What Doesn't Get Reported About the War on Terror

fluff · Sep 30, 2004

Is this really a surprise to you?

And the reasons the UN never removes tyrants from power are:

Either Russia, China or the USA veto the resolution.
The UN was established explicitly to prevent one state invading another.

MikeD · Sep 30, 2004

I can describe nearly every statement in that article as either glib, misleading, disingenuous, willfully ingorant, or outright false. I actually found it offensive to read in the whole. I was hoping N8's clip marks had merely given me a distorted view. Alas, alas.

Let's begin:
----------
Troopnet. Until the 1990s, military innovation was slow because there was no quick way for the millions of soldiers on the planet to communicate with each other. New ideas spread slowly. For the last century, military journals spread some ideas. But editors, and often the senior officers, decided what was published, and the circulation of these journals was quite small anyway. The Internet has changed that, dramatically. Anyone can get on the Internet, and no one censors what is said. The result has been dramatic. New tactics, opinions on weapons and equipment, practical advice on how to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq, and just the sheer sense of community, has appeared and changed the way thing work in the military. You hear some stories about how al Qaeda uses the Internet, but it is used much more, and to greater effect, by professional soldiers, particularly Americans.

This is #1 on the Top Ten things you didn't know that make America's War on Terror great? What? Our use of the Internet? Besides the fact that we're arguing online from home, instead of in some smoky coffeehouse somewhere, I don't see what great breakthrough this is for us, especially militarily. The Internet offers the military some conveniences in communication and administration and logistics, the same way it offers these things to the public and the world at large. Things have gotten easier for everyone, not just the military (and in my experience, it's made things harder sometimes, too.)

On the other hand, for Al-Queada and the little guys, it's provided an entire paradigm shift, allowing quick and easy communication, on par with what the US military has, easier financing and logistics, and allowing greater dissemination of their ideas, methods, training, propoganda in a forum open to anyone who cares to look, yet reduces their physical vulnerability in all these operations. They don't even need to find a recruit now...the recruit can find them online and train himself.

So, to sum up, it's given the US military some nice upgrades and efficiency, while giving terrorists a 1000% acceleration of their methods, means, and ideology. It's asymmetry at its finest.
-----------
Smart Soldiers. Three decades of using only volunteers, continually raising recruitment standards, and a growing culture of innovation has created a force of American troops who are not only bright, but also inclined to quickly coming up with innovative solutions for new battlefield problems. Many of these innovations are kept quiet, or secret, lest the enemy have a better chance of figuring out a counter solution. But plenty of novel thinking is right out in the open, but rarely gets reported or recognized. And when it is mentioned, the reporter tends to think it's an exception. It's not.

This is just vauge propogandistic bullcrap. Yeah, we're more decentralized now, better able to fight by making squad-level decisions, but let's face brass tacks: close-quarters combat in urban areas isn't rocket science, and we have no kind of monopoly on the skills, gear (because all you need is a rifle and rounds and some rpgs), or toughness required to do the job. What we don't have is the proper (IMHO) training. US troops have to do risk analysis (ORM) when they train to engineer out risk. We have to obey all kinds of rules, both rational and ridiculous, to govern our training. Do you think any parents send inquiries to Al-Queada if their child is injured in a training camp? Ha! To think of us as inherently superior, when we have a relatively inexperienced fighting force, compared to many muhajadeen (although there are bucketloads of green hoodlums joining the worldwide insurgency every day), is pure arrogance. Lacing it with rhetoric only compounds our blind ignorance.

I wish the US would give its military back to the warriors and deliver it from the hands of PC politicians and the Mothers of America. Our military shouldn't exist to teach people life skills and serve as a role model for society. It should exist to kill people and break things, and be comprised of potentially very dangerous individuals, not happy and safe brownies and boy scouts. [edit: by the way, haven't seen any of this with either party in the White House...nor any more funding on my level. Lots of happy big-business, big-ticket contractors around, though...]

