War? What War? (At least that’s how it looks from the J-Schools)
Spencer makes a point about the evolution of consensus which, while I had not thought about it in the past, makes perfect sense. It is one of those observations which in hindsight seem so obvious that one slaps oneself on the forehead and says, “yea, well duh…” (and then, “why didn’t I think of that?”)
There's one last element at play here. The press, being a generally brainless horde (except for me! and my friends!), tends to establish a certain pecking order for taking its cues. Generalists follow respected beat reporters at respected places. So when, say, a junior CNN producer is trying to figure out how the on-camera talent should treat a statement made by Petraeus in January 2007, when he's relatively unknown, she pulls up some clips from ace defense reporters like Tom Ricks of the Post or Greg Jaffe of the Wall Street Journal and sees that Petraeus gets a passing grade. Then the other generalists, when they see CNN or NBC or another such TV network treating Petraeus kindly, follow that cue. Pretty soon you've got coverage of a demigod, not a man.So playing off that point, and looking towards Greg’s questions and observations about the punditry and reporting early on in the way, how did these factors interrelate, and what can we do to mitigate against them in the future?
(I am making the assumption that we all agree that what Spencer describes is not the optimal state of affairs for a democracy which needs a well informed public to intelligently debate little things like “peace” and “war.”)
Well, we all have our favorite hobby-horses and so excuse me for a moment whilst I pull mine from the playchest. My hobby-horse has only two legs, “education” and “experience.” Unfortunately, prior to 2003, in the general field of “the media” those legs did not support the body, which I call “military knowledge.” (Or “knowledge of the military”) In other words, right up until we actually went to war there was damned little personal knowledge or experience with things military among the overwhelming majority of reporters. Up until 2001 it would appear that most people would say, “so what?” Well, I suggest that it was this lack of knowledge and understanding, both in the media and among the people of Congress, which muted discussion or debate prior to our current conflicts.
I am not saying that this is right or wrong. That is for all of you to decide. But it would appear that in the absence of deep knowledge of military history, the present-day military, and things like military doctrine, there were not nearly enough reporters who were able to cogently examine public pronouncements about the use of force and frame useful follow-on questions for deeply reported stories. Stories which, in theory, would help educate the American public before the decision on the use of force was made. Indeed, though I have no formal study which contains hard numbers (Greg, help me out here) my own interactions with journalists over the past couple decades seems to suggest that only a vanishingly few have any real experience with the military. And covering the military, or writing about the planned use of military force, is not like covering the local town council meeting. This state of unpreparedness, I submit, is at least partially a fault of our journalism education system.
On another site, “Wired Journalists,” I did an informal survey of a few dozen journalism programs (a few dozen is moderately significant in journalism school terms), and not a single one had a course, or an instructor, which dealt exclusively with covering the military or war or issues of that ilk. Does this matter? That, again, is for you to decide. But this is 2008…and we have been in conflict for more than six years, and not a single one of those journalism programs thought to add a course on the topic?
Now, since 2003 (and most particularly during 2003) there were a significant number of journalists who received a de facto crash course in the military…mostly through the embedding program. Suddenly there were 1,500 more reporters who at least have an idea of the difference between a squad and a squadron, and can accurately report on things at least at the tactical (the lowest) level, than there had been before. But that education suffered from the faults which all such short-term and shallow learning events suffer from: It had no depth. Reporters from across the country linked up with military units after a week or so of “orientation,” spent a few weeks with the troops, and almost as soon as Baghdad fell, were brought home to the States. Only a few outlets, the biggies (NYT, WP, CNN, etc) kept some people there in Iraq. All the rest went home, with their new experiences and education, and went back to their “normal” beats. But did this really change the shape and quality of the journalism dealing with war and the military since then?
Well, think about that for a second.
Would you consider yourself a physicist if you took a physics course which lasted four or five weeks? Would you trust a house built by a carpenter who attended a carpentry school for a month? Would you want to ride a shop-built motorcycle constructed by somebody who was in a high-school automotives class for one-third of a semester? Nah, probably not. (And yes, I know, these are overstatements to a dramatic degree, but you see my point.) So while the general education level has risen a smidgen, we are still tied to the phenomena which Spencer describes. A few real professionals, guys like Tom Ricks and Joe Galloway, Greg Jaffe or Tom Bowman, are out there, but their overall effect is insufficient to communicate to the entire American public. All the more so when an increasingly diminishing percentage of the public has recent military experience of any sort, and apparently, little interest.
“We are not a nation at war,” one hears in the Army and Marine Corps hallways at the Pentagon, “We are an Army (and Marine Corps) at war…and that’s about it.” It is a biting observation, but one which rings true. Pop over to the “Coffee House” here on TPM. Of 22 entries I saw there this morning, only one even approaches the topic of analyzing the war in Iraq, and that one does so purely from a grand-strategic point-of-view. (There is one other post talking, quite well, about the human tragedy of war, and one other talking about the economic costs of war to our domestic situation.) But there are none dealing with the actual military conduct, the strategic options, the operational-level campaign plans, or the tactics, of the actual war. And this is at a time when both the fifth year anniversary and the sad landmark of 4,000 dead are in confluence. What does that say about what people know, or are interested in? Is it any wonder then that “the wars” have fallen off the pages of the papers, or that when we went into the war we had a field of journalists within which there was almost nobody who could analyze situations and frame a debate as a good skeptical journalist should? Here, at TPM, where there are intelligent and passionate people from across the country, where are the commentators with military experience and or education who can engage and discuss or debate even now, five years into the war? I checked on the list of “Special Guests” here at TPM (I’m not biting the hand that feeds me, since TPM isn’t feeding me anything), and no offence, but I could not help but notice that not a single one going back to September of last year even mentioned the wars we are fighting except obliquely and purely as a political position. Which is ok I guess, since according to their bios none of them had anything to ever do with the military. Ever. But the point is that there just aren’t many people out there with the chops to comment with depth. Look for yourself.
