Bush needs to clean up his mess

In message , Ed Rasimus
writes
We were prepared to fight as long as it took, IF--repeat IF--the
give-up rather than fight crowd in the US would have stopped
distracting the politicians so that we could have won.

In semi-modern parlance, US domestic opinion was a centre of gravity,
and keeping public opinion on-side was a key enabling factor that North
Vietnam successfully attacked.

Or, flipping it around, if the "fight" crowd in the US had made a better
case for "why we fight" then things might have been very different.


This is one reason I get very, very angry with anyone who dismisses "the
media". They may be ill-informed (and many are), they may be downright
hostile (and many are), but they have to be worked with and dealt with.
Ignore them or annoy them and they will hurt you badly.

And when they _are_ properly handled, they can become ambassadors:
embedded journalists, having to live alongside the troops, tend to
become evangelists for "where do we get these men?".


Hence, the hard work required of a J3 Media Ops staffer.

Where has any official policy been annunciated at any time which
indicated an intent to establish "Permanent bases in Iraq"?

The withdrawal of MND(SE) forces from al-Muthanna province and the
handover there to Iraqi security is a small point of support. (Small,
because al-Muthanna is large, empty and quiet and hence suitable for an
early handover - though a cynic would say that's exactly the sort of
place the Evil US would _want_ a huge military complex put, and I'm not
aware of any such being constructed)

As for "80% of who(m) wish we would leave"--I've not seen any polling
data of Iraqi's that would offer those numbers.

They're valid if you include responses like "should leave once the
security situation is stabilised" and other such conditional responses.
Indeed, very few Iraqis indeed want Coalition Forces to remain
indefinitely.

The Iraqis really do want us to leave... but many of them don't want us
to leave _now_, they'd like us to leave "as soon as practical", with a
big spread on what "practical" means.




--
Paul J. Adam

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 22:47:06 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In semi-modern parlance, US domestic opinion was a centre of gravity,
and keeping public opinion on-side was a key enabling factor that North
Vietnam successfully attacked.

Or, flipping it around, if the "fight" crowd in the US had made a better
case for "why we fight" then things might have been very different.

If there is a parallel between Vietnam and Iraq this is it. In both
instances the "pundits" and a substantial portion of the "taste
makers" were able to woo the minions of the Fourth Estate and convince
them, and then many others, that military success was "impossible."
That was a Big Lie, but like many Big Lies, succeeded because it was
so big (a perverse application of the "too big to fail" theory?).

This is one reason I get very, very angry with anyone who dismisses "the
media". They may be ill-informed (and many are), they may be downright
hostile (and many are), but they have to be worked with and dealt with.
Ignore them or annoy them and they will hurt you badly.

It might have been Mark Twain who said, "Never pick a fight with
somebody who buys printer's ink by the barrel."

And when they _are_ properly handled, they can become ambassadors:
embedded journalists, having to live alongside the troops, tend to
become evangelists for "where do we get these men?".

True.

But you've got to get to the editorial and opinion writers, too.

Hence, the hard work required of a J3 Media Ops staffer.

Where has any official policy been annunciated at any time which
indicated an intent to establish "Permanent bases in Iraq"?

The withdrawal of MND(SE) forces from al-Muthanna province and the
handover there to Iraqi security is a small point of support. (Small,
because al-Muthanna is large, empty and quiet and hence suitable for an
early handover - though a cynic would say that's exactly the sort of
place the Evil US would _want_ a huge military complex put, and I'm not
aware of any such being constructed)

You crawl before you walk; you walk before you run; you run before you
fly. ;-)

As for "80% of who(m) wish we would leave"--I've not seen any polling
data of Iraqi's that would offer those numbers.

They're valid if you include responses like "should leave once the
security situation is stabilised" and other such conditional responses.
Indeed, very few Iraqis indeed want Coalition Forces to remain
indefinitely.

Give me some time and money and I'll produce a poll that says the the
Urth is flat, hollow, and the center of the universe.

The Iraqis really do want us to leave... but many of them don't want us
to leave _now_, they'd like us to leave "as soon as practical", with a
big spread on what "practical" means.

Indeed.

Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

In article , Paul J. Adam
wrote:

In message , Ed Rasimus
writes
We were prepared to fight as long as it took, IF--repeat IF--the
give-up rather than fight crowd in the US would have stopped
distracting the politicians so that we could have won.

In semi-modern parlance, US domestic opinion was a centre of gravity,
and keeping public opinion on-side was a key enabling factor that North
Vietnam successfully attacked.

