Re: Time tables, exit strategies and getting the man who blew up the WTC make all the difference.
Isaac Send a noteboard - 23/06/2012 01:54:09 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.
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?
Lower is better, but that doesn't mean anything, Joel, I know people like to talk about being spread thin and such, but that's stuff the DOD says to get more money, and armchair quarterbacks say because they don't know better. Three equally sized and armed countries sitting somewhere, two go to war for a few years and lose about half their troops each, third guy attacks figuring they've got half the guys and they're exhausted. People nod their head and assume the victor is obvious, in reality either of the other sides who have lost forces would kick the shit out of their numerically superior 'fresh' enemy. Our troops are better trained for the options, far better equipped for them, and have very high ratios of experienced veterans... hence lower casualties, that is the principle source.
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.)
But the rate isn't critical, it's mostly meaningless. It took a few years for us to get our feet under us in the various respects and to get all the new equipment manufactured, distributed, and trained up on. Trust me Joel, that's one of my actual areas of expertise. Grand strategy, enemy activity, how much area we have to cover by ourselves or with the local's help and/or friendliness, enemy supply, and so on make a difference, huge ones, but it's almost all training, equipment, and experience, and those ramped up massively in the first few years and then more or less plateaued.
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.
Okay, that's hardly wrong but frankly you're assuming the media knows what the hell it's talking about, and it doesn't, that the president really has much say on anything besides pulling the trigger on the original situation, which they really don't, and that crap generals or retired officers say on TV means anything, which it doesn't anymore than 30 seconds spots by scientists or politicians do.
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 blew 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.
Well Rather retired wealthy and still respected by most people, Saddam was hung, so yeah there was a difference. Also we have McD's in theater, or did last time I was there... nice 24/7 one at the airfield in Kuwait we all processed through... I ate like a hundred double-cheeseburgers on my handful of occasions passing through. There are local eateries, I went to a real nice on in Dahuk, but you don't eat off base very often except MREs and you usually eat on base at the D-Fac because it's free and the food on a FOB is usually very good. But yes there is a McD's in BAghdad and a KFC and a Pizza Hut... except IIRC Pizzahut, Burger King, and Cinnabon pulled out of Baghdad last year. They're occupied countries, not actual warzones, and the only reason there wasn't way more of that stuff is command has learned from previous wars not to let our troops and civvies mingle much with the locals except on job and in groups.
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.
Well, that's your opinion, personally I didn't really care about OBL that much or Saddam.
The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.
- Albert Einstein
King of Cairhien 20-7-2
Chancellor of the Landsraad, Archduke of Is'Mod
- Albert Einstein
King of Cairhien 20-7-2
Chancellor of the Landsraad, Archduke of Is'Mod
Death count in Afgan hits 2000, only CBS reports the news.....
22/06/2012 02:32:22 AM
- 1030 Views
Lebron James won the NBA Championship tonight? *NM*
22/06/2012 05:53:06 AM
- 425 Views
Did not know the NBA had officially changed to a one-on-one format.
23/06/2012 12:52:34 AM
- 558 Views
I'm sure they'll all be discussing Afghanistan in the morning
22/06/2012 06:07:55 AM
- 740 Views
That would do it.
22/06/2012 10:32:39 AM
- 700 Views
We outnumber the taliban 12 to 1
22/06/2012 02:13:58 PM
- 651 Views
We outnumbered ALL OF GERMANY (not just the insurgent army) 15:1.
22/06/2012 10:54:01 PM
- 776 Views
CBS is a liberal front.
22/06/2012 10:25:46 AM
- 580 Views
And less coverage since the networks are the media arm of Obama's reelection campaign.
22/06/2012 08:38:04 PM
- 560 Views
I fear you may be missing the point, deliberately or not.
22/06/2012 11:01:45 PM
- 617 Views
It's still a fairly legit point though
23/06/2012 12:06:19 AM
- 629 Views
Time tables, exit strategies and getting the man who blew up the WTC make all the difference.
23/06/2012 12:49:07 AM
- 496 Views
Re: Time tables, exit strategies and getting the man who blew up the WTC make all the difference.
23/06/2012 01:54:09 AM
- 532 Views
The casualty rate, circumstances and gains are highly critical to media reporting.
29/06/2012 02:27:43 AM
- 762 Views
Please excuse my ignorance...but who is 'Rather'? *NM*
28/06/2012 12:19:26 AM
- 270 Views
Sorry, wrong spot.
29/06/2012 06:27:22 AM
- 570 Views
lol...in my early days...JH had to tell me how to post, cause I kept posting in all the wrong spots *NM*
29/06/2012 08:34:43 AM
- 285 Views
Chalk this one up to sleep deprivation.
29/06/2012 10:37:58 AM
- 598 Views
lol. ahh what would WOT be without people staying up all night? *NM*
29/06/2012 11:04:32 AM
- 320 Views
It is kind of my thing.
29/06/2012 11:21:15 AM
- 841 Views
So glad I don't have to do nightshift anymore. Never got enough sleep!
29/06/2012 11:32:50 AM
- 523 Views
What Isaac said, yeah.
29/06/2012 01:47:20 AM
- 601 Views
Ty Joel...a lot there that I haven't heard about . *NM*
29/06/2012 08:33:20 AM
- 312 Views
Happy to oblige.
29/06/2012 10:37:20 AM
- 590 Views
ok, educate me lol....
29/06/2012 10:59:23 AM
- 609 Views
Oh, gosh, where to start.
29/06/2012 11:20:00 AM
- 627 Views
Ty . You explained very well *NM*
29/06/2012 11:30:47 AM
- 296 Views