It’s pretty thin pickings. But this may be understandable, when placed in context. As Greg noted, it would appear most of America would rather read or hear about Eliot Spitzer and his hooker. Following that lead, the journalism outlets (and behind them the journalism schools) are just not dedicating resources towards war and conflict, and so even now, during a freaking WAR, we are not developing a deep bench of journalists experienced in military affairs...
Nobody knows the future. But one can make educated guesses that at some point in the future, even were the wars we are in today to end immediately, there will be another conflict involving the United States. Pretty safe bet I’d say, wouldn’t you? When that time comes it appears that unless things change, unless there is a clamor for journalism to shift focus, we will enter into the debates leading up to that next hypothetical conflict, with a field of journalists who generally do not know much at all about war, or the military, or even enough to ask the right (tough) questions.
Comments (41)
Where TPM Cafe articles are concerned, it bears mentioning that we rely on MSM sources for our information, by and large. If they're not reporting it, we've got very little to work with. Hence there is a paucity of stories on the subject here. It's only natural.
And the media faces two problems in reporting on the war: one, they don't get information from the government that matters, and so have very little to say, and two, the modern media is simply incapable of rendering anything like contextual analysis (which is, of course, not "objective").
Our modern media does not seem able to distill information, and so the rest of us are left with a Rorschach test of randomy-collected facts wherein each of us is able to confirm our own biases. We see lots and lots of individual facts, but no patterns other than those we create for ourselves. That's part of the reason that blogs are so popular right now, even if those of us who blog are rarely qualified to provide the needed analysis.
And our entire democracy depends on whatever the dolt on the other side of Wolf Blitzer's ear piece tells him to ask his next guest.
March 20, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does one need a degree in criminology to be a crime reporter? War is simply organized murder. It isn't brain surgery. It's people killing people.
The trick for reporters is to sugar-coat these murderous activities with (as you suggest) grandiose discussions of strategy and tactics, and euphonious descriptions using fancy words like collateral damage, shock and awe, and air strikes.
March 20, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point is that one doesn't need any schooling faithfully to report what one sees and hears...
It is clear that US reporters are merely megaphones for the Military/Industrial Complex. No matter whether their beat is at the White House, the Pentagon, embedded with US troops or in a Baghdad hotel room their principal intent is to further the US propaganda effort.
Don, your lack of familiarity (and general disdain) with most things military and many of the people involved (Joe Galloway for example), belies this critique you're trying to make.
The fact that most reporters aren't all that educated about the military makes them prone to exactly the sort of megaphone reporting you're decrying. Over the course of 30+ years that Joe Galloway reported on the military, he was often very critical of the Pentagon and the military industrial complex. And not because he didn't understand the military or didn't care about it, but becacuse he cared about the people in the military. It might surprise you, but the Pentagon's interests are often not aligned with what's best for the soldiers. There are numerous generals and admirals who allow themselves to become enamored of some new, expensive weapon system, putting as much money as they can towards that rather than training for the troops or benefits like daycare.
Joe Galloway could critique the military effectively (unlike your histrionic charges), because he knew how it worked and he cared about what happened to the people.
March 20, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very enlighting. I needed the forehead smack even though I have a personel source of military reporting.
Which brings me to the reason for my comment. I was "informed" around Christmas time, we would be at war in Kosovo by this summer. Isn't the lead-up to that being reported in the news with no other comments.
Military reporting would recognize this and would be reporting it as such.
March 20, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me be trivial for a moment.
I don't agree that what we're doing in Iraq is fighting a war. Call it nation building, call it a police action, call it refereeing a civil war, but don't call it "war."
WWll was a war. Our enemies were citizens of certain countries, they wore uniforms, and we knew what we had to do; drive them back into their country and get them to unconditionally surrender. And when we did that, we 'knew' it was over, and that we won; there was no ambiguity in our goal, nor in the result.
How does what we're doing in Iraq today compare to that?
Korea was the same, Vietnam was the same. What was Panama, was that a war? Grenada?
Desert Storm was a war, I didn't think we should have fought it, but I can agree it was a war.
For a certain number of days after we invaded Iraq one could say we were at war. I wouldn't say we're at war there now.
My point is this; its easier for politicians to manipulate the public when they say we're at war rather than describing something more accurately.
Suppose after Saddam was caught and hung, we changed the term we were using to describe actions Iraq from 'war' to "nation building", would we still be there?
What will Iraq look like when we've "won?" What will it look like after "the mission is accomplished?" What will it look like after "Iraq stood up and we stood down?"
A writer for The Weekly Standard was on C-SPAN this morning; the whole hour was his offering trite rationalizations for us staying there.
Define "Victory in Iraq".
Here's my definition;
Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, marching arm and arm into the sunrise of Democracy, peace and prosperity.