This isn't to denigrate our military, necessarily. I'm proud of who I am, what I've done, and what others have done before me. But to underestimate your enemy is deadly and disadvantageous. And in the era of technology, most Americans, in N8-like fashion, want to think that it's smart bombs that will make the difference in war, not skill with iron sights and a willingness to bleed. Until the soviet hordes come back to rampage through Europe, much of our technology is mis-applied in the low-intensity environment. We have good things in the pipeline, for sure, but the tech stuff is window dressing for good, hard, Marines and soldiers to use it.
--------------------------------

The Iraqi Civil War. The fighting in Iraq is constantly misreported as an insurgency, evoking images of Vietnam or World War II guerillas. In actuality, the fighting is the attempt by Saddams enforcers to hold off their encounter with a democratic Iraqs application of punishments for past crimes. Saddams army was defeated, but his secret police and enforcers went home and kept fighting. Saddams people believe that they have a choice between getting back control of the country, or suffering prison, or worse, for old sins. But for complex political reasons, the media lovingly depicts these murderous thugs as brave freedom fighters. Its generally ignored that nearly all the violence is occurring in areas dominated by Sunni Arabs, who are but 20 percent of the population. Kurdish and Shia Arab areas are quiet. Calling this fighting a civil war is being generous, as one could make a case for it simply being a case of organized crime writ large. Its gangbusters, not guerillas.

Hm, someone should tell Al-Sadr about that. And the assloads of non-Iraqi fighters pouring in across the borders. These Islamist fanatics are going to be pissed that they were shanghai'd into fighting for the remnants of a secular ba'athist dictatorship.

That paragraph is a gross misrepresentation of reality; an outright lie, even. While there are tons of Sunni extremists, they're of the Al-Queada brand of Sunni islam, not Hussein's secular Sunnism. Let's just use Zarquawi as an example, shall we? And we'll let the party-line ostriches who wrote this article think that they're right.
---------------------------------------

(I'll take a break and be back in a few. This is gonna be long.)

MikeD · Sep 30, 2004

Uninformed Media. Few reporters in Iraq speak Arabic, or know much about Iraqi history or how military operations work. This means much reporting is flawed and misleading. To make matters worse, news editors outside Iraq often decide what stories to pursue, more concerned with what they, or the audience back home, wants to see, rather than what is actually happening in Iraq. Reporters are woefully ill informed about military matters. Some of this ignorance is obvious, like misidentifying weapons and units. Using the phrase exploding mortar rather than exploding mortar shell is a favorite. The mortar is the metal tube, or barrel, from which the mortar shell is fired. Worse yet, the methods and results of military operations are continually misinterpreted and misunderstood. Many reporters revel in this ignorance, feeling that getting too close to the troops will compromise their journalistic integrity. Alas, integrity, and reliable information, are in short supply.

This is hypocritical whining. Let's address the whining part first. it's much like thebellyaching about world opinion; lots of Americans think our problems are simply due to other people refusing to see the world are way. And while it may be true that if everyone thought alike, there'd be no conflict, it's simple ignorance to assume everyone will or should think 'our way.' So, now the authors want to bitch that a bunch of reporters don't see it their way.

What they need to understand is that the media is another dimension of the battlefield. Whining about it is like whining about the enemy having a certain weapon, or the weather prohibiting airstrikes or assault support...whine away, but the battlefield environment doesn't care. Lose the information war and it's like losing the air war or the ground war. Suck it up and deal with it, or get out of the game...or be big and bad enough to ignore the damage.

By the way, even grunts speak of 'getting mortared,' and they don't mean they were smacked with a metal tube. That said, I understand the point about a lack of understanding about military ops and terms, but hey--the public knows jack sh1t about it all anyway. They just want to see cool planes with a heavy metal sountrack. Plus, the media has become more and more aligned with-'embedded' with the fighters, to the point that they're accused worldwide of being non-journalistic and propogandistic. Both the left and the right in America and abroad whine about 'media bias' when they hear something they don't like.

Edit: Yeah, I forgot the hypocrisy. In the interest of brevity, I'll just say that the writers' position implies HE has the 'right' view, the 'overall, God's-eye view' of the world situation, and understands it completely, and it's just everyone else who has it wrong. He ignores the fact that he's just a cell in the media body.

