Pointing the Propaganda Gun At Our Own Heads
Once again, we have met the enemy and he is us. Drum summarizes Abu Aardvark.
I guess this is just another reality-based hang-up...
Once again, we have met the enemy and he is us. Drum summarizes Abu Aardvark.
I guess this is just another reality-based hang-up...
posted by Winston Smith at
1:58 PM
14 Comments:
Yes, it is a difficult thing. But the global nature of news may make the concerns Smith-Mundt addresses moot.
I myself increasingly find the most interesting things about the US in the foreign papers.
On a related reality-based note, per previous discussions about "force multipliers," we get these metrics from some Harvard guys:
Are Iraqi Insurgents Emboldened by Antiwar Reporting?
Economists say their study, with caveats, finds some linkages
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/iraq/2008/03/12/are-iraqi-insurgents-emboldened-by-antiwar-reporting.html
Unmeasured to date is the force multiplication by US senators and presidential candidates saying that the war is lost and/or we should pull the plug.
The question isn't, what is 'anti-war reporting"?
Telling the truth about what's going on, or unfairly attempting to spin the 'progress' that has taken place since the fall of Saddam?
I had a professor who liked to point out that a lullby can be characterized as propaganda, not that I'd seek to disturb dogmatic slumber, even of the sleepwalking variety.........
It shows that the various insurgent groups do respond to incentives and shows that a successful counter insurgency strategy should take that reality into account," says one of the paper's coauthors, Jonathan Monten, a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
Of course, the metaquestion of whether we've ever had a successful counter-insurgency going on in the first place, is Not To Be Mentioned
and:
It was not possible, from the data available, to determine whether insurgent groups increased the overall number of attacks against American and Iraqi targets in the wake of public dissent and debate or simply changed the timing of those attacks. This means that insurgents may not be increasing the number of attacks after all but simply changing the days on which they attack in response to media reports.
unfairly attempting to spin the 'progress' that has taken place since the fall of Saddam?
Perhaps there has been zero "progress" since the fall of Saddam. I do not think this is true, but as always, I might be wrong.
At some point, one must enter the ring instead of throwing folding chairs over the ropes. You have the floor, DA.
Perhaps there has been zero "progress" since the fall of Saddam. I do not think this is true, but as always, I might be wrong.
I wouldn't characterize it as zero,
but that would end with you attempting to bandy numbers about, so I won't go there.
throwing folding chairs over the ropes
If you could engage any of the points I raised, along wi>th the skepticism from the article you cited, you wouldn't be talking about wrestling metaphors so early on in the thread, Legate Van Dyke.
Res ipsa loquitur
At some point, one must enter the ring
Sorry if my karma ran over your dogma.
Actually, you cherry-picked the co-author's honest admission that his study was not definitive---as he humbly made no claim for absolute truth---and used it as a complete negation of the study, which showed some indications and evidence that a thinking person would at least consider.
Typical. When one does not proclaim the possession of truth at the top of his lungs, you take it as weakness.
Yes, you are throwing chairs. Unless you have evidence to the contrary to challenge those indications and that evidence, you are not in the ring, but performing a predictable hit job from outside it.
And you don't even see it, and that's the pity. You think what you're doing is just fine.
Good one about the karma and dogma though, if original.
which showed some indications and evidence that a thinking person would at least consider.
I merely quoted from the article, any observer could go to the link you provided, read the whole thing and judge for him/her/transgendered-self without relying on either one of us for what the contents of the article are.
Unless you have evidence to the contrary to challenge those indications and that evidence, you are not in the ring, but performing a predictable hit job from outside it.
It's facinating how your martyrdom complex allows you to make the first charge of 'dirty fighting' and prate about 'thinking persons' instead of countering with facts
and evidence in your responses to my posts fo far.
Instead you prefer the distorted narrative that makes me the bad guy and you the Gorgeous George here, albeit without the rose petals and grand entrance..........
And you don't even see it, and that's the pity. You think what you're doing is just fine.
Oh, my vision is clear, and your futile attempts at obfuscation demonstrates the lack of facts and reasoning on your side, or else you can't express yourself clearly against my evil loaded premises because???????????????
I did express myself clearly against your evil loaded premises. You ignored the article I linked, except a loophole, said Eureka!, and changed the subject with your "metaquestion."
What the article says is that it's possible that negative reporting and vociferous opposition at home may result in an emboldening of the insurgents. Something to think about.
The rest got buried under nonsense.
except a loophole
If that's how you want to characterize the two excerpts I quoted, that's interesting in and of itself, and, again, anyone who has the wit to follow your link can decide for him/her/transgendered-self who is throwing chairs, using 'loaded premises', etc.
What the article says is that it's possible that negative reporting and vociferous opposition at home may result in an emboldening of the insurgents.
First you use the term antiwar reporting, then switch to 'negative reporting' to characterize reporting you clearly think is less than helpful to the 'cause'.
As for emboldening of the insurgents, you seem to miss the points that American troops in Iraq , even with the best intentions in the world, gives the insurgents something to fight against, a cause that would disintegrate if we pulled out of there and demonstrated a willingness to help keep order in Iraq other than the price of American blood.