I don't want one more GI to die in Iraq.
March 20, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
JohnW1141,
Funny thing you should hit upon the issue of the definition of "war." (The use of quotes is intentional.) The military, you see, does not define it. And we're anal-retentive about defining everything. But in all of our manuals, in all of our Joint Doctrinal document, in all of our publications, nowhere will one ever find the word "war" defined.
This is, in part, because that is a political nuance which, rightly, should not be left to us. Consider, if "war" is defined only in Constitutional terms, that is to say that we're only in a "war" when Congress passes a declaration of war, then we did not actually fight any wars against (variously) the Seminole Indians, the Cherokee, the Creek, the Sioux, the Nez Perces, (you get the picture there), nor was the American Civil War actually a "war" (despite more than 600,000 dead Americans), let alone our various excursions overseas, not the least of which was in the Philippines, but also including Haiti and Nicaragua in the 20s and 30s.
So, while your definition, or more accurately your rejection of a definition has some emotional appeal, it does not in my opinion materially advance the ball. Just as the government's lack of a definition of the term also muddies the waters.
I'm a bit slow at times, and I understand your frustration with a lack of clear front lines, simply deliniated enemies, and clear endstates (preferably with a head of state), but in the 27 conflicts that collectively made up the "Indian Wars", let alone the Civil War, and the other conflicts I've cited, we did not have those things either. But soldiers died, sometimes in vast numbers, and I think that is the bottom line to some degree when one is deciding what is, and is not, a war.
Bob Bateman
March 20, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bob,
you missed my point, which was people who use the word "war" to advance an agenda not necessarily in the country's interest.
One example;
Against the recommendations of his military advisors Reagan put the Marines in Beirut, and at a time when we were taking sides by using naval ships to bombard one side. The result was 240
some Marines died. There was much talk around the country to impeach Reagan for going against his military advisors and causing the Marines to die.
Someone in the Reagan administration had a gem of an idea, start a war, and Grenada took impeachment off the front pages.
Another;
Rear Admiral Eugene Carrol: “Then President Bush said we had to go to restore democracy in Panama. How in the world do you restore that which has never existed? Panama has never been a democracy since we created Panama for our own purposes in 1903. And all we did was go down to restore American control and dominance in Panama.”
Of course soldiers died, and sometimes in vast numbers, and that's what concerns me; politicians who say things like 'people die in wars' when they're talking about a police action as Bush's 'war' in Panama was, or when Reagan's 'war' in Grenada was simply Wagging the Dog.
Saying people 'die in war' ameliorates irresponsible actions by devious politicians.
I say, Stop the Nation Building in Iraq and bring the troops home.
March 20, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the 240 Marines died because their leaders were a bunch of incompetents. Reagan's only fault was in not courts martialing and cashiering the whole lot of them.
March 21, 2008 7:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bob,
I think I know the military does not define "War".
If you read my post again, you'll see I was referring to the civilian leadership's twisting the meaning of the word for non altruistic purposes, and that was the gist of my comment.
Bob, again, don't take my posts as anti military, or as criticisms of the military, my one point is how the civilian leadership abuses our military.
I can support the military, but not support such a large military; I can support the troops, but not support the mission.
March 21, 2008 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don (Bacon),
Your criminology point is fallacious, on a couple of levels. First, because if a reporter gets some details wrong on a local store being robbed, or a mugging, or a trial...the nation does not go to war, spend $500B, and lose multiple thousands of lives, as a result. Were that the case, we'd probably expect that one does need experience and/or education in crime reporting before one covers it. Or maybe not. As I pointed out, and you confirm, the general American opinion is that there is nothing specialized needed when reporting about war, or the military, or the potential of conflict.
Your assertion that "it isn't brain surgery" further suggests that any old joe can report cogently and well on the topic. Fair enough.
Your evidence for that, of course, being the absolutely stellar reporting on military topics such as WMDs and war plans in the period leading up to the invasion, right?
So in essence you disagree with Greg's thesis that the reporting was not up to par, and you contend that one does not need any additional education to explain the intellectual underpinnings and military historical fallacies regarding the USAF theory of airpower now known as "Shock and Awe." Which, of course, explains all of those pre-war stories which accurately depicted the history of such theories, and their complete and utter failures, from Guilo Douhet through Billy Mitchell and Seversky, to John Warden and Dave Deputula, eh?
Oh wait...what? There *were* no such pre-war stories? No, say it ain't so! I mean, there *had* to have been...since reporting on that topic "isn't brain surgery."
C'mon Don, a little more heat and a little less flash in your rhetoric next time, okay?
Bob Bateman
March 20, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's always interesting, on one hand, to hear journalists (or academics who teach journalism) liken journalism to brain surgery and then, on the other, hear claims that journalists can accurately report on what others do because ... well, what others do is not brain surgery.
Andy Cline has a good post on the subject: How to Study Journalism
March 20, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
look, with all due respect. if you are a trained as a journalist don't you learn about things like fact checking, sourcing, multiple sources, dealing with interested parties, developing sources.
saying that someone who was trained as a reporter must have military experience is like saying an engineer must have experince in building bridges before he can undertaken one.
sure, it helps...
March 20, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
like beat reporters.