BurlyShirley · Sep 30, 2004

I've never dealt with less competence in my life than in the US military. Sorry to say it, but its true.

MikeD · Sep 30, 2004

The Cultural Crises in the Arab World. In the last half century, despite enormous oil wealth, the Arab countries have fallen behind the rest of the world in most categories that matter (economic, education, scientific, political.) These failures have been the main cause of the unrest in the Arab world, and the growth of radical groups like al Qaeda. Its been popular, for the last half century, for Arabs to blame everyone but themselves for these problems. But even Arabs are now having second thoughts about these popular excuses for Arab failure. There are problems within Arab culture, and only now are they being openly talked about by Arabs. But solutions will be difficult, and wont attract much media attention. Its dull stuff, cultural failure, but its where the key to the future of peace in the Middle East will be found.

This is a popular theme lately. Americans love it, because it asserts a cultural superiority over the faceless Arab hordes. It also ignores a role for America in the culture and politics of the Middle East. Most Americans want to think that we're 100% dandy liberators and freedom-bringers, and those with a more sinister bent, like N8, say, refuse to consider 'any scenario in which the US is a cause of problems and not a solution.' [paraphrased as best I can from memory.] Again, they whine when anyone, especially someone with a gun or a willingness to fly a plane into the world trade center, has a difference of opinion, because it conflicts with their worldview of America the Entirely Good and Inherently Righteous. Look at 9/11...Bin Laden openly and repeatedly states his views and action agenda, tries once, fails, and tries again years later (interspersed with dramatic actions not on American soil) and succeeds, and the attacks are portrayed as the actions of a raving lunatic who acted without warning or provocation.

This position is remarkable in that it combines the hiding-the-head-in-the-sand position with an assumption that you don't need to pull your head out of the sand because you already know what the story is. Not saying we have to like being attacked, but the American public needs to wake up to the consequences of our policies in this world, and again, suck it up and fight (effectively!), or find another way to resolve the problems we've had a hand in creating.

Osama isn't trying to kill us because Arab culture 'failed,' and he's jealous; he's trying to kill us because there are repressive regimes in the Arab world, propped up by the US, because he hates Israel, which we support, and because we allow everyone in the world but Muslims to own weapons of mass distruction, especially those currently in conflict with Muslims (Israel, India).

MikeD · Sep 30, 2004

The Lifecycle of Terror. These things dont last forever. Terror has been around for a long time, and theres quite a history of how long terrorist campaigns last and why.... Historically, when terrorism doesnt appear to accomplish anything, the terrorists fade away.

This is a rather glib statement that needs a book's-worth of research and support to substantiate, and it would still be open for arguement. I can't say that the remainder of the paragraph has much value without such support.

The univeralizations in the entire paragraph are over-the-top. And saying that the elevation of terrorism to bloodier and bloodier ends means it will somehow 'burn out' misses the point...we've gone BEYOND the right's favorite word-mantra, "terrorism." We're not facing people who are trying to call attention to political causes or force relatively small changes in policy...we're facing a real war of quasi-nation vs. the US. Sure, Islamists worldwide want to "change US policy" through the use of violence to alter public opinion and thus affect change, but that's like saying the American Revolution was a war to change British domestic and foreign policy.

MikeD · Sep 30, 2004

Ok. I'm off to watch the 'debates.' (Ha! These are really going to suck...more sound bytes and no interaction. I'm already feeling sick at the state of politics. What a pair of pvssies.)

More later.

Changleen · Sep 30, 2004

Mike:

ohio · Sep 30, 2004

Damn. MikeD, impressive.

Ever consider forwarding some of that onto media outlets? Not that it's worth the effort but if you're willing to put the time into it for the sake of folks on RM, might as well cut and paste it to the LA Times...

MikeD · Sep 30, 2004

BurlySurly said:
I've never dealt with less competence in my life than in the US military. Sorry to say it, but its true.

Well, have you ever dealt with, say, the Kuwaiti military? Sheesh. Just getting their weapons to fire is a cause for a celebration with tea for those guys.

