Propaganda
Recent translations of Al Qaeda documents show that AQ believes it's in an information war. The other day, Donald Rumsfeld lamented the fact that the US, with all its multi-media capabilities, is being out-gunned in this vital aspect of warfare.
We have some brilliant propagandists in America, it's just that right now they all seem to be working for the enemy.
Someday, perhaps someone can explain to me what happened to this country between 9/11 and today. We went from being unified, to being polarized like I cannot remember. I'm trying to pinpoint the moment where we lost half the country.
Which gets me back to the information war. Was it Abu Ghraib? Look back at that story. Did CBS have to publish those pictures? At the time, there was no true news value to the story. The Pentagon was already investigating. CBS was not bringing anything to the attention of the authorities. The most plausible explanation for running the story with the pictures was to embarass the American military. There was a time when American media might have taken a pass on publishing something like that.
It is an information war. Perception is reality. Our enemies have studied the history of the Vietnam war. They have learned that the American military is invincible, but that America can still be had if you can get hold of the opinion-making apparatus. If memory serves, CBS was "unhelpful" to America's war effort in Vietnam, too. Supposedly, Lyndon Johnson said, "If we've lost Cronkite, we've lost the American people."
So why is it that our own media is serving as the propaganda arm for Zarqawi and bin Laden? I want you, my many readers, (intentional irony)to think about what perceptions about the war you are getting. Most of the discussion in the media is now in the form of some sort of post mortem, where commentators talk about the war as if it is over and lost, and discussion consists of analysis of where we went wrong. The media is in "When did you stop beating your wife?" mode.
It's a time-honored debating trick. We begin from the premise that the argument is already won.
The argument is not won. The war is neither over, nor lost. There is no civil war. Iraq is on its way to democracy; an admittedly messy and bloody process but one in which Iraqi's have hope for their future:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/crawford200603070834.asp
Life, indeed, sometimes does imitate the Onion http://www.theonion.com/content/node/45793
Cheers
Recent translations of Al Qaeda documents show that AQ believes it's in an information war. The other day, Donald Rumsfeld lamented the fact that the US, with all its multi-media capabilities, is being out-gunned in this vital aspect of warfare.
We have some brilliant propagandists in America, it's just that right now they all seem to be working for the enemy.
Someday, perhaps someone can explain to me what happened to this country between 9/11 and today. We went from being unified, to being polarized like I cannot remember. I'm trying to pinpoint the moment where we lost half the country.
Which gets me back to the information war. Was it Abu Ghraib? Look back at that story. Did CBS have to publish those pictures? At the time, there was no true news value to the story. The Pentagon was already investigating. CBS was not bringing anything to the attention of the authorities. The most plausible explanation for running the story with the pictures was to embarass the American military. There was a time when American media might have taken a pass on publishing something like that.
It is an information war. Perception is reality. Our enemies have studied the history of the Vietnam war. They have learned that the American military is invincible, but that America can still be had if you can get hold of the opinion-making apparatus. If memory serves, CBS was "unhelpful" to America's war effort in Vietnam, too. Supposedly, Lyndon Johnson said, "If we've lost Cronkite, we've lost the American people."
So why is it that our own media is serving as the propaganda arm for Zarqawi and bin Laden? I want you, my many readers, (intentional irony)to think about what perceptions about the war you are getting. Most of the discussion in the media is now in the form of some sort of post mortem, where commentators talk about the war as if it is over and lost, and discussion consists of analysis of where we went wrong. The media is in "When did you stop beating your wife?" mode.
It's a time-honored debating trick. We begin from the premise that the argument is already won.
The argument is not won. The war is neither over, nor lost. There is no civil war. Iraq is on its way to democracy; an admittedly messy and bloody process but one in which Iraqi's have hope for their future:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/crawford200603070834.asp
Life, indeed, sometimes does imitate the Onion http://www.theonion.com/content/node/45793
Cheers
posted by alwaysright at
6:36 PM
4 Comments:
So where are these well-documented contrarian facts? I'm wide open. And, more importantly, where is the logical connection between an isolated fact (assuming it IS a fact)and a coherent position on an issue?
I see a pattern of deliberate suppression of information that might reflect positively on our war effort, and exaggeration, if not outright fabrication of stories that reflect poorly from our media.
I'm perfectly willing to concede that I see the world through the eyes of someone who would like my country to succeed in Iraq.
I didn't say that EVERYTHING anti-administration is anti-american. Some of it clearly is, however, and I am not going to stop calling people on it when I see it.
Talk about trying to silence dissent! I need to stop commenting because I've got a different point of view? Don't count on it.
Among my many faults, I had heretofore not included rudeness, inappropriatenss and sanctimoniousness. I will dutifully add them to the list.
Someday, perhaps someone can explain to me what happened to this country between 9/11 and today.
I think the polarization was already well on its way to being out of control before 9/11. The people to blame are the politicians (and that would be dems as much as repubs) that started presenting issues as "us vs them" Suddenly it became "people who think the right way" vs "anyone who doesn't think like us."
That applies to liberals as well as conservatives.
I was always led to believe that America was based on discussion, careful debate and (when necessary) compromise. That's what a democracy is about. Everyone with a voice.
Now it seems like whichever party is in power goes for complete rule and whoever's out of power is laughed at as whining losers.
So when did this all start? was it Joe McCarthy back in the 1950s? sooner? later? you tell me.
Great posts! Personally, I think you're both missing the obvious... it was the Sixties, of course.
Vietnam and the Sexual Revolution to me were the two flashpoints of dissent that reach right into today. Vietnam represented a revolt against traditional authority, and an authority that was pretty absolute- that of the government to conduct war.
Without that, well you pretty much don't have a government any more.
The Sexual Revolution likewise represented a revolt against traditional authority--namely religious values that had heretofore governed social norms.
In the case of Vietnam, one can certainly say that Americans had the right to rebel against an unjust war, if indeed the war was unjust. Who's to say?
Once that threshold is crossed, however, it makes it that much more difficult to wage war in the future. I think our enemies recognize and exploit that today.
Likewise, it's understandable that people would want to rebel against the sort of mindless puritanism of old-time sexual norms.
But is it so out of bounds for someone to bring up the consequences? Things like STD's or broken families?
The fact is, these are the kind real, hard choices that free people need to make. It does no good to simply denigrate the point of view of those with whom you disagree.
Values ARE an electoral issue. Free people need to debate the fundamental choices of how we choose to govern ourselves. That includes issues like marriage and sexual conduct.
OK with same sex marriage? How about polygamy? OK with consensual gay sex? How about incest?
Whoa, now, slow down. You're jumping out way ahead of what I said. What I'm saying is that free people need to decide democratically how they choose to regulate sexual conduct. I do not equate homosexuality with incest, I am simply saying a society that forfeits its right to regulate some forms of sexual conduct forfeits its right to regulate ANY form of sexual conduct.
Today, for example, an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose single sex marriage. That means that in order for it to become law, it must be imposed by the courts. If the courts decide that society has no right to proscribe this form of sexual behavior, it will become very difficult to proscribe any form of sexual conduct, and I think we can all agree that some forms should be proscribed.
Legally, I think it's pretty problematic to extend marriage rights beyond traditional man-woman unions without destroying the legal institution of marriage. The logic is inexorable. As soon as you expand the legal definition of marriage beyond that of a man and a woman, there will be no way to limit what can be defined as a marriage. If it is not a definite thing, it is nothing.
I can't go with you on gay rights as a Civil Rights issue. To me, civil rights are about not discriminating on the basis of race, gender, age, religion, i.e., elements of identity.
Homosexuality is behavior, not identity. Society must retain its ability to discriminate against behaviors. I may agree with you that society should not pass laws that outlaw sodomy, for example, but that doesn't mean that society has no rights to forbid that behavior if the people decide to.
The people have no right to pass laws that discriminate on the basis of race, but the people must retain the right to ban certain behaviors.
I believe that, as you put it, gays deserve our respect and embrace, but that society's interest is best served by a specific and narrow definiton of marriage and family. The institution of family is simply too vital to tamper with.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home