March 20, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks, bob.
i think you make a great point. so much so that i hope you don't mind that i just took another step with your idea and emailed the link to this post to the dean of the ernie pyle (seems reasonable, huh?) school of journalism at indiana university. so maybe in a year or two, you can credit yourself with helping create a better prepared journalist out there in the wide wild world, since i briefly suggest to him that taking on this idea, particularly with who his school is named after might actually offer them a competitive advantage over other schools, not to mention the service it could provide to the country. thanks again. all the best.
the loon
March 20, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bob
Thanks for responding, it's unusual here.
The subject was, I thought, the inadequacy of the preparation of war correspondents for the task. You believe some military education is essential to proper reporting. My point is that one doesn't need any schooling faithfully to report what one sees and hears. The problems you recount aren't ones of preparation but rather of motivation.
It is clear that US reporters are merely megaphones for the Military/Industrial Complex. No matter whether their beat is at the White House, the Pentagon, embedded with US troops or in a Baghdad hotel room their principal intent is to further the US propaganda effort.
"Why, of course the people don't want war . . . But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship . . . Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.." ---Hermann Goering, 1946
Reporters who decline to toe the line aren't invited out any more. They don't get to go on the trips, they won't be called upon at press conferences and their careers are over. Chris Hedges, NYT: "The notion that the press was used [in the Gulf War] was incorrect. The press wanted to be used. It saw itself as part of the war effort."
To get anywhere near the truth about US military aggression one needs to read the foreign press. The Asia Times and The Independent are good, but almost any foreign source is better than a US one which is parroting the government line. Patrick Cockburn, who has never been in bed with US troops, is particularly good on Iraq. He's motivated to tell the truth -- that's key.
To dig deeper check out Norman Solomon's War Made Easy -- How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us To Death.
March 20, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would rather that no one died in Iraq. But if I had to put it in order of priority, I'd put women, children, old men, noncombatant civilians all ahead of GI's.
March 20, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Valdron,
Ok, but what does that have to do with this discussion? Seriously. Is this software going wack again, did you mean it to be a reply to a comment somewhere else?
I don't see how it even remotely applies without further elucidation, because most military forces are created and organized by societies along the lines of the same belief, i.e., the military exists so civilians won't be fighting wars. You could at least try to deal within the realm of the topic like Don Bacon is doing, i.e., it doesn't take someone who understands the military to report on war.
March 20, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Robert Bateman
In other words, right up until we actually went to war there was damned little personal knowledge or experience with things military among the overwhelming majority of reporters. Up until 2001 it would appear that most people would say, “so what?” Well, I suggest that it was this lack of knowledge and understanding, both in the media and among the people of Congress, which muted discussion or debate prior to our current conflicts.
Not sure. Every War begins with a burst of patriotism which in itself mutes discussion or debate. Certainly experienced journalists might
be less apt to be swept up in that but I'm not sure that would happen or that it would tilt the scale very much.
By the way, welcome here. Thanks for your service.
March 20, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Robert Bateman
In other words, right up until we actually went to war there was damned little personal knowledge or experience with things military among the overwhelming majority of reporters. Up until 2001 it would appear that most people would say, “so what?” Well, I suggest that it was this lack of knowledge and understanding, both in the media and among the people of Congress, which muted discussion or debate prior to our current conflicts.
Not sure. Every War begins with a burst of patriotism which in itself mutes discussion or debate. Certainly experienced journalists might
be less apt to be swept up in that but I'm not sure that would happen or that it would tilt the scale very much.
By the way, welcome here. Thanks for your service.
March 20, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
bob,
i think you overstate the difficulty of covering the military. i freely concede that the more experience one has with the military, the easier it becomes to ferret out the real story, if you are so inclined to do so.
however, lack of experience with the military is not lethal, one must only be more careful and cautious in tracking and sourcing stories so as not to mislead the readers.
now, if you don't care whether you mislead your readers, or are used as a mouthpiece, then you simply regurgitate what the military tells you...a la Judith Miller. make no mistake every single MSM outlet has their token NeoCon or BushBot. Corporate ownership has eroded the line between news and propaganda and it continues to accelerate apace with consolidation.
In general, I agree with Don that the foreign press, notably the Guardian, have been far superior to their US counterparts, but, there are still good reporters out there working.
Take for example Barnes' pience in the LA Times today...
[I]nside the Pentagon, turmoil over the war has increased. Top levels of the military leadership remain divided over war strategy and the pace of troop cuts. Tension has risen along with concern over the strain of unending cycles of deployments. In one camp are the ground commanders, including Gen. David H. Petraeus, who have pushed to keep a large troop presence in Iraq, worried that withdrawing too quickly will allow violence to flare. In the other are the military service chiefs who fear that long tours and high troop levels will drive away mid-level service members, leaving the Army and Marine Corps hollowed out and weakened.
President Bush, in marking the fifth anniversary of the Iraq invasion Wednesday, said he would not approve any U.S. troop withdrawals that could jeopardize security gains already made there. Indeed, top leaders at the Pentagon emphasize that any withdrawals must be done with that in mind, and few are pushing for a complete pullout. Still, there are sharp differences that carry broad implications for the U.S. involvement in Iraq.
In the short run, supporters of Petraeus would like to see about 140,000 troops, including 15 combat brigades, remain in Iraq through the end of the Bush Administration. Members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and their advisors favor a faster drawdown. Some are pushing for a reduction to 12 brigades or fewer by January 2009, which would amount to approximately 120,000 troops, depending on the configuration of forces.