Well, yes. It's that "attention deficit" again. Something that US
allies have learned to worry about. For a distressingly long time.


Or, flipping it around, if the "fight" crowd in the US had made a better
case for "why we fight" then things might have been very different.

Hmmm. Yes, but. At the risk of pushing this more-than-somewhat OT topic
into an arid wilderness, we are faced with the fait accompli of the
destruction of the liberal arts education in the US and much of the
anglosphere in favour of some kind of bizarre, historically-ignorant,
posturing self-loathing that passes for "the Left". Which has gained
itself a stranglehold, a bit like Russian ivy, all over the bloody
place, especially the meeja.

Me, when I need leftwing guidance, I ask myself what Lenin would have
done. The answer rarely involves gender politics or queer studies, but
tends towards, shall we say, more robust solutions. From which, as the
most liberal and tolerant of men, I am usually obliged to distance
myself. Still, it's always there as a thought.




This is one reason I get very, very angry with anyone who dismisses "the
media". They may be ill-informed (and many are), they may be downright
hostile (and many are), but they have to be worked with and dealt with.
Ignore them or annoy them and they will hurt you badly.

Another "yes, but." The thing I can't forgive the meeja (by which I
mean overwhelmingly tv) is their utter incapacity to avoid telling
lies. Indeed, their complete epistemological inability to tell one from
the other: only what makes "good" tv and what does not. They're quite
smart at that.
From bitter personal experience, I'd never give a tv interview unless
it was live: they will cut you up into what they fancy in the editing
room, every time. Reminds me of the fable of the frog and the scorpion.
Indeed (well, I *was* speaking of Lenin) the most effective
revolutionary act I can think of in 2006 is to blow up every television
transmitter and send ballbearings into reverse Clarke orbit.



And when they _are_ properly handled, they can become ambassadors:
embedded journalists, having to live alongside the troops, tend to
become evangelists for "where do we get these men?".

Yes, but. Or, in this instance, perhaps, "but, yet." Embedded
journalists, though, are rarely of the Looneymouth Flakjacket
persuasion, broadcasting with authority in a shirt of many pockets not
too dangerously far from a well-supplied bar. As for tv "journalism":
"Does my bum look big in this?" is its only honest contribution to
anything.


Hence, the hard work required of a J3 Media Ops staffer.

Thankless in success, worse in failure.


rest snipped, all good points with which I more or less entirely agree.

--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" Ibn Khaldun

My .mac.com address is a spam sink.
If you wish to email me, try atlothian at blueyonder dot co dot uk

In message , Alan Lothian
writes
In article , Paul J. Adam
wrote:
In semi-modern parlance, US domestic opinion was a centre of gravity,
and keeping public opinion on-side was a key enabling factor that North
Vietnam successfully attacked.

Well, yes. It's that "attention deficit" again. Something that US
allies have learned to worry about. For a distressingly long time.

(Sorry for the delayed response, Alan, been having fun up in the
Minches)

To give them credit, when you convince the US public, they can get very
determined, but when El Presidente makes a decision without getting his
country behind him... it goes about as badly as when we try it.

Or, flipping it around, if the "fight" crowd in the US had made a better
case for "why we fight" then things might have been very different.

Hmmm. Yes, but.

I never said "better" - one risk is a little too much MacArthuresque
"never fear, Mr President, those cowardly commies will _never_ dare
to... well, who'd'a'thunk it?" - but most certainly different. Once a
_Dolchstoss_ myth takes hold it's remarkably powerful, and a US without
that is a big change. (Probably more appropriate to s.h.w-i, though)

At the risk of pushing this more-than-somewhat OT topic
into an arid wilderness, we are faced with the fait accompli of the
destruction of the liberal arts education in the US and much of the
anglosphere in favour of some kind of bizarre, historically-ignorant,
posturing self-loathing that passes for "the Left". Which has gained
itself a stranglehold, a bit like Russian ivy, all over the bloody
place, especially the meeja.

You hardly need it, Alan, but Frances Wheen's "How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered
The World" is a good read on these matters - I especially enjoyed the
description of l'affaire Sokal, which I had not previously heard of, but
which conformed with horrible precision my preconceptions of how such a
prank might go.

Me, when I need leftwing guidance, I ask myself what Lenin would have
done. The answer rarely involves gender politics or queer studies, but
tends towards, shall we say, more robust solutions.

