Replies

Can't blame our guys for trying to push hard for (and thinking that they had a good chance to get) a quick end to the war . . .

I agree that expectations were set high, by the media. The media feeds on ignorance of the public, and this "war" will be a fast one, a quick one. But "fast" and "quick" are relative terms, and the public perception is FORMED by the media. From the professional warrior's perception, this war and it's aftermath WILL be quick. The media's agenda is to weaken USA and it's interests. If that was your agenda, would you admit it?

It goes against my nature to stick up for the media...but in this instance i don't think the media is entirely to blame. Nor do i feel our military/political leaders are at fault either. We took a stab at getting a quick capitulation but it just hasn't worked yet. The media has simply picked up on the vibes it was getting out of Washington that there was a chance we could get this thing over with without much resistance. For instance i remember Bill Krystal going on Fox, not long after we had attempted to shish kebab Saddam, and him saying something to the effect that "this might be a war that was finished with just a single blow" and he was bubbling over with what a brilliant and brazen decision it was by the President to order a strike on Saddam. So the feeling was there. And the media picked up on it.

But i definitely do agree that the majority of the media is shaping it in a very anti-Bush way, making it sound as though this has been a great blow against us rather than presenting it as it really is - that the leadership boldly took a shot at ending things quickly to try to prevent American and Iraqi casualties plus to help keep the region more stabilized, that it didn't work out quite as they had hoped, and that now we just have to buckle up and prepare for the type of war everyone expected (though some of the expectations were far worse than the reality has been so far).