The discord deepened with last week’s announcement that Adm. William J. Fallon, who served as the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, would retire. Fallon was seen as a key ally of the Joint Chiefs and at odds with Bush because of his support for a speedier drawdown in Iraq.
Glenn Greenwald goes to sources and asks them if it is true that Fallon's resignation was related to the Esquire piece and therefore just another personnell problem,
"When I tested this with my Pentagon sources, I was told “wrong.” It is true, they said, that Fallon was opposed to war in Iran, and his public statements had produced friction, but the real source of tension had to do with Iraq policy, not Iran policy. Apparently it had to do with implementation of the existing plan for a draw down of forces. Fallon and most of the Pentagon brass, they told me, were strongly in support of keeping rigorously to plan. The politicos in the White House wanted to keep the surge force in place. And naturally, General Petraeus out in Baghdad espoused whatever view the White House took."
And of course both of the above pieces are entirely consistent with Seymour Hersh's and Murray Waas's reporting, so the information is getting out.
And there are others, younger and just as up to the challenge. However they are like salmon swimming upstream againt the MSM of today that cares primarily about serving their corporate owners.
No wonder the MSM can't hope to match the intenet as a news source.
March 20, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Von Clauswitz is widely quoted (from 'On War') that war is an extension of diplomacy by other means. This is sometimes translated as 'of politics' but the meaning remains. I think this is so widely quoted because it contains within it the definition of war. That is, war is the use of physical military violence to gain an advantage over a state or population that is unwilling to give what you want. Hence Iraq is clearly a war. Initially it was against a state -- that lasted a few weeks and now it is against the Iraqi population. We want to impose upon them our way of organizing their society and they want to do it differently. Hence we impose upon them our military violence. This also allows us to define winning and losing -- afterwards will we have imposed our will on them or will they succeed in resisting. There should also be in this equation some cost-benefit factor, ie does the cost of forcing our will on another people exceed the benefits gained.
You seem to think that we should all become more educated in military doctrine, operations and tactics. And that we should engage in discussions about these issues. But I saw clearly from the very beginning of the Iraq war that it would turn into a war against a people resisting occupation. That this is war that we would lose in the sense that the costs -- both economically and morally -- would exceed any benefits. Beginning from this point of view why should I participate in a discussion that is designed to help people understand how we actually go about destroying another people; my time will be better spent trying to minimize the damage we cause.
You also write: there will be another conflict involving the United States. Pretty safe bet I’d say, wouldn’t you?.
I think that is a safe prediction. And I will add to it. This war will not invovle protecting the US homeland from foreign invasion. It will be sold to the people as some vague defense of 'American interests' without it being really clear how the average American will benefit. We will be told also that we a attacking these people out of humanitarian compassion for their well-being. And I don't think the most interesting questions will be over which set of tactics we choose to impose our will upon them.
March 20, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Psst: My humble opinion, there's always been confusion about mission here. If you look at the mothership page, talkingpointsmemo.com, from the start of Iraq, it's moved to all domestic politics, all the time. Recently, it's moved to all primary politics, all the time.
Ultimately, though, the liberal blogosphere and its readers have gone along with the same theory as that which most of the MSM has followed, and it's all driven by what interests the public: get the right politicians in, and the citizens won't have to worry their pretty heads about such things as the military, the Pentagon, the State Dept., and their adventures, as they will never be interested anyways. The default position: if we get a president in that will get us out, why sweat the "small stuff"? Which is how we got into Iraq in the first place. So there you are, plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
That wasn't always the case. At the start of the invasion, that actually "made" a lot of the liberal blogosphere with the flood of traffic. There is something about a sports game, whether it be a military invasion, a political horse race, or a politician being attacked, that gets people interested. Now an occupation of a country or running a government, that's not as interesting a game to a lot of people. (It's not just U.S.A. related, as there was a huge increase in interest in issues related to Israel on this very Cafe site back during 2006 Lebanon war, posts on that pushed everything else aside.) Has it occurred to you that what you're trying to sell, knowledge of military technique and tactics, is not of interest to most people without a "game" going on?
P.S. This is all quite relative, too. While the New York Times still has reporting on Iraq every day, I can't remember when I last saw an article on what's going on at the Pentagon. Without Rummy and the merry band of neo-cons and Curveballs as bete noires, it's just no "fun" for reporters and the blogosphere anymore....Joe Wilson is no longer the hero, he's a mere all-too-human Hillary supporter.
March 20, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
aa,
We're off topic, but thanks for raising it.
Some of us who are interested in the military component of American Exceptionalism, to include a full-time Commander-in-Chief, pre-emptive strikes, an obscene Pentagon budget, loose talk about dropping bombs on foreigners Fallon, Mullen, Petraeus and the ongoing "war on terror" with all its follies, find this search for the new messiah amusing.
I think all of these subjects deserve discussion on the slight (?) chance that a new president would act just like the previous ones, or worse. Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Palestine, Somalia, military programs, the expansion of the military -- these and other military subjects deserve attention. Personally, I look back in particular fondness at the heated discussions I had with Howard over Afghanistan. I still have the scars, and I treasure them, as I hope he does his. Some of his insults were world-class, as you would expect from Howard. **sigh**
March 20, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
ALCON, I'll start with "No Exit" and then try to work my way to a few others.
