenues collected, as also occurred after the John F Kennedy tax RATE cuts, and also the Reagan tax RATE cuts. (Note that nothing of the sort has happened with the Obama trillion dollar pissed away for nothing much "stimulus" package)
With government tax revenues collected sharply INCREASED after the Bush tax RATE cuts, how could there still be a deficit? Can you spell "runaway spending?" I knew you could.
If you are going to be upset about the annual budget deficit at the time Obama took office, I suppose you've nothing to say about Obama QUADRUPLING it in just his first year, for no reason other than his total ignorance of dynamic economies, total unwillingness to listen to anything other than those sharing his Utopian dreamland ideas?
As for your tired old chiding about "unnecessary wars," seems every day Obama,Hillary, Pelosi, Levin, Schumer would chide Bush anytime a microphone near, clearly asserting that Afghanistan was where we needed to be to fight the terrorists, etc. If I agreed then, and now, are Obama, Hillary et. al "right wing crazies?"
Jeremiah| 8.15.10 @ 8:15AM
C. Bowel and S.L. Rettard, you stink up the joint. Can't you just fuck off?
C Bowen| 8.15.10 @ 1:38PM
Stay classy, fans of John G.
Alan Brooks| 8.16.10 @ 8:32AM
But, Bowen, if you don't like Israel, please say so,
don't be shy.
Don't worry so much about hurting people's feelings.