Michael,

Using a discussion site as a way to advance your doggerel is an interesting new take. As you've copyrighted the material, one presumes you want to make money off it. Congratulations, you've taken the first obscene step towards the commercialization of the anti-war movement.

When you find the time to climb down off that very high horse you rode in on, perhaps you might find the time to engage in dialog instead of diatribe?

You wrote, "I learned long ago to discard miliary jargon as duplicitous bunk. Mr. Bateman expects us to take him at his word and "in" his own words. No thanks. When I hear or read "force oriented zone reconnaissance," I substitute "patrolling" or "picking a fight."

Which "military jargon" terms did I use Michael. Was it shibboleth that threw you? Uhhh, that's Hebrew bud. Perhaps, "socio-economic-political structure"? While not a single word, that's academese, not "military jargon." C'mon guy, even for somebody off in the boonies of Taiwan you can't be *that* far out of it to think that I was using "military jargon."

I do, however, look forward to your promised (and long delayed now) dissection of my response. You and Victor Davis Hanson will then be two peas in a pod, as it appears both of you dislike reading what I write.

Bob Bateman

Posted at March 23, 2008 9:30 AM in response to Why the Press Loves Petraeus

Don,

My bad. When I see an American citing a Cockburn it's usually Alexander. He's the one I have heartburn with. Patrick and Andrew not so much. I still, however, have problems with British reporting in general, especially in the six "national" papers.

For all the problems here in the states with our journalism, at least our journalists try hard to report facts seperately from their own opinions. That is a tradition, and an ethic, that came in the wake of Pulitzer and "Yellow Journalism" (not to mention jingoism). Such a division never took root in the UK, and so in every story you cannot tell which statements are facts, and which are personal assertions/opinion on the part of the journalists. I also don't like the idea that you literally choose your paper based upon your politics. That's wrong with Fox News and the Washington Times, and it's wrong six times over in the UK.

(What is it with these families anyway? Three journalist/commentator brothers there. There are two Hitchens brothers, one writing in the UK. There are two Kagan brothers. Cripes. Half the commenteriat seems to have been raised under just three roofs.)

Bob Bateman

Posted at March 21, 2008 7:40 AM in response to A Failure of Intelligence

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

Posted at March 20, 2008 10:33 PM in response to War? What War? (At least that’s how it looks from the J-Schools)

Don,

Not only do I disagree, but I think Cockburn is an asshat, and what is worse (because being an asshat is not technically a sin) he's a lousy reporter.

Granted, I mostly read Le Monde, Der Spiegal, The Times (of London), Al Jazeera, and Dawn (the last heavily biased), but I'd sooner trust my little sister to be watched over by the serial rapist four blocks over than I would take Cockburn at his word.

Uhhh, did I say that out loud?

Bateman

Posted at March 20, 2008 6:58 PM in response to A Failure of Intelligence

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

Posted at March 20, 2008 6:27 PM in response to War? What War? (At least that’s how it looks from the J-Schools)

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

Posted at March 20, 2008 6:14 PM in response to War? What War? (At least that’s how it looks from the J-Schools)

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

Posted at March 20, 2008 6:08 PM in response to War? What War? (At least that’s how it looks from the J-Schools)

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

Posted at March 20, 2008 5:55 PM in response to War? What War? (At least that’s how it looks from the J-Schools)

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

Posted at March 20, 2008 5:50 PM in response to War? What War? (At least that’s how it looks from the J-Schools)

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

Posted at March 20, 2008 4:35 PM in response to War? What War? (At least that’s how it looks from the J-Schools)