Comments on: The Military and the Media

By: Meezer

Meezer — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

I watched a D-Day documentary yesterday. I thought I knew a fair amount but I learned of several (in hindsight) bad decisions that I had missed before. Like almost all the tanks of the US were lost before they got to Omaha and we pooh-poohed the new tank anti-mine 'flail' devices the British were trying on their beaches. And there were other decisions that cost more lives than perhaps was neccessary.

I looked up some papers from that time. The difference between then and now is staggering. Imagine how the D-Day errors would have been played up today? And the fact that D-Day itself was successful burried on the last page.

By: Ripper

Ripper — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

We do have ASAT technology, there is no need for JIhadist hardware to orbit unmolested.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Everything I read from "on the ground" folks suggests (at least) that Peters has two things wrong, though, that really bug me: that we were "beaten" in Fallujah, and that we're "losing" right now. The only place I can see us losing (from reading various Iraqi blogs, blogs of those on the ground in Iraq, etc) is in the media. Everything else seems to be working (as in, positive progress being made), just too slowly for Peters and the rest of the pundit-crowd to notice it.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

To clarify my last - it really bugs me that Ralph Peters seems unable, or unwilling, to check the freely available first-person accounts (or maybe has has a handful that he never checks anyone else), so therefore because he doesn't like X, Y, or Z, or all of them, we MUST be losing. Oh, and it's all Rumsfeld's fault, because Ralph Peters says so.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Dave,

I don't disagree with any of what you say, especially Peters' annoying Rumsfeld obsession.

That said, he's right on the strategic level. At the tactical level, remember, the U.S. never lost a battle in Vietnam. Even the infamous Tet Offensive was ultimately a huge tactical win. But we lost the war because we lost the media and the public.

Remember, there are two ways to defeat an enemy: Break his hostile ability (rendering him too weak to fight back) or break his hostile will. No forseeable adversary will be able to accomplish the former. The Viet Cong and the Somali warlords accomplished the latter. If things don't change soon, so will the Iraqi insurgents and their terrorist allies. Already, over half of the country thinks we're in a lost cause. That can't sustain itself.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Clausewitz's trinity is not people, government, and army. Huge myth perpetrated by the otherwise great Harry Summers.

It is reason, chance, and emotion. http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/Trinity/TRININTR.htm

Three weeks of STAP for HI 301, James.

Chris
STAP Ranger w/ OLC for Math

By: Jem

Jem — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

In addition to speeding things up to get inside our opponent's (the media establishment is an opponent, much as we might wish it weren't) decision loop, we need to consider options to damage our opponent directly. There's no need to lie--all we need to do is demonstrate (and publish/broadcast) that the reporting isn't credible. If we can undermine our opponent with their own words, their power will be reduced. To repeat, this is not a substitute for Peters' argument, but a supplement--a "second front" so to speak.

By: Steven G. Erickson

Steven G. Erickson — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

I often posted on this very issue on FreeSpeech.com, which might now be dead forever.

I hope to blog somewhere else, even if FreeSpeech.com eventually does come back up and running.

Can I get an author account here, or do you know where else I can get one?

I posted as Vikingas, but usually signed my name, "Steven G. Erickson"

---