Panel: U.S. Underreported Iraq Violence

[Mazer]

I take it back. It doesn't sound like you have any respect for our armed forces at all.

[vernarial]

Well, you are entitled to your opinion.
If you are referring to the dumb part, I would attribute that to everyone, not just soldiers. I'm sure there is a segment of the whole population that is fooled by the ads. I'm sure there is a segment of the troops that are fooled as well.
If you are referring to why people join the military, that's just from personal experience. I have talked to quite a few soldiers and once you get past the obligatory "I'm doing it to keep my country free" part you will learn that there are many different reasons for people joining the military.

[albed]

Originally Posted by Mazer

I take it back. It doesn't sound like you have any respect for our armed forces at all.

Speaking about the people in the military and not the organization: there are all kinds in there and no need to pretend they're some class of nobility.

My favorite acquaintance in the navy was nicknamed "pigfucker" because he freely admitted he used to fuck pigs on the farm in Iowa and his taste carried over to hookers, which he pursued with considerable enthusiasm and little selectivity.

No doubt people like him have been labeled "heroes" in the past and people like you would idolize them, but he was just another character to his buddies who covered his back like he covered theirs.

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by albed

he was just another character to his buddies who covered his back like he covered theirs.

Well, that's the one thing that makes them different. Even below agverage people can have honor, even people with ulterior motives for joining up can be credited with altruism when they put their lives and health at risk. It doesn't elevate them to superhero status to join the military, but it does make them special.

Mostly what I'm concerned with is the idea that the armed forces are somehow subverting the democratic process when all they are attempting is to complete their mission. If those service men and women have something to speak out about they can wait to say it when their terms of service end, and in all but rare cases that's what happens. I'm certain that they all have different opinions about the war in Iraq, but in the interest of solidarity they keep their opinions private. If the military did have a political agenda it simply would not be able to function as a single unit, and recruitment rates would drop sharply. This is the one American institution that has to be perfectly neutral, and the fact that it has accomplished anything is evidence that it is neutral.

The commander in chief is a civilian. Not only is he allowed to be biased, his job often requires him to be biased. In no way does that reflect on the motives of the military because their oath mentions the president's title, not his name. Whoever the president happens to be, that's who they've sworn to obey. Sure, the president can abuse his power for political purposes, but because the military obeys all of his orders and not just the ones they agree with, all the blame for their actions lies with the president.

[Ramona_A_Stone]

U.S. military and intelligence officials have systematically underreported the violence in Iraq in order to suit the Bush administration's policy goals

DUH.

Originally Posted by Mazer

...they all have different opinions about the war in Iraq, but in the interest of solidarity they keep their opinions private. If the military did have a political agenda it simply would not be able to function as a single unit, and recruitment rates would drop sharply. This is the one American institution that has to be perfectly neutral, and the fact that it has accomplished anything is evidence that it is neutral.

HUH? Dude, I barely know where to begin.

Of course the military has a political agenda, it's the embodiment of a political agenda. The current agenda is to win the "war on terror," "spread democracy" and make Americans "feel safer" by fighting in Iraq. Now granted this might not seem in the least bit logical to anyone with half a brain, but if it's not a political agenda then I can't imagine what would fucking qualify.

You maintain that it's the duty of soldiers to keep their mouths shut about their own political opinions lest recruitment should suffer, but it's apparently lost on you that that in itself is a political agenda, and you go on to argue that the military has ascended to a state of neutrality! Of course the military isn't neutral, the aggressive sterilization of individual opinion itself is a hard political line which is precisely designed to allow it to function as a unit toward a goal. A military goal is anything but "perfectly neutral."

Also you suggest that Iraq is blanketed by free agent reportage in a journalistic orgy that must be filling virtual warehouses with videotape as evidence that there's no chance the violence is underreported, and yet oddly you could compile all the footage and reports that have emerged from Iraq and been shown to the American public since the outset, edit it together and probably view it in a single evening. Seems to be a small margin of discrepancy there, no?

Originally Posted by Sinner

"well, then I guess everything is swell in Iraq”, hmmm who said or implied that?...
...When insurgent propaganda or unsubstantiated rumor are passed off as verified news, it does nobody any good, except the people who want to drown Iraq in blood...

Ah yes, funnily you know it seems people only use the word PROPAGANDA when they're in denial of the message.

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone

Of course the military has a political agenda, it's the embodiment of a political agenda. The current agenda is to win the "war on terror," "spread democracy" and make Americans "feel safer" by fighting in Iraq.

You're projecting the president's agenda onto the people who have to do what he orders them to. The buck stops with Bush, Ramona.

You maintain that it's the duty of soldiers to keep their mouths shut about their own political opinions lest recruitment should suffer, but it's apparently lost on you that that in itself is a political agenda, and you go on to argue that the military has ascended to a state of neutrality!