As for worring about emboldening the terrorists, that is an element in conducting a successful counter-insurgency campaign, but you again seek to attempt a special pleading instead of sticking to the matter at hand, with a carelessness that reminds me of the stage term 'flop sweat'.
As always, YMMV
Actually, the headline used "antiwar" reporting.
Look, there's a concept here, and some research. You don't like it, fine. You don't agree with it, fine.
But a) I found you ignored the article's content and focused only on its caveats, and b) leave me out of it.
Is it definitive truth? No. Is it worth thinking about? If you're an honest inquirer, yes.
I found you ignored the article's content and focused only on its caveats
No, I demonstrated that there could be alternative explainations for a given set of observations and data.
b) leave me out of it.
As you left me out of it when you accused me of throwing chairs and implying a lack of intelligence on someones' part.
Right.
As you've been told more than once in your life, denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
Is it worth thinking about? If you're an honest inquirer, yes.
An rational inquirer wouldn't worry about enemy morale at the expense of delivering an updated version of "Loose Lips Sink Ships", and I'll leave it to others besides the two of us to determine the honesty or lack thereof in our posts here.
No, I demonstrated that there could be alternative explainations for a given set of observations and data.
That was not in question; in fact, the article stipulated it.
And I would not accuse you of being unintelligent, DA. You manifestly are not.
But honesty requires giving some consideration that the article's hypothesis might---only might, mind you---be true. This is what's I've missing from everything you've written on this subject so far, an actual consideration and addressing of the point.
Now, your rejoinder might be that you don't care, that "loose lips sink ships" is no way to live. I can respect that.
I'd just ask that our congressional leaders use a bit of their well-developed skill of mealymouthedness to not give al-Jazeera such juicy quotes.
And if President Obama doesn't intend a quick withdrawal of our troops, that he not be so mealy-mouthed about it. As the article indicates, the present uncertainty might give hope to the insurgents.
Well, depends on what "anti-war" reporting is. If "anti-war" means "reporting about failures," then that's one thing. If it means "reporting pointing out that we never should have been there in the first place," then that's slightly another.
Actually, this is one problem with lying us into an unjustified war: you can't then demand enthusiastic support. Conservatives want to say "forget the fact that this was a huge mistake and Bush lied! Just be enthusiastic supporters now!"
But, as I've pointed out before, if conservatives followed their own policy here, then they'd admit that the war was unjustified and based on lies. They'd say "yes, it was a screw-up, we admit it. Now let's all pull together."
But, of course, they don't. They, as usual, put higher demands on liberals than they put on themselves.
And, of course, there are probably many force multipliers for al Qaeda floating around...but nobody can touch conservatives on that score. They've become committed to the "THE TERRORISTS ARE OMNIPOTENT!!!111" school of thought (or "thought").
It's almost certainly true that negative reporting and political opposition helps the enemy. But that doesn't mean that these things are never warranted. In the current case, they clearly ARE warranted, so the fact that they give SOME (undefined) level of help to the enemy is irrelevant. If the criticism were unwarranted, then it would be not only false, but aiding and abetting the enemy. Given that opposition in this case is warranted, then the fact that it aids the enemy is something we just have to deal with.
Again, conservatives have had opportunities to avoid all of this. First, object to going into a dishonest and unjustified war. Second, admitting error, thus putting the mistakes of the past behind us, and helping the country to come together.
But, since conservatives have failed to do their duty in every case in this war, they can't complain that liberals are pointing out the errors.
Depends on how they're pointed out. Harry Reid saying the war is lost---when it wasn't---is indefensible, in my view.
The study, WS, was an attempt to define that which you call "undefinable." You and I have spoken often on the subject of the unintended consequences of dissent, and this is the first reality-based attempt to quantify its effects.
And I object strongly to any moral calculus that makes it OK to increase the suffering of both our troops and the Iraqi people because of a disagreement to go to war in the first place.
[As for the decision itself, you and I are done with that.]
As for what "anti-war" reporting might be, I would say only that it would not be about the facts themselves but in the various emphases of the good and bad. Al-Jazeera is listening, and will run with the bad. We should never lose track of the value of prudence in conducting human affairs.
"forget the fact that this was a huge mistake and Bush lied! Just be enthusiastic supporters now!"
...
Given that opposition in this case is warranted, then the fact that it aids the enemy is something we just have to deal with."
And this is the nub, as well shown in "The Caine Mutiny": what is loyalty, what is loyal opposition, and what is irresponsible disloyalty.
If one were convinced---at whatever point---that we should pull the plug on Iraq, then you can in good conscience emphasize the bad to make your case.
However, if there's no chance that a pullout will happen, and your talk and actions only embolden al-Qaeda and the various other miscreants over there and increase the net human suffering, you alone bear the responsibility for the fallout.
For if there is to be a Just War Theory, there must also be a Just Anti-War Theory, eh?
[And thank you for a reasonably germane address of the core issue, WS.]
Harry Reid clearly said "the war is lost" as a shorthand for "there's no military solution in Iraq." His subsequent comments in the same press conference confirm it.
Of course, in modern electronic media, there's no such thing as nuance.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home