We may not be the best (although we're still tops in conventional conflict, however outmoded it may be), or necessarily the hardest, but we ARE far from the worst. But to frighten you more, BS, aside from the elite units of the various services, you came from the best force the US has to offer. Of that I'm convinced.

MD

MikeD · Sep 30, 2004

N8 said:
Or at least make a Blog... You sound as good as the better ones I've read.

Thanks, guys. Appreciate it, but I have to say, I'm really only good at bitching and moaning myself. Criticism is easy; creation is hard. And I feel like I'm not THAT much of an informed person, actually...so please feel free to call bullsh1t on me whenever you want. I'm used to it, and if you haven't noticed, am not adverse to introspection and self-criticism.

MD

BurlyShirley · Sep 30, 2004

MikeD said:
We may not be the best (although we're still tops in conventional conflict, however outmoded it may be), or necessarily the hardest, but we ARE far from the worst.

I wasnt talking about warfighting specifically cause Ive never done it, though that is our main function. I just meant in terms of "people" and their ability to tie their shoes and get to work on time and things like that. Ive met McDonalds crews who were better.

I hate gunnys. Those guys are idiots.

MikeD · Sep 30, 2004

BurlySurly said:
I wasnt talking about warfighting specifically cause Ive never done it, though that is our main function. I just meant in terms of "people" and their ability to tie their shoes and get to work on time and things like that. Ive met McDonalds crews who were better.
I hate gunnys. Those guys are idiots.

The parallels between low-level management and military leadership in both garrison and the field can be frightening.

Just went to the range with a couple of real smart gunnies this week. Plenty of good gunnies around...easy rank to make fun of, though. I think Master Sergeant is the rank where most people start to go bad. That and major.

Or, if they're really a sack, they just stop functioning when they hit staff sergeant, which it seems anyone with a pulse is making these days.

BurlyShirley · Sep 30, 2004

MikeD said:
The parallels between low-level management and military leadership in both garrison and the field can be frightening.

Just went to the range with a couple of real smart gunnies this week. Plenty of good gunnies around...easy rank to make fun of, though. I think Master Sergeant is the rank where most people start to go bad. That and major.

Or, if they're really a sack, they just stop functioning when they hit staff sergeant, which it seems anyone with a pulse is making these days.

I always just imagine SNCOs as guys who had nothing else to offer the world so they decided to stay in. Most would have mullets and drive beat up 88 camaros if they got out. I just figure you gotta be somewhat worthless to accept making that little money just for a little security. There are exceptions of course. I mean if you have 9 kids, you cant just get out, but I think the smart ones usually get WO packages or try to get a commission or something. They do tend to stagnate.

BurlyShirley · Sep 30, 2004

I dont mean to sound like a disgruntled tool or anything, cause Im really not...I just think some stuff is messed up, but I had a positive learning experience overall and I am somewhat impressed that officers are able to keep it together.

Skookum · Sep 30, 2004

MikeD said:
The Lifecycle of Terror. These things dont last forever. Terror has been around for a long time, and theres quite a history of how long terrorist campaigns last and why.... Historically, when terrorism doesnt appear to accomplish anything, the terrorists fade away.

This is a rather glib statement that needs a book's-worth of research and support to substantiate, and it would still be open for arguement. I can't say that the remainder of the paragraph has much value without such support.

The univeralizations in the blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah .

Dude you really need to get over yourself....
How can we really trust what you have to say anyways? :rolleyes:

i fought and won many paintball wars with inferior weapons so i guess you might have a point.... :think:

i'm gonna watch Fox to wash all your crap out of my mind now.

neaky:

Thylacine · Oct 1, 2004

"In actuality, the fighting is the attempt by Saddams enforcers to hold off their encounter with a democratic Iraqs application of punishments for past crimes"

This guy must be on crack. Iraq is a simple power vaccuum and therefore a magnet for every Muslim extremist group that wants a slice of the action. The current problem with Iraq is nothing to do with the 'old guard' wanting things to be back like the good old days - that's utter rubbish. Consider the basics of the situation and lets ignore politics and the media for a second -

1) Iraq is a police state where the police ( coalition forces ) don't have control of the country. This provides the Iraqi people with zero confidence.
2) large parts of Iraq are a power vacuum that are attracting every Muslim extremist faction under the sun, local and international.
3) The appointed 'Iraqi interim government' was appointed by the US to protect US interests. The 'Democratic Elections' are being postponed at every opportunity because the Coalition doesn't want democracy in Iraq in the short term. This again promotes zero confidence from the Iraqi people.