No Exit,
I'm not saying that a reporter has to have been in the military to report well upon military issues. There is potential for OJT. Take Joe Galloway for example. Though never in uniform, Joe has seen far more of war than any soldier I know. Multiple years in Vietnam, and since then (by my last count) eight wars, three riots, and a lynching. That sort of depth cannot be found instantly, of course, but while the J-schools have courses on the things you talk about (sourcing, attribution, style, etc), there are some specific elements about the military, and war, which make those things one learns in J-school insufficient to the task at hand. At least if what one wants to come out as the product on the far end is something intelligent, probing, potentially critical, etc.
A reporter dealing with the military, who has no knowledge of the military, will end up writing the most superficial of things and often create accidental controversies about things which are unimportant, while they don't even recognize the massively important thing going on right beneath their proverbial noses. Follow?
I mean can it be any surprise that the general level of reporting on the military across the county is so low when only three or four print outlets maintain anyone at all in Iraq, let alone Afghanistan? That leaves all of the "fly-over" country from which I hail, devoid of their own expertise. They take what is fed, and don't question, because they don't know enough to know what the questions could be. Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinatti, three cities with a metro area population of several millions total, and not a single reporter from any of them devoted to reporting on and understanding the military. (Cinci, at least, has some coverage of the nearby Wright-Patterson Air Force base, but that is seen as effectively a "local industry" story.)
I use Ohio at the example because I am from Ohio. It's a big state, 11,000,000 people live there, and there's not a single news resource from the state in Iraq or Afghanistan on a standing basis. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, a reporter on the "military beat."
War is, No Exit, horrific and horrifically complex. It *is*, sometimes literally, "rocket science." And since issues of war and peace are important, the people who report on this thing which is so alien to most of the American public must understand it, in depth, so that they can accurately explain, in brief and clear prose, very complex concepts and actions to people who have no frame of reference.
So I'm not asking for a lot, but Galloway's post explains one part of the problem (and a proposed solution), while I look at the J-schools. I mean, a single semester long course, in a 4 year J-school program, would go a very long way towards increasing the quality of the news the American people get, and therefore the quality of the debates and discussions both before and during any potential conflict.
Bob Bateman
March 20, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
i concede that a semester course on how military policy gets made could be useful. as for war zone training, that's all OJT and contingent upon there being a war.
i think you're too hard on ohio. the real story is the numbers coming out of iraq. if you want to report on the ground over there you have to speak arabic and take your life in your hands. there is no safe zone outside the green zone and similar instalations.
a handful of good reporters, at least, should be over there from around the world... and they are. i'll bet at least one ohio paper has a washington correspondent (i hope, fingers crossed) that allows them direct access to pentagon reports, wire news and a list of sources that could be useful. if not that is a damning indictment of the MSM pursuit of profit over news.
i'm curious to know your thoughts on whether the numbers reported by the military are accurate portrayals of what is going on over there and whether you think there have been any instances of deliberate spin in military/press interaction.
petraeus may be relatively spin free, but, he refuses to discuss policy with reporters (as he should and for which I think Fallon could be rightly reprimanded) Part of Petraeus's appeal is that he can be counted on to give fairly realistic assessments from the frontlines.
that is refreshing and i believe such candor is appreciated.
March 20, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
fairly realistic assessments from the frontlines to the press, i meant to say.
his relationship to the president is one of a different nature, unfortunately, one of an enabler. it seems as if that is a fair conclusion to reach based on the extraordinary amount of criticism levelled at the bush administration by former high ranking military commanders.
i would love to hear your thoughts on how we should interpret this. obviously these men are deeply committed to their countries highest values and do so, I am confident, only with the greatest reluctance.
i am not trying to seize on their every word as if it were gospel, but, i am curious to know what conclusions you thinks should be drawn from this relatively unprecedented behavior. (or am I wrong about the unprecedented part.)
very curious.
March 20, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
what does alcon stand for? just curious.
March 20, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
alcon = all concerned
March 20, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
JohnW,
We'll leave aside Grenada for the moment (or you can e-mail me), because it is pretty complex and your simple timeline misconstrues the facts. (We're good, but back then we were not *that* good, and even today we could not instantly muster the forces, to include teleporting a carrier battle group to the south Carribean in less than 48 hours between the Lebanon bombing and the beginning of the invasion of Grenada...d'accord?)
And your Panama contention, um, well no offense man, but as I see it you're today arguing that we should not be in Iraq because, "How in the world do you restore that which has never existed?" and by using Panama as your example, um, you're really undercutting your own thesis. Today they are, in fact, a thriving democracy with 2% inflation, an unemployment rate of just 7.2% (high for us, but amazing for that part of the world) and according to the Economist, it ranks 44th in the world (of 167 sampled) in "Democracy"...which I'd suggest is pretty good. So for your own good, rhetorically speaking, I would recommend you not use Panama as a negative example in this type of discourse. It's not exactly Hegelian, if you catch my drift.
I do not, however, mean to imply or suggest that I disagree with your restated thesis. Indeed, I agree. Sometimes some people do use the rhetoric and language of war to advance an agenda. It used to be called "jingoism," and though that term is now dated by more than a century, the concept beneath it seems as ageless as the organization of humans into polities.
Agreed?
