Posted on 03/11/2004 1:36:07 PM PST by Cannoneer No. 4
March 11, 2004: Events on the battlefield alone do not always dictate the course of the war. The reports of the battle given by the media will have an effect, too, particularly in the age of twenty-four hour news networks like CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC. These, as well as newspapers, pretty much function as intelligence agencies, albeit they are in it to make a profit, not to protect a country. [emphasis cannoneer's]
The media front is one not often discussed. It is there, nonetheless, and it often has a decisive effect on a war. The 1993 firefight in Mogadishu was, in fact, a tactical victory for the United States. The raid achieved its objectives, the capture of some high-ranking members of Mohammed Farah Aidid’s militia, and in the resulting firefight, Aidid’s militia suffered hundreds of casualties.
The problem, though, was in the media presentation. The sight of dead American soldiers being dragged through the streets created such an outcry that the Clinton Administration ordered a pullout. This was not the first time the media had created the impression of defeat. Another big example was the 1968 Tet Offensive, which was remarkably similar – the Viet Cong was defeated on the battlefield and finished as a fighting force, but the American media portrayed the battle as a major setback. The result was to turn popular opinion against the Vietnam War.
A battle can turn the entire tide of the war. In this day and age, it is possible for the media to turn a victory into a bloody defeat. That resulted in the “Tomahawk diplomacy” in several actions in the 1990s and the high-altitude attacks that were used over Kosovo in 1999, intended to minimize the chance of losing aircraft and having aircrew taken prisoner.
The media has become another front in war or operations short of war. Often, it can be used to justify starting a war (either international or civil). The recent claims by Hugo Chavez that the United States is funding his opposition in the upcoming referendum may be an example of this. The claim of outside interference could be used to either not hold the referendum or to nullify the results by imposing martial law.
Other times, the media can be used to let people know that America is viewing developments with interest. The British used this front prior to the 1982 Falklands War to keep tensions around the disputed islands from exploding. The announcement would be made that submarines were being deployed to the area. The Argentineans decided not to call the bluff. When the bluff was finally called in the form of the 1982 invasion, the cruiser General Belgrano was sent to the bottom of the South Atlantic.
The media’s attention is a double-edged sword. Often, the price of letting someone know you are concerned is a loss of strategic surprise. Also, if things do turn into a battle, the media’s portrayal may create an image at odds with the actual results. The British have less trouble with this due to the famous “D notice” which keeps a newspaper from publishing anything that the government doesn’t want published, usually involving secrets. No such mechanism exists in America, and thus, secrets are sometimes revealed in news articles – much to the chagrin of the military and intelligence establishments.
Winning the media battle is as important as winning on the battlefield. Information has long been the most valuable commodity in warfare – its value is not only applicable to the battlefield, but in the hearts and minds of those on all sides. – Harold C. Hutchison (hchutch@ix.netcom.com)
Sounds like class warfare name calling to me.
You're messin' with me, right?
Rich Conservatives. People who have $$ resources and who stand to lose the most if the Dems continue to push us into socialism (or worse yet, who succeed in appeasing us into defeat by the Islamo-Terrorists.)
That ought to convince the hell out of him.
Do you think a loss of the White House &/or Senate in 2004 will convince anyone? Help me out here; do you think my basic premise (the total domination of the prevalent media (T.V., newspaper, movies, magazines) by the Left) is false?
And if you do not disagree with the premise, do you have a recommended solution?
Thanks for the ping to direct me to this.
This is how we can win the war against the dark side, by neutering and exposing the left wing mediots. Then the moderates will see that the left represents the dark side, and they will destroy us to regain power/control of America.
Thanks for a Good Post, Cannoneer No. 4!!!!:-)
Best FReegards,
D2
Can you imagine how WW2 may have turned out if the Battle of Normandy was shown in our media?
This present generation of leaders at home would never have made it to Normandy Beach. They would instead have called off the advance to hold hearings on Pearl Harbor, cast around blame for the Japanese internment, sued over the light armor and guns of Sherman tanks, apologized for bombing German civilians, and recalled General Eisenhower to Washington to explain the rough treatment of Axis prisoners.
WOW! You remember posts better than I do!
You given me competition???
;)
BUMP
Complaining about the left's control of the media and leaving it at that is akin to conceding control of the battlefield to the enemy without attempting to fight back...and that's not acceptable, nor is it conducive to political longevity. As another Freeper put it so well, you have to deal with the media you have, not with the one you wished you had.
Mass propaganda dissemination is today's primary function of a political party, and the GOP is sadly lacking in that aspect; this Administration's well-known dislike of the media is not helping the cause; if media were a weapon, the Bush administration keeps showing up at the OK Corral without a gun in hand, or even holstered. Our biggest tool to fight the left's control of America's main stream media is the Internet, and it's already coming under attack.
We are eight months away from either retaining, or losing control of Congress...the GOP needs to step up, or risk falling prey to the sixth year itch.
I don't know, but I just wanted to give him his props.
I think the pajamahadeen and the milbloggers are going to have to become Minutemen.
What can be done is that individuals can form loose-knit, issue-centric "citizen information militias" as I think I termed it in the comments of a previous thread.
Each CIM would be organized around 1-2 major and a handful of minor issues.
Each CIM would be formed of at least two major departments or functional areas- research and retail and possibly and third operations.
The Research department would work on information gathering and analysis.
The Retail department's basic responsibility would be to identify channels through which, the means by which, and the audience to whom the CIM's messages could delivered. They might also cultivate feeders who could send useful leads to them and/or the research group.
If there is an "Operations" group it's job would be to maintain the critical infrastructure (websites, blog, etc) and to provide technical support and evaluate the cost and feasibility of adopting software applications, adding features (e.g. podcasting, video).
In the CIM's early stages the Operations function could be subordinate to "Retail".
At the top of the food chain would be a farily small cadre of writers whose primary responsibility is to craft compelling content.
If that group has a leader, it would also be his or her job to set the broad agenda for the CIM, in consultation with the other team members, as well as to look for opportunies to collaborate with other CIMs on projects of mutual interest.
The smallest number of people required for a CIM to be effective would probably be 5-6 excluding the occasional feeder. While the structure could theoretically scale up by an order of magnitude, in practical terms it would probably be best to split them at about a size of 12-15. It is my feeling that anything larger than that requires communication and organizational design practices that are overly formal for what should be a rather organic undertaking. Even a CIM of 12-15 should be able to be broken into two if new issue arise that require it.
The underlying reason why America is doing so poorly in the field of "information warfare" against the Jihad is that its traditional organs of articulation -- the academy, media, Hollywood -- are largely hostile to the War on Terror itself.
That is the crux of the matter. Government is paralyzed. The traditional organs are hostile. If the job is to get done non-traditional organs must arise.
There is a milbloggers conference next month. Milbloggers, bloggers, and commenters are a logical nucleus for a Civilian Information Militia / Information Warfare Volunteer Corps.
We all know the truth about Katrina, but it's the mass media's misinformation that most people will believe, and the Internet will never be able to overcome the damage done.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.