That's my basic understanding anyway. Here's a good read if you want some independant journalism >>

http://www.abc.net.au/enoughrope/stories/s1162781.htm

MikeD · Oct 1, 2004

Skookum said:
Dude you really need to get over yourself....
How can we really trust what you have to say anyways?
i fought and won many paintball wars with inferior weapons so i guess you might have a point....
i'm gonna watch Fox to wash all your crap out of my mind now. neaky:

Silence, insolent, er, mortal!

Thylacine · Oct 1, 2004

Gack, I just read that article that was referred to in the original post.

That is the most ignorant, self important, self congratulatory piece of poo I've read in a looonnnnggg time. Does anyone actually believe this sh!t? "Arabic Cultural Failure"? Wha? Sh!t, I think I just had a flashback from the Crusades.....*rubs eyes*.......

fluff · Oct 1, 2004

MikeD said:
----------
Troopnet... The Internet has changed that, dramatically. Anyone can get on the Internet, and no one censors what is said... You hear some stories about how al Qaeda uses the Internet...

So, to sum up, it's given the US military some nice upgrades and efficiency, while giving terrorists a 1000% acceleration of their methods, means, and ideology. It's asymmetry at its finest.

Top posts Mike.

With regard to the above there is also the irony that the Internet was originally developed from the US Defence network.

jmvar · Oct 1, 2004

This is a popular theme lately. Americans love it, because it asserts a cultural superiority over the faceless Arab hordes. It also ignores a role for America in the culture and politics of the Middle East. Most Americans want to think that we're 100% dandy liberators and freedom-bringers, and those with a more sinister bent, like N8, say, refuse to consider 'any scenario in which the US is a cause of problems and not a solution.' [paraphrased as best I can from memory.] Again, they whine when anyone, especially someone with a gun or a willingness to fly a plane into the world trade center, has a difference of opinion, because it conflicts with their worldview of America the Entirely Good and Inherently Righteous. Look at 9/11...Bin Laden openly and repeatedly states his views and action agenda, tries once, fails, and tries again years later (interspersed with dramatic actions not on American soil) and succeeds, and the attacks are portrayed as the actions of a raving lunatic who acted without warning or provocation.

This position is remarkable in that it combines the hiding-the-head-in-the-sand position with an assumption that you don't need to pull your head out of the sand because you already know what the story is. Not saying we have to like being attacked, but the American public needs to wake up to the consequences of our policies in this world, and again, suck it up and fight (effectively!), or find another way to resolve the problems we've had a hand in creating.

Osama isn't trying to kill us because Arab culture 'failed,' and he's jealous; he's trying to kill us because there are repressive regimes in the Arab world, propped up by the US, because he hates Israel, which we support, and because we allow everyone in the world but Muslims to own weapons of mass distruction, especially those currently in conflict with Muslims (Israel, India).

One of the most insightfull statements I have read in this forum.....I wish Kerry would talk about this when he states that the Bush administration has isolated the US from the Arab world. Unfortunately he won't because when he steps into office the US will veto the same number of UN resolutions and meddle in the Middle East just like the last 10 administrations regardless of whether they are Democrap or Retardican.

Thanks MikeD, MikeD for president, ham sandwich for Vice.....but make it turkey ham so as not to isolate the Muslims...

What Doesn't Get Reported About the War on Terror

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

Monkey Turbo

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists

Paranoid Member

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

The Fresno Kid

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

bikey's is cool

Monkey

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists

Monkey

Monkey Turbo

Monkey