Bob Bateman
March 20, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bob,
I was quoting Rear Admiral Eugene Carrol when he said:
“Then President Bush said we had to go to restore democracy in Panama. How in the world do you restore that which has never existed? Panama has never been a democracy since we created Panama for our own purposes in 1903. And all we did was go down to restore American control and dominance in Panama.”
Unless I'm missing something, that's an accurate statement. Prior to the invasion, when was Panama ever a Democracy?
As for Grenada being a Wag the Dog operation, I stand by that accusation. The Reagan Administration was saber rattling at Cuba and Grenada before the Beirut bombing, and as you know
there are always "contingency plans", and no doubt along with the saber rattling there were contingency plans to take care of Grenada, one way or another. The Beirut bombing was simply the prime mover for the invasion.
By the way,
Don't misunderstand my posts as a criticism of the military, they aren't, they're a criticism of how politicians use (abuse) the military.
I wasn't saying we shouldn't be in IRAQ, even though that's what I believe, I was saying what we're doing in Iraq now is not what I'd call war, I'd call it Nation Building, what Bush said we should never get involved in, but that was when he was running for President in 2000.
Refer to my earlier post when I said, the initial invasion and up until Saddam was hung was a period of war, from that point on the mission changed, now we're doing nation building.
WaPo 1-6-05
The head of the Army Reserve has sent a sharply worded memo to other military leaders expressing "deepening concern" about the continued readiness of his troops, who have been used heavily in Iraq and Afghanistan, and warning that his branch of 200,000 soldiers "is rapidly degenerating into a 'broken' force."
In the memo, dated Dec. 20, Lt. Gen. James R. "Ron" Helmly lashed out at what he said were outdated and "dysfunctional" policies on mobilizing and managing the force. He complained that his repeated requests to adjust the policies to current realities have been rebuffed by Pentagon authorities.
WaPo 2-16-07
Outgoing Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker
"I am not satisfied with the readiness of our non-deployed forces," Schoomaker told the Senate Armed Services Committee, noting that the increased demands in Iraq and Afghanistan "aggravate that" and increase his concern. "We are in a dangerous period," said Schoomaker
The Bush gang is abusing the military.
March 20, 2008 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
ALCON,
FYI, you can find the full listing of the courses offered, currently, in the Indiana University School of Journalism (named after Ernie Pyle), here:
http://journalism.indiana.edu/academics/course-information/all-courses/
Bob Bateman
March 20, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don Bacon,
I think you *really* sell the few reporters who are *in* Iraq short. My complaint is *not* with most of them. You wrote, "It is clear that US reporters are merely megaphones for the Military/Industrial Complex. No matter whether their beat is at the White House, the Pentagon, embedded with US troops or in a Baghdad hotel room their principal intent is to further the US propaganda effort."
I disagree, with regard to the reporters who habitually cover the military, either stateside or from Iraq.
(I would also, as a gentle recommendation, suggest you find another term than the over-hyped, "Military Industrial Complex"...it's not that such a thing does not exist. It probably does. But when you use that sort of code-word people in the middle, and on your opposite side, tend to shut their minds and say to themselves, "Oh, another one of *those* people..." which is probably contrary to your intent.)
I would commend to you several books...ah, hell, instead of going on here I think I'll just make that my next posting for the whole group. Congrats, you just "spun" me. ;-)
My next post will be an annotated bibliography, whilst wearing my historian's hat, of the history of the media-military relationship over these past two centuries. I don't expect that you'll all go out and read all of them, but reading several might help you understand the mutual evolution of the relationship. Sometimes completely adversarial (as in the Civil War), sometimes under complete censorship (as in WWI and WWII, and I would suggest, Grenada), sometimes in a mix (Korea), sometimes without any (Vietnam), and sometimes with something approaching a good balance. Which I would suggest that we're about 80% to now. (We need to knock down my own profession's resurgent paranoia, and the aforementions journalistic lack of knowledge.)
Education, in both cases, is the key.
Bob Bateman
March 20, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bob,
How about "Military-Entertainment Complex" with reporters writing pieces that entertain not inform?
Human interest stuff from the front lines?
(h/t to Nick Turse)
March 21, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Flavius,
You wrote:
"Not sure. Every War begins with a burst of patriotism which in itself mutes discussion or debate. Certainly experienced journalists might
be less apt to be swept up in that but I'm not sure that would happen or that it would tilt the scale very much."
I agree, to some degree, on the first point. But that is the POINT of our discussion, and my arguments. I hope, and believe, that educated reporters could create a more viable dialog within the republic. This, after all, is the very reason for the First Amendment.
Call me an idealist, ok. But then I'd note that that idealism which put me in uniform is matched by the same motive among the majority of journalists. They too are absolute idealists. Which partially explains why we (military and media) get along like oil and water so often. We are two professions, dedicated and self-consecrated, to the defense of others in our society, and both professions are stuffed to the gills with idealists who believe that *their* method is morally sound.
As we all know, there is no fight more vicious than one betwixt siblings, non?
Bob Bateman
March 20, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Slyvanen,
You wrote, "my time will be better spent trying to minimize the damage we cause."
My socratic response (hey, that's what you get from a soldier who is also an academic), would be, "How do you plan to convince people of your point of view on military issues in order to minimize the damage we cause?"
I would submit that some degree of referent authority would assist in this, and so the study of war is not moot.
Let me put it another way.
