In some recent writings, Rich Lowry and Max Boot have announced that the MSM was right all along in claiming the war a disaster from the get-go. J.R. Dunn, writing at American Thinker, disagrees, and carefully explains why.
As for me, I was not a huge hawk at the war’s inception — that is, I didn’t lust after this war. I’ve always felt, however, that once you’re in a war you’ve got to fight it hard, or lose. Just as you can’t be a little bit pregnant, you can’t be a little bit at war.
I therefore side with Dunn in blaming the press for undermining the war effort by passing on every bit of enemy propaganda; making ill-founded, often inaccurate doom-and-gloom predictions; focusing obsessively on American failures and missteps, without expending equal energy on American successes; and trying to undermine internal American security programs. To the extent that the media has a fair amount of impact, I think much of their reporting took on the power of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
What media members don’t seem to realize as they busily try to sink the Bush ship of state is that, because we’re at war, if they’re successful in that effort, they go down with the ship too.
Filed under: Anti-war, Media matters |
Bookworm Room (ARCHIVES) 
Read “The Consequences of Failure in Iraq” by Reuel Marc Gerecht in the 1/15 issue of the Weekly Standard. The consequences of leaving — something neither the Dems or GOP will talk about. The GOP won’t because Bush doesn’t want to admit just how big Pandora’s Box really is; the Dems won’t because it hasn’t dawn on them and they’re simply not capable of grasping it.
I didn’t quite finish that comment. Gerecht’s article shows that the consequences of leaving are saw awful there really is no option now but to fight on until it’s straightened out.
“Once we have a war there is only one thing to do. It must be won. For defeat brings worse things than any that can ever happen in war.” — Ernest Hemmingway
To paraphrase, the only thing worse than fighting a war is loosing one.
You (and Ernest) nailed it Jose. Dwight Eisenhower, who certainly knew what he was talking about, said very much the same thing: If you are going to fight a war, go in with the resources and determination to win. Otherwise don’t go in at all.
The legacy media, however, have for several decades now been advocating almost the exact opposite: namely the idea of “limited” war. As a result, it seems a significant portion of our population is persuaded that to enter a war with superior force would somehow be “unfair” because we would be “taking advantage” of our superior strength. We would, in effect, be acting like playground bullies.
The idea of “limited” warfare is both stupid and deadly. It is by far the most costly way to wage war. It inevitably results in considerably higher casualty rates, significantly longer conflicts and incalculable increases in human misery — on both sides. It is far and away the most inhumane way to wage war.
Eisenhower knew this well. So did Sun Tzu, who wrote “The Art of War” some 2,400 years ago. Despite the title of his work, Sun Tzu was concerned with minimizing the misery of war — and possibly even avoiding it altogether. He taught that this could be achieved if one side in the conflict, by use of superior strategy and resources, positioned itself in such a way that the outcome became a foregone conclusion.
If he were alive today, he would ask: If you’re not there to win, then what are you doing there? Or if you’re already there, why do you have one hand tied behind your back?
The only sane — and humane — thing to do is to decide what “winning” means, then commit to winning, then win, then go home.
” Power corrupts ,absolute power corrupts , absolutely ”
The media watchdogs must continute to keep the American government on their toes(the government and citizens EXPECT it and NEED it).Internal debate (msm,alternative news . . et al )better keeps the “Beacon on the Hill” lit for ALL to see. “I don’t agree with a word you are saying but I will defend to the death you’re right to say it”.The day the American people lose freedom of speech is the day THEY LOSE.Of course ,the people running the war want you to shutup.It is so much powerfully easier to do WHAT THEY THINK IS RIGHT.That’s an oligarchy not a democracy.Stay vigilante !Keep talking!It is fair game and EVERYBODY KNOWS IT IN A FREE WORLD!
ah, the memory hole strikes yet again.
book, your premise is wrong on it’s face as the “mainstream meadia” was anything but critical of the war in the beginning or throughout it’s principal operations.
by and large, they forsook their duty to the american people and instead choose to vomit out every talking point fed to them by the spinmeisters in the white house and the pentagon.
i don’t know how many times this is going to have to be pointed out but the “mainstream media” currently has only one agenda…..MONEY. they will back whatever horse is the most popular and run whatever story they think has the most legs.
peace
book, your premise is wrong on it’s face as the “mainstream meadia” was anything but critical of the war in the beginning or throughout it’s principal operations. – dagon
My favorite was Chris Matthews, who now acts as if he was against the war all along.
From the LOL Memory Hole
CHRIS MATTHEWS: “The president. . . won the war. He was an effective commander. Everybody recognizes that, I believe, except a few critics. . . The president there-look at this guy! We’re watching him. He looks like he flew the plane. . He looks for real. He didn’t fight in a war, but he looks like he does.” (MSNBC’s Hardball, 5/1/03)
MATTHEWS: “Women like a guy who’s president. Check it out. The women like this war.” (5/1/03/)
MATTHEWS: “We’re proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who’s physical, who’s not a complicated guy like Clinton or even like Dukakis or Mondale, all those guys, McGovern.” (5/1/03)
I could give 2 million examples, but Chris Matthews was my favorite. He was maddeningly hilarious. Yes, he was. Yes, he was.
T.S. is correct.
chris “tweety” matthews remains one of the more unintentionally hilarious squawkboxes on the political scene.
his john mclaughlin lite routine never gets old.
peace
After reading all three pieces, I think the Liberals, and the liberal media believe they are going to get what they want. That is an ignominious defeat of the Iraq champaign in the war on terror, leading to the political destruction of Bush and the Republicans. And the libs what to reduce the chance that some will consider the highly slanted reporting on the Iraqi champaign might have had something to do with that defeat. It was really funny to read a lib acknowledging that the Tet offensive was a sever blow the the North Vietnamese when at the time, the media screamed it was bad for us.That screaming and the nation’s reaction to it re-emboldened the N. Vietnamese. Which of course lead millions dying throughout Southeast Asia.
There is no question that if you do go to war, you have to go in with all fours. No restrictions. I have been partially surprised to note from recent comments of US officers in Iraq on NPR that we have been holding back. Despite my aversion from saying so, it does sound like Vietnam. If those restrictions
are removed, and we do get control in Bagdad and elsewhere,
and then we win, wouldn’t that be a nice morning. Then the Libs will have to find another way to destroy Bush.
Al
I say we should give up now. That way, we can all play a part in Terminator 2, right there at the beginning of the end.
Ymarsakar, You really liked those movies?
Al
You can hardly blame the media for their stance, when the war was unjust in the first place.