Who said it was their duty? Soldiers keep their political opinions private out of necessity. Almost nobody in the military gets to pick who their superior officers will be. Those who can't take orders from people they disagree with don't last very long, so military life actually requires the kind of tolerance and open-mindedness that liberals pretend is their hallmark. Reticence is not about duty, it's about teamwork, without which there is no military.

Of course the military isn't neutral, the aggressive sterilization of individual opinion itself is a hard political line

Well it would be if it wasn't voluntary. That people from all walks of life sign up for this kind of treatment on purpose, even educated people with college degrees, speaks to the fact that individuality is less important to some people than it is to you. Hey, different strokes for different folks, right?

Also you suggest that Iraq is blanketed by free agent reportage in a journalistic orgy that must be filling virtual warehouses with videotape as evidence that there's no chance the violence is underreported, and yet oddly you could compile all the footage and reports that have emerged from Iraq and been shown to the American public since the outset, edit it together and probably view it in a single evening. Seems to be a small margin of discrepancy there, no?

Blame the free press, not the military. Maybe Iraq war news is a ratings killer and people just don't give a damn anymore. I'm sure there are people you can call to request more Iraq war news coverage, but they've got their advertisers to think about. And there's always print news. I doubt you could read all the printed Iraq war news in a month, let alone an evening.

[floydian slip]

Maybe, If we bomb all the people without the internets...

[Ramona_A_Stone]

Originally Posted by Mazer

You're projecting the president's agenda onto the people who have to do what he orders them to. The buck stops with Bush, Ramona.

Your toilet is broken. You call a plumber. Your neighbor asks "what's the plumber doing there?"

If you want to be a smart ass, you might say the plumber is there to get paid, but you would really be avoiding answering your neighbor's question. On the other hand if you answered "he's there to fix the toilet," I doubt your neighbor would accuse you of unfairly projecting your own agenda on his.

If the almighty Buck Stopper has an agenda and he orders people to carry it out it is exactly the same as saying that those people are serving as the embodiment of his agenda. I don't really understand your need to refute this beyond the fact that you seem to be a self-appointed although somewhat flailing apologist for the sainted, perfectly neutral, politically agenda-less military. Or perhaps you're suggesting that there is in fact a hidden ulterior motive--a concept that, I'd concede, isn't beyond the realm of possibility. Perhaps the plumber is using the idea of fixing the toilet as a ruse and is actually there to raid your medicine cabinet?

Originally Posted by Mazer

so military life actually requires the kind of tolerance and open-mindedness that liberals pretend is their hallmark

lol, well now you've convinced me. I'm heading straight down to the local recruitment office to sign up, dressed as Elizabeth Taylor.

Originally Posted by Mazer

Soldiers keep their political opinions private out of necessity.

In a 2003 Gallup Poll, nearly 1/5th of the soldiers surveyed said they felt the situation in Iraq had not been worth going to war over and the number of military families who believe that war was not the right course of action is actually higher than that in the general population. They may have divulged this information privately, but it's no secret.

Originally Posted by Mazer

Blame the free press, not the military.

In July, Rod Nordland, who served as Newsweek’s Baghdad bureau chief for two years, told readers of Foreign Policy this:

FOREIGN POLICY: Are Americans getting an accurate picture of what’s going on in Iraq?

Rod Nordland: It’s a lot worse over here [in Iraq] than is reported. The administration does a great job of managing the news. Just an example: There was a press conference here about [Abu Musab al] Zarqawi’s death, and somebody asked what role [U.S.] Special Forces played in finding Zarqawi. [The official] either denied any role or didn’t answer the question. Somebody pointed out that the president, half an hour earlier, had already acknowledged and thanked the Special Forces for their involvement. They are just not giving very much information here.

FP: The Bush administration often complains that the reporting out of Iraq is too negative, yet you say they are managing the news. What’s the real story?

RN: You can only manage the news to a certain degree. It is certainly hard to hide the fact that in the third year of this war, Iraqis are only getting electricity for about 5 to 10 percent of the day. Living conditions have gotten so much worse, violence is at an even higher tempo, and the country is on the verge of civil war. The administration has been successful to the extent that most Americans are not aware of just how dire it is and how little progress has been made. They keep talking about how the Iraqi army is doing much better and taking over responsibilities, but for the most part that’s not true.

FP: How often do you travel outside of the Green Zone?

RN: The restrictions on [journalists’] movements are very severe. It is extremely dangerous to move around anywhere in Iraq, but we do. We all have Iraqi staff who get around, and we go on trips arranged by the U.S. State Department as frequently as we can.

But the military has started censoring many [embedded reporting] arrangements. Before a journalist is allowed to go on an embed now, [the military] check[s] the work you have done previously. They want to know your slant on a story—they use the word slant—what you intend to write, and what you have written from embed trips before. If they don’t like what you have done before, they refuse to take you. There are cases where individual reporters have been blacklisted because the military wasn’t happy with the work they had done on embed. But we get out among the Iraqi public a whole lot more than almost any American official, certainly more than military officials do.

link