I abhor the idea of torture. Yet to convince many people I must rely not upon the moral elements (which they tend to try and counter with a Jack Bauer argument), but with my own experience and frame the issue in military utilitarian terms. People who support the idea of torture tend to make a moral reduction, and advance the idea that anything is moral if the "greater good" is served. (Thanks to that moron Nitzche.) I counter that by noting my own experiences, as a soldier, with training about torture...as in ME being tortured.
We are taught to hold out as long as we can under torture, but if we can't hold out any longer, to give useless (dated) information, and lie. Thus, John McCain, when pressured, gave up the starting front line of that year's Green Bay Packers...as the names of his crew/squadron mates. That usually puts the kabosh on the argument. So if this is standard with us (and by that I mean at least "all organized military forces in the West, Russia, China, and the rest of Asia), what makes us think it's not standard with everyone? Torture does not work, and has adverse effects. But I only manage to get my point across because of referent authority and an application of military history (McCain).
So if you want to argue for peace, or the minimization or end of war, and you need to convince people who oppose you (preaching to the choir, while fun, is useless), you must frame your arguments in the language of conflict.
That you cite my patron saint suggests that you have the start on this idea.
Bob Bateman
March 20, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
bob,
here, here. i applaud your point on understanding. it is essential to understand what motivates the players.
was it eisenhowser? no, i think adams who said that a standing army is too rich a temptation for any king or unitary executive.
this is foreign policy and military's imput into this question should rightly be limited to giving advice on what is possible in any given scenario handed it.
when i referred earlier to the military being corrupted, i meant that it had been corrupted in the same sense that the DOJ has been corrupted. it has been pruned and stacked with individuals who will tell the CiC what he wants to hear.
the failure of the president to solicit honest advice from career military men, but rather shuffle the command deck for a pliant hand, is I suppose his right.
as i stated before, i would rather have the military obey, no matter how reluctantly, than not. americans take for granted the subordination of the military to civilian control, nor do i think we are in any real danger of that eroding, thanks almost exclusively to the professionalism of the military, but, we are closer to seeing open rebellion in the military than i ever thought possible.
but, then i am by no means a keen observer and given to paranoid fantasies.
i asked just a bit earlier if you had any insight into how we should interpret the unprecedented(?) criticism of recently retired, high ranking military officers. i am genuinely curious to know how you would suggest that be interpreted.
quite frankly the issues involved here are for a reporter nothing that can be taught in journalism school. you need an experienced mindset and a man sized safe for your rolodex.
March 20, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
no exit asked;
"was it eisenhowser? (sic) no, i think adams who said that a standing army is too rich a temptation for any king or unitary executive."
I agree. Its been my opinion for some time that if you give some people, military or civilian, the war making capability that over $500 Billion annually buys, now and then they're going to want to use those capabilities for conjured up threats.
I don't believe the type of enemies we have today warrant the military we have. Carrier battle groups didn't help us on 9/11, or the first time the WTC was attacked. They didn't help our embassies or the USS Cole when they were attacked.
Nor did it help us get Osama. Star Wars is a joke. If we fully fund Veterans programs and Intelligence then cut the remainder by half or some version, would we be less safe? D-Day type invasions are long gone.
I think it was Madalyn Albright that said (paraphrase): 'What's the use of having a strong military if you aren't going to use it?' This is how we got into Iraq.
March 21, 2008 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I dunno.
I just have an overwhelming desire to hug Bob and make him a nice meal.
:)
March 20, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Workerbee,
I prefer quiche. As an Army Airborne Ranger I can say that and get away with it, in any language I want ;-) (En outre comme un parachutiste et un commando d'armée je peuvent dire qu'en n'importe quelle langue je veux sans crainte des accusations.)
No Exit,
You asked Joe that question I believe. Not me. I will probably end up addressing it in a column on Eric Alterman's "Altercation" site next week. Need to mull. The issue, to me, is clear cut. But explaining it is no mean task. Concision takes time. As Twain once said, "I am sorry this letter is so long, I did not have the time to write a short one."
Bob Bateman
March 20, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe the media is critical of the military as much as they are critical of the way the civilain leadership uses the military.
March 21, 2008 6:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bob,
It looks like this thread is over. Perhaps you'll see this. I not only agree with your thesis, I would like a class on the military to exist and have a priority not too far below "Western Civ". I only started my education on this a few years ago and, forget the utility for a moment, it really is interesting.
But it won't help. It's a great part of the liberal (small L) tradition to believe that education can cure all ills. It doesn't.
I think people feel there is a cultural divide between those inside and those outside the military. I can't tell you how much of a divide there really is, but if people feel that it exists, then it does by definition.
You may not like this, but there is a rough analogy with the Civil Rights movement. Media coverage of it in the early years was stunningly ill-informed and just plain goofy at times. I don't think journalists knew what to do with it. Things are vastly better now, but not because of the lone course on "race and gender" I'll wager. Blacks just aren't so foreign any more. The military is.
My solution? In part, "forced busing". More journalists in the military and more military in journalism. I also think it might have been a big mistake to keep images of the war off TV screens. I understand the reasons, but it's not wise to isolate the public from a war. I understand folk in the military don't think we can take it, but maybe we've just not had good leadership on war in decades. This last point may seem off topic, but it's my strongest point. Consider that keeping the war off the TV is part of the reason journalists are not more engaged.
Douglass.
March 22, 2008 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink