Time tables, exit strategies and getting the man who blew up the WTC make all the difference. - Edit 2
Before modification by Joel at 29/06/2012 01:40:25 AM
No matter how one cuts it, the media has seriously scaled back reporting of the War. Personally I'm glad for that, but the fact of the matter is that the war has not seriously changed since about the first month of either given theater, and casualties have remained minimal the whole time in all fronts. I think the media had a bias against Bush and for Obama that influenced their coverage but mostly I think they just covered it initially because it was big news, then covered the bad news later because people were interested, and now... well a decade is a long time to maintain deep interest, and during a recession depressing war news doesn't make for good feed. I think the drones get coverage mostly because they're cool/scary depending on the viewer. There's really only so many times one can repeat, even with gloss and exaggeration, the perpetual theme of what amounts to a police action in a high crime neighborhood.
Nonetheless I do think what gets reported and how is heavily influenced by the reporters, that's a given, and I don't think there's any reason for us to pretend that the affiliation of the commander-in-chief relative to their own isn't going to play a fairly significant role in how those people view the conduct of the war. Realistically, Obama has not seriously altered our tactics, to his credit, meaning that when little has actually changed in ground tactics but the flavor of the reporting has, there's room to point at reporters and say 'bias'. It's happened across the board, some more positive, some more negative. I'm sure you can guess which way I think the net shift has been, but that's not really important, what matters is that it is there and tangible and various reporters and media outlets deserve some scorn for that, and a lot of caution about their take on other matters.
Nonetheless I do think what gets reported and how is heavily influenced by the reporters, that's a given, and I don't think there's any reason for us to pretend that the affiliation of the commander-in-chief relative to their own isn't going to play a fairly significant role in how those people view the conduct of the war. Realistically, Obama has not seriously altered our tactics, to his credit, meaning that when little has actually changed in ground tactics but the flavor of the reporting has, there's room to point at reporters and say 'bias'. It's happened across the board, some more positive, some more negative. I'm sure you can guess which way I think the net shift has been, but that's not really important, what matters is that it is there and tangible and various reporters and media outlets deserve some scorn for that, and a lot of caution about their take on other matters.
Though I must dispute the contention the war has not changed much since the first month of each conflict; there is a significant difference between losing 2000 soldiers in 2.5 years and losing the same number in 11 years. You were an officer: Which attrition rate would you prefer, if forced to choose?
The rate itself is also critical because, unlike in 2005, we know the troops are coming home, even have a fairly firm idea when. Then all we knew was that soldiers died daily, we had no idea how much longer past "Mission Accomplished" that would continue and had nothing to show for it. Even getting Saddam later was a significant, albeit short lived, boost, despite the fact he had nothing to do with 911 and had done nothing to the US but talk since I graduated HS (OK, he did target some fighters in the late '90s, but IIRC they tracked his hopelessly antiquated SAMs signals back to the stationary launchers and blew them to smoking shrapnel.)
The changes on the ground are 1) bin Laden is dead, 2) the Taliban has gone from offering to seeking shelter, 3) casualty rates are 20% what they were in 2005 and 4) the boys will be home no later than 2014 and 5) they have already left Iraq (though later than Obama pledged, and I have not forgotten that.) Those are big changes compared to 2005 when we had 1) bin Laden alive, 2) the Taliban staunchly resisting our efforts to change that and drive them from Afghanisant, 3) casualty rates 500% higher, 4) no idea when the troops would be out of either country and 5) a president who had flown a fighter jet into a non-combat zone two YEARS earlier to declare a mission "accomplished" that was barely begun.
There may have been some media bias against Bush, though it is hard to see their hearts and know (I personally think Rather and the Bushes had it in for each other from the moment Bush 41 decided to tear into Rather out of the blue back in '88 to dispel the "wimp" charge, but that feud only ended slightly better for Rather than for Saddam.) Yet I believe the biggest problem was that we had nothing to show for 2.5 years of combat but 2000 dead soldiers and many more wounded/disabled ones. Same reason no one accuses Obama of cutting and running now: We got bin Laden, crippled the Taliban and restored our security as much as we can without encasing the country in cement. We have not yet put McDonalds in Baghdad or Kabul, but that is not our job and would probably take 10-30X more active duty soldiers than we have even were we (and they) willing.
We got what (and whom) we came for, our boys are dying less often, for something worthwhile and soon will not be dying at all. Huge difference.