Now the NYT is Tokyo Rose
Check out this post (linked-to approvingly by Instapundit).
Here we are told that "U.S. troops have been mystified at how differently the war they fight in Iraq is portrayed by the U.S. media back home." (Extended sidebar: Note the absence of a quantifier--one of my favorite tricks. How many U.S. troops are so mystified? Of course it wouldn't be legitimate to ask for a specific number...but what's the claim just roughly? All? Most? Many? Some? 'Most' would make the claim interesting...'some' would make it uninteresting. As stated, the claim is consistent with a claim containing any of those quantifiers, however. But we can't add 'all' or even 'almost all', because that would be false. In face, many U.S. troops are mystified that the coverage of the war is so absurdly positive.)
But the real point: Strategypage goes on to note that Tokyo Rose et. al. used to hammer away at three points:
"1 Your President (Franklin D Roosevelt) is lying to you.
"The troops are perplexed and somewhat amused that their own media is now sending out this message. Fighting the enemy in Iraq is simple, compared to figuring out what news editors are thinking back home. A few times, the mass media has been bold, or foolish, enough to confront the troops about this divergence of perceptions. The result is usually a surreal exchange, with the troops giving the journalist a "what planet are YOU from" look."
(Here, incidentally, we do get a needed quantifier, i.e. usually. Thus probably making the claim false.)
But the mere fact that bad people once said such things falsely does not make them false in all cases. The Axis also told their citizens that they were in danger from external threats. But I don't know of anyone who has stooped low enough to suggest that Bush is like Tojo or Hitler because he, too, says that we are in such danger. Nor has anyone suggested that we are NOT in such danger on the grounds that the Axis once made such claims about themselves. In general, the fact that some bad person said x once doesn't mean that x isn't true. This is not a difficult point to understand.
Questions about the truth of such claims have to be investigated like any other questions. So let's address the claims at issue:
1. Your president is lying to you: uncontroversially true, so it's good when the media point it out--which, IMHO, they don't do nearly enough.
There's no serious discussion about this one anymore. And, again, the fact that Tokyo Rose falsely said it about Roosevelt doesn't somehow magically mean that it's false about Bush. If that were so, then T. Rose's false claim about Roosevelt would guarantee that all future U.S. presidents were always honest (!).
2. The war is illegal: unclear, but probably false. But hardly any serious person claims this.
Many do point out that the war is immoral--or, to be more precise, it was started on immoral grounds. But that's a different point.
3. You cannot win the war: The only really interesting claim here...
We don't know whether it's true or not...though even Dick Lugar seems to believe it now. On the other hand, some on the left, and in the media, seemed to be pushing this line long before we had evidence that it was true. So this point has some chance of sticking.
These kinds of comparisons don't surprise me, though. It's this kind of bullshit that Godwin's Law is aimed at
I'm waiting for the more overt "stabbed in the back" claims myself. Thing's'll really get fun then.
That is all.
Check out this post (linked-to approvingly by Instapundit).
Here we are told that "U.S. troops have been mystified at how differently the war they fight in Iraq is portrayed by the U.S. media back home." (Extended sidebar: Note the absence of a quantifier--one of my favorite tricks. How many U.S. troops are so mystified? Of course it wouldn't be legitimate to ask for a specific number...but what's the claim just roughly? All? Most? Many? Some? 'Most' would make the claim interesting...'some' would make it uninteresting. As stated, the claim is consistent with a claim containing any of those quantifiers, however. But we can't add 'all' or even 'almost all', because that would be false. In face, many U.S. troops are mystified that the coverage of the war is so absurdly positive.)
But the real point: Strategypage goes on to note that Tokyo Rose et. al. used to hammer away at three points:
"1 Your President (Franklin D Roosevelt) is lying to you.
2 This war is illegal.
3 You cannot win the war."
SP proceeds:"The troops are perplexed and somewhat amused that their own media is now sending out this message. Fighting the enemy in Iraq is simple, compared to figuring out what news editors are thinking back home. A few times, the mass media has been bold, or foolish, enough to confront the troops about this divergence of perceptions. The result is usually a surreal exchange, with the troops giving the journalist a "what planet are YOU from" look."
(Here, incidentally, we do get a needed quantifier, i.e. usually. Thus probably making the claim false.)
But the mere fact that bad people once said such things falsely does not make them false in all cases. The Axis also told their citizens that they were in danger from external threats. But I don't know of anyone who has stooped low enough to suggest that Bush is like Tojo or Hitler because he, too, says that we are in such danger. Nor has anyone suggested that we are NOT in such danger on the grounds that the Axis once made such claims about themselves. In general, the fact that some bad person said x once doesn't mean that x isn't true. This is not a difficult point to understand.
Questions about the truth of such claims have to be investigated like any other questions. So let's address the claims at issue:
1. Your president is lying to you: uncontroversially true, so it's good when the media point it out--which, IMHO, they don't do nearly enough.
There's no serious discussion about this one anymore. And, again, the fact that Tokyo Rose falsely said it about Roosevelt doesn't somehow magically mean that it's false about Bush. If that were so, then T. Rose's false claim about Roosevelt would guarantee that all future U.S. presidents were always honest (!).
2. The war is illegal: unclear, but probably false. But hardly any serious person claims this.
Many do point out that the war is immoral--or, to be more precise, it was started on immoral grounds. But that's a different point.
3. You cannot win the war: The only really interesting claim here...
We don't know whether it's true or not...though even Dick Lugar seems to believe it now. On the other hand, some on the left, and in the media, seemed to be pushing this line long before we had evidence that it was true. So this point has some chance of sticking.
These kinds of comparisons don't surprise me, though. It's this kind of bullshit that Godwin's Law is aimed at
I'm waiting for the more overt "stabbed in the back" claims myself. Thing's'll really get fun then.
That is all.
posted by Winston Smith at
11:08 AM
5 Comments:
Interestingly about point #2:
It seems pretty clear to me that it is illegal, and this is the rationale (as put forth by some very notable people such as John Conyers - professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, Robert Perry - executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild, and Marjorie Cohn - US representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists):
The UN Charter prohibits any war unless it is out of self-defense (to an immediate and imminent threat) or when it is sanctioned by the UN security council.
If these requirements are not met, the international law of the UN qualifies it as a "war of aggression", which qualifies it as a "crime against peace".
Since the UN Charter is a Congress-ratified treaty, and Article VI of the Constitution labels such treaties as "the supreme Law of the Land", we are breaking our own laws AND international laws by enacting a war of aggression, as it is qualified by the UN.
The only way you could consider it to be not a war of aggression is if you could prove that it was done in what was thought to be self-defense. Yet, the only person who could do that, would be one who rejects the idea that Bush has lied about the reasons Iraq poses a threat to the US in order to get us to go to war.
So, that's why the war is illegal both internationally and locally.
Correction:
The article I was reading made it look like the descriptors of Marjorie Cohn were descriptors of all three of the people in the list rather than just of her - so that first paragraph in my last postshould read
"(as put forth by some very notable people such as John Conyers - democratic congressman, Robert Parry - the investigative journalist, and Marjorie Cohn - who is a Professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild, US representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists):"
My bad. It got me thinking 'cause I had no idea that John Conyers was a professor formerly. lol.
Shame on me for not researching sufficiently, but the point remains valid, I think.
Mystic,
I think what complicates your analysis is the earlier invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. That was a clear case of aggression, and the U.S. and our allies rolled it back with UN authorization. After the end of hostilities, the U.S. was still conducting a mission on behalf of the UN, and Iraq was continuing to violate the terms of the agreement to end hostilities. Shooting at planes flying UN-sanctioned missions and impeding the work of UN inspectors is hardly peaceful behavior.
Was this enough to justify the invasion? I’m not qualified to judge on a legal basis, but my instinct tells me that if you sign a ceasefire and then violate the terms then bad things can happen. What I’ve always questioned was whether it was a wise course of action. Even if legal, the invasion has been a disaster.
Winston, no less a worthy than Richard Pearle has admitted that the war is illegal with his now famous "international law got in the way of doing the right thing" line.
Well, the action seems to be authorized under UN resolution 1441, as well as 678 and 687...but it seems that that position is more controversial than I thought.
I'll abandon the claim that few argue that it's illegal...though now a stronger response is possible here, as some of you guys note: the war may very well have been illegal, ergo it's permissible--in fact, obligatory--for the media to point this out...and, again, the analogy with Axis propaganda fails.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home