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.

Posted at March 22, 2008 11:19 PM in response to War? What War? (At least that’s how it looks from the J-Schools)

Hello Bob.

(I'm the physics professor you corresponded with a few months back.) That was an insightful post - and I learned something. The word limit seems far too severe, but I look forward to reading more in your next post.

Also, I can now say I've seen a U.S. officer cite Noam Chomsky. Didn't see that coming. (Not sure if this is a good or bad thing...)

Regarding your comments: As I recall, Kagan had the surge taking place in Baghdad with (hopefully) effects spreading to other regions later. Instead, Anbar and other parts of Iraq evolved first and Baghdad followed.

It seems to me this aspect of the war is the most important now because bottom-up is meeting top-down (CLCs, militias being integrated into the
Iraqi army or not; gov't fear/distrust of the Awakening; etc).

I'd like to know where Petreaus thinks this is going. But, he can't speak frankly on this, can he? In the few interviews with him I've followed closely, I didn't feel I learned anything.

Also, shouldn't the focus of journalists be more on establishing relationships with people in the Awakening, in the militias and in Sadr's camp? Hard, but since we're going to be here for awhile...

Posted at March 20, 2008 12:23 PM in response to Reports and Analysis