Incompetent: the administration or the media?
Posted by: McQ
The QandO Blog
Monday, August 29, 2005
In the Cindy Sheehan era of claims that the majority of Americans are now against the war, Rasmussen publishes the results of a very interesting and telling poll:
Seventy-nine percent (79%) of Americans say that it is
important for "Iraq to become a stable company that
rejects terrorism." That figure includes 59% who say that
Iraqi stability if very important to the U.S. A Rasmussen
Reports survey found that just 14% say that objective is
not very important or not at all important.
While 79% agree with President Bush on the importance of
the Iraqi mission, just 48% believe that success is
likely. In fact, just 13% say achieving stability in Iraq
is "very likely." The public concerns about the War
effort are primarily about competence, not ideology.
So the vast majority of those polled recognize the importance of a stable Iraq that rejects terrorism and a good majority recognize Iraqi stability is important to the US.
Very interesting and important numbers, because it speaks to the fact that most Americans aren't buying into the anti-war, 'let's get out now' rhetoric of the extreme left. Most thinking people know that Iraq must be given the opportunity to form a constituent based government that can defend itself and quell the insurgency. And most recognize such a government is critical to the interests of the US. All in all, that's good news.
But just as important is the last sentence which I've highlighted. That's now the drumbeat I hear rising.
Why is the competence of the war effort being questioned? No one is going to question the fact that mistakes have been made and things could have been planned or done better. But that's true of every war in which we've ever been engaged. So one has to ask, is it a matter of real incompetence or perceived incompetence? In other words, do we have the whole story, or only the story that is presented by the MSM?
Yeah, I know, blaming the MSM is almost cliche. But there may be some institutional factors at work that, given the situation on the ground and the culture of the MSM, all but prevent it from a more rounded presentation of the US war effort.
On "Meet the Press" yesterday, Gen. Wayne Downing, former commander of the US Special Operations Command had this to say:
Quite frankly, I think one of the problems that we're
having is that the news media, the opposition to the war
are framing this entire discussion in the terms of
casualties and casualties only. I think what we don't
have is a serious discussion about why you take those
casualties.
We're not out there roaming the roads in Iraq and
Afghanistan, looking for IEDs to blow up. Everything
we're doing in a military campaign, both the U.S., the
coalition and the Iraqi forces, are aimed at objectives.
And those objectives are to promote the political
process, number one, because what we're doing, Tim—for
the last six weeks we've been doing this—we're preparing
for the election in the middle of October—I mean, the
referendum on the constitution and then the following
one, the election in December to ratify it.
The other things we're doing is we're supporting the
economic development of that country and the social
development. That's why these military operations are
going on. And I really think that it's incumbent upon you
and the others and the responsible American press to put
the casualties into these kind of context. In other
words, what is it that they're accomplishing? I mean, can
you imagine us and, you know, it's been quoted out there
in the Web, judging the D-Day invasion of Normandy back
in 1944 by the casualties that were suffered?
General Downing's point is critical. And it also points to a serious deficiency in the reporting by the MSM.
How many times have you read about 3 or 4 more soldiers being killed by an IED? Or in a fire fight? But rarely, if ever, do you read about why they were where they were when the incident occurred.
As Downing points out, they aren't just out there riding around providing targets. Every patrol, every sweep, every movement is a part of a larger operation, which, in turn is part of an overall tactical plan, which supports a strategic plan that has a strategic objective.
Downing correctly identifies the problem with distilling it all down to casualties. There is no context to the reporting. Without the context of the purpose of the D-Day landings, the 10,000 casualties suffered among the 156,000 troops who participated would be seen as appalling. If the atmosphere of today had prevailed then, you'd have to believe that there'd have been major anti-war demonstrations and calls to pull out immediately from the war in Europe.
But in the coolness of history, we're able to see, in the context of that war and what it accomoplished, the loss, while terrible and regrettable, was necessary. But one wonders, seriously, if today's atmosphere existed then whether the effort would have been deemed as "incompetent"? My guess is any number of critics would have come forward to claim more troops were needed and losses were much to high.
I think General Downing, frankly, has hit the nail on the head with his remarks. When you frame the war as a series of random events which end in casualties, most would consider it to be a matter of incompetence. But if those casualties are given a context, are framed as a part of other things which are happening in Iraq, are shown to be part of an effort that is improving the situation, then "incompetence" doesn't fit.
So is it a measured effort by the MSM to portray the war in that way? Probably not. In my opinion, it has more to do wtih the culture of the MSM (if it bleeds it leads) and, frankly, its inability to get itself around the larger context of what the military is doing there. And that goes to an even larger point. The MSM has very little knowledge, institutionally, of how the military operates. It doesn't understand, and consequently, it is unable to connect the dots and lay out the context necessary to portray the war as anything other than a daily body count.
So when the "incompetence" charges fly again, keep this in mind. We know who's being charged with incompetence, but is it really that institution or another to which the charge really belongs?
qando.net
rasmussenreports.com
msnbc.msn.com |