When in doubt, shoot some more intellectuals, revisionists, hooligans
and saboteurs... and if they run short, shoot anyone inconvenient and
_then_ denounce them as revisionists, intellectuals, saboteurs and
hooligans. (Today's soggy-Left should thank their lucky stars Lenin and
Stalin are no more, it always seemed to be easier to kill toadies than
real opponents. Trotsky took a lot of hunting and killing, while Stalin
executed most of his 'inner circle' with little apparent effort)

From which, as the
most liberal and tolerant of men, I am usually obliged to distance
myself. Still, it's always there as a thought.

I'd consider myself fairly liberal, in the classical sense at least
(even got a degree from UCL) though I grow less tolerant with age.

Perhaps Lenin was too soft in limiting himself to small-arms.

This is one reason I get very, very angry with anyone who dismisses "the
media". They may be ill-informed (and many are), they may be downright
hostile (and many are), but they have to be worked with and dealt with.
Ignore them or annoy them and they will hurt you badly.

Another "yes, but." The thing I can't forgive the meeja (by which I
mean overwhelmingly tv) is their utter incapacity to avoid telling
lies. Indeed, their complete epistemological inability to tell one from
the other: only what makes "good" tv and what does not. They're quite
smart at that.

From a military point of view, that's like complaining about geography:
why do the enemy never let you assault them downhill, over dry ground
with good going yet plenty of nice concealing folds and tussocks, on a
day not so hot you sweat to death during the assault nor so cold that
certain important bits froze off waiting for H-Hour?

"The meeja" exist as they are, just as the weather and the ground and
the enemy do. Good commanders do what they can to gain benefit from them
(like, making sure 'Our Story' is better TV than 'Their Story') while
limiting the damage they can do. Not easy, but that's why good
commanders are to be cherished.

Hence, the hard work required of a J3 Media Ops staffer.

Thankless in success, worse in failure.

Sadly, far from alone in the military pantheon. Even I, having a layer
of political insulation and friendly distance from the _direct_
consequences of any failure, will likely only come to notice if things
go badly pear-shaped.

--
Paul J. Adam

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 22:05:23 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

From a military point of view, that's like complaining about geography:
why do the enemy never let you assault them downhill, over dry ground
with good going yet plenty of nice concealing folds and tussocks, on a
day not so hot you sweat to death during the assault nor so cold that
certain important bits froze off waiting for H-Hour?

There is a larger issue about the extent to which the military
perspective is influenced by external social and cultural issues.
Geography is (largely) beyond human agency to inform or alter, at
least in the short term. The meejah issue is more malleable - my
parallel would be to ask why are the Blue forces required to attack
uphill, in poor weather, against prepared Red defences while their own
supporting arms are curtailed? Why is the behaviour of Red Forces to
kidnap, multilate and murder civilians and combatants alike not
subjected to the same level of "war crimes" scrutiny?

This is the problem for the military in places like Iraq - the
subjective application of double-standards and the perpetuation of
assumptive judgements formed and supported b the meejah. In many
cases they reflect the assumptions of the host culture, but while that
explains them, it does not legitimise them.

"The meeja" exist as they are, just as the weather and the ground and
the enemy do. Good commanders do what they can to gain benefit from them
(like, making sure 'Our Story' is better TV than 'Their Story') while
limiting the damage they can do. Not easy, but that's why good
commanders are to be cherished.

Indeed, but even without counter-propaganda, the doublethink,
groupthink and downright hypocrisy of normal meejah coverage should
not pass without question or challenge. This is a meejah problem in
the first instance, as the meejah have as much responsibility to
police each other as they do to bring politicians and generals down.
Their failure to do this makes the problem a larger cultural and
social one.

Gavin Bailey
--
I have enough of Windows error message which say "Intelligent life
not detected at keyboard." You hear me good Bill! Not mess Eastern
devil warrior. Yeah like Jackie Chan. Worse Bart Kwan-En.
- Bart Kwan En

Paul J. Adam wrote:
...

Where has any official policy been annunciated at any time which
indicated an intent to establish "Permanent bases in Iraq"?

The withdrawal of MND(SE) forces from al-Muthanna province and the
handover there to Iraqi security is a small point of support. (Small,
because al-Muthanna is large, empty and quiet and hence suitable for an
early handover - though a cynic would say that's exactly the sort of
place the Evil US would _want_ a huge military complex put, and I'm not
aware of any such being constructed)


Personally, I expect the Kurds would be happy to have a nice big
premanent American base right up by the Turkish border. Off-hand
I would have no objections either.

--

FF