Posted on 12/22/2004 5:58:12 AM PST by LS
Watching Charlie Gibson this morning, as he feigned his somber mood to report the rocket attack in Mosul, one could almost see him hiding the glee that he really felt at this incident. The fact is, the Mainstream Media loves high-casualty attacks like this, because they can (as Charlie did) drag on relatives of those involved in the attack and (if possible) relatives of the killed or wounded.
Side note: relatives of these soldiers need to get a clue that when ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN or any of the other MSMs call, the relatives are aiding and abetting the enemy by agreeing to an interview, regardless of what appears to be the "motivation" of the interviewers.
So Charlie soberly reports the horrific scene inside the mess tent and dutifully noted the heroic actions of some to rescue the wounded. What's missing, of course, as it always is with the MSM, is the context. Repeat with me, in a loud voice: THIS IS A WAR.
The MSM has run a steady campaign of trying to make Americans think that a war zone should be a peace zone---that Iraq is really a "normal" country that we happen to be "occupying" and thus "causing" the "insurgents" to attack average people. It is akin to some reporter in the Pacific in World War II trying to portray Manila as a "peace zone" that just happened to be "invaded" by Americans, "forcing" the Japanese to pour gasoline over hospital patients before torching them. Had Americans not been there . . . well, you can see the logic.
This all is a natural but terribly damaging result of instantaneous news coverage and the lack of censorship. I don't know if World War II-type censorship would even be possible here, but after doing a brilliant job of embedding the reporters during the high-level combat phase, the Pentagon must now come up with a different strategy of controlling the "news" during the "insurgent" phase.
There are realities that no one in the MSM even wants to acknowledge, let alone explain:
1) In eleven previous "insurgencies,"/guerilla movements/communist insurrections, the government or established power won seven. One of those losses, Vietnam, was clearly facilitated by an active anti-war press.
2) The majority of the government "wins" took a minimum of five years, and often eight to ten years. Two of the most successful (in that there has never been a revival of the initial opposition), Malaya in the 1950s and the Filipino Rebellion of the early 1900s took ten years of hard fighting.
3) This "insurrection" is not unique: several have been sponsored by outside forces and most of them defeated. It is nothing new to have outsiders coming in, or supplying weapons to those on the inside. What is somewhat different is the "suicide bomber," but even the number of those incidents has been greatly decreased in the past year, with the attack-of-choice now being the mortar or the IED.
The MSM desperately wants more Mosuls, because it allows them to "frame" the debate as a "quagmire." World War II (and any war) had more than its share of serious setbacks. Had reporters been free to report on Anzio, or some of the difficulties with the early bombing missions over France and Germany, or on the deadliness of the kamikazes, winning the Second World War would have been difficult if not impossible.
We are at war here, and not just with radical Islamofascist states, but with our own media elites who see their grip on public discourse disappearing by the day. This is their Tet. They will fight to the last reporter over this war.
Let's make it their Yorktown, where, bunkered up and besieged, they must ingloriously surrender to the patriot's who refuse to be bullied.
mark my words...WW II era censorship and media controls will have to be brought back if we intend to win this war
Why must we call people traitors?
There are real people hurting the efforts of the war, the soldiers families, however misguided, are not the problem.
P.S. Im not the one who bolded it, like it was the most important part of his article. That is why I replied.
I said that the families need to understand that they are being used every time they agree to these interviews REGARDLESS of their motivations. Do you really think you would see interviews with grieving families in WW II splattered all over the NY Times? No. But back then, the public trusted the media to be "American." These families need to understand that the media is NOT "American" anymore, and you can put that in your crack pipe and smoke it. No apologies here for what I wrote.
So now it's no longer the enemy's fault, every unfortunate wounding/killing of a US soldier is RUMSFELD's fault!
Out-friggin-rageous.
I know why you replied as you did and if I hadn't conversed with LS many times before I would have read it the same as you because it is written that way.
I'm headed elsewhere.
Later
I think you are right on with this analysis.
I might support that but I don't think it's possible anymore. Just too much instant communication, even from soldiers at the front.
Are they not? Is the effect of these interviews, regardless of motivation, not aiding and abetting the enemy? What am I missing here. You sir, are the one missing in action.
I've never chatted with LS, and maybe I am missing something. But, like you, I think I am out of here.
But if he had required such "bunkers," then he would be accused of "dis-comforting" our troops.
I dont' watch any of that stuff. They are losers and are a disgrace.
Places to go and threads to read.
Idiocy continues fair weather or foul!
As far back as Beirut we put HUNDREDS of Marines in a barrack because "everybody knew" no truck would ever drive the wrong way down a one way street -an error of thought further compounded by the obvious dangers of letting a sentry (gasp!) carry a loaded weapon to SHOOT the driver of a truck who drove the wrong way down a one way street!
Best regards,
And you sir are an ignorant fool if you do not understand the propaganda that is going on. Those in the main stream media do not care about the loved ones of the family, only that they can use them as a prop for their agenda. An agenda that aids those that wish us dead.
Think this through, who will benefit if the main stream media is allowed to weaken the resolve of the American people? The enemy wins.
What is going to happen if we pull out of Iraq too soon? Those that wish us dead will learn a valuable lesson, cause enough pain and suffering and the United States will surrender.
The war in Viet Nam was lost in the living rooms of the United States not in the rice patties of Viet Nam. The main stream media border on treason with their constant distoration of what is going on.
The use of grieving family members serve only one purpose, to weaken the resolve of the American people.
The difference between Viet Nam and Iraq is if we did pull out, the war will not be over. More Americans, only now on our own soil will die.
This war started many years ago, it is only recently that we began to think of it as war. If we go back to the way it was, we will have more terrorism not less.
I would tend to agree, but maybe that's not the way to go. I think "spreading democracy" is a fool's errand in the middle east. Spreading "liberty," however, is something worthwhile....they are not identical.
If Iraqi's were safe enough that they could broadcast their own version of "FNC" without fear of retribution or their families being kidnapped, I think they might be able to lift themselves out of Islamahell.
I think there needs to be an environment where "Ali Limbali" actually can start a talk radio show and debunk all the Islamofascist garbage.
If we enable a Islamodemocracy where the aggressive "insurgents" can play government if they choose, I'm not sure anything changes.
So you are calling them traitors? I'm confused, why are you protesting that you didn't say that? You are saying it again.
I assume you know that aiding and abetting the enemy is treason, so to accuse people of that is to accuse them of treason.
You said it, do you mean it?
Please understand also that I do not in any way question the MOTIVATIONS of families---any more than I questioned the motivations of the "Jersey Girls" of 9/11 families---but rather the actual outcome or impact on propaganda. No matter how they hurt, or what legitimate concerns they have, the families must understand they are part of the propaganda war, and not allow themselves to be used by the enemy in their grief.
I've answered and you've interpreted. Anything that gives aid and comfort to the enemy always is in the context of intent. I doubt any of these families have that intent. Now, do you deny the REALITY that what they say has the outcome of giving aid and comfort?
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.