Is the media hurting the war?

I recently had a discussion with a neoconservative about the "war on terror" and the Iraq war. His central claim was that the American media has undermined the war effort, and he advocated a media restriction for wartime affairs.He said that the media has blurted out every policy and tactic that we propose; this is akin to "telling the defense what play the offense will run." He also claimed that if America had had today's media during World War II, we would be "speaking German right now." Imagine having Normandy on the evening news across the country, he said. Would the people have supported the war effort?I personally think that restricting the media is a dangerous idea, but I couldn't help but be shaken by some of his examples, particularly the World War II example. Is the media hurting the war effort? Do we really need to know everything that happens on the ground?

Yes, I agree. I think it's a common copout of conservatives to blame the media for the war's progress, but clearly the President and his administration are responsible.But still, the point remains: has the media been a detriment to the war effort? I think I misrepresented my friend's argument.What he meant by "blurting out" was the media reporting and scrutinizing everything that the military does - everything from civilian casualties to common screw-ups. He cited the recent murder trials of several soldiers. "Soldiers being charged for murder in a war?" he exclaimed. In addition, he also called our torture policies "soft" and "flabby" and dangerous to the country.My response was that we are America, the miliary, economic, and supposedly moral leader of the world. We should try to set a good example for other countries, and we shouldn't act like a terrorist nation. To this, he said that we can't restrict our military in such a way; we can't play "nice" with our enemies; and he claimed that we must "get in the gutter" and fight these people with our gloves off.Does he have a point? Should we become more aggressive in our war efforts? Or is he pulling facts out of his ass? I'm pretty sure they didn't have the extensive media coverage like we have today, and they didn't have television. There were probably many atrocities committed during World War II that we will never know about. Obviously, even with our ignorance of those atrocities, the war was won. (Of course there are still atrocities that we don't know today, but we probably know much more because of the greater capabilities of the media.)The question is, was it because of the public's relative ignorance that World War II went so well? Did the ignorance help the war effort?My opinion right now is that it didn't really matter, and it still doesn't today. Like you said, this war's troubles are due to the policies and actions of the Bush administration, not to some bad deeds of a few soldiers. World War II was won not because of "playing dirty", but because of strong policy decisions.Therefore, if our ignorance doesn't matter, then why not make our military more morally accountable? Edited by taylor_31, : No reason given.

Of course I agree with you. But don't expect your scenario to get in the way of the typical Republican."It's just part of war," he or she will say. "War is dirty."Now, I do think war is dirty, and there will always be civilian casualties in war. These are unavoidable. However, we should certainly minimize them whenever possible, unless there is a greater strategic goal in mind. I find torture reprehensible. But are there scenarios where it might be necessary to our protection?I don't think torture is the best way to obtain information. But what if every other tactic had failed, and the situation was desperate? Should we use every tactic we know of to prevent an attack?

Those are the Soviets, though! The Soviets are evil like that!Many people - conservatives in particular - find it offensive or even treasonous when someone admits that America has made a mistake. They think that whatever America does, it must be the righteous thing to do.I say, what is wrong with being constructively self-critical? It's how we improve ourselves as a country, after all, and actually patriotic.

I personally don't know if it has ever occurred or not.In fact, the odds of finding the right person who knows exactly what the details are of a terrorist attack - not to mention a person who would tell the truth under torture, which is rare enough - are astronomically high. In addition, intelligence we obtain from detainees is always suspect and almost worthless without corroborating information.But, hypothetically, the question still stands. Would it be moral to use every tactic we have to obtain answers if the situation was critical? I understand that the scenario is far-fetched and might not be realistic, but we never know what will happen.

You're right; "imminent threat" is a flexible phrase, and people can bend it to their will. I don't know of any particular case where it has been abused, but it is ludicrously easy to postulate one, and I have no doubt that it's happened.If torture could only be approved as a last resort by high-ranking officials, then it might limit the abuse. Perhaps the National Security Council could unanimously approve. Of course, abuse is still possible, so maybe accountability is necessary. A member of the NSC could annually testify over the Council's torture approvals.I would love to totally abolish torture, but I'm reluctant because I'm worried that it might be necessary at some tragic point.

Thank you for your message; I'm pretty much convinced. The banning of torture is a net gain for our country, especially morally.Also, if the incredibly unlikely "ticking bomb scenario" ever shows up, and I doubt it will, and the government if forced to torture a detainee, and a city is saved, then I'm sure that the American people and authorities will understand.John McCain wrote it well: Torture should be illegal.Again, thanks for explaining this issue for me.

My friend thinks that the military operates better without the media.He cited World War II as an example, saying that the media had more technological restraints back then. "We won that war, didn't we?" he thinks.Obviously, America had some trouble with Vietnam. He blames the media, which he assumes "softened" the public, and blames the politicians, which made America "play nice" somehow.His overall point was, why does America have to play by a set of rules when our enemy doesn't?I say because we're America and we should set a moral standard for the rest of the world. Besides, those pesky moral "rules" don't make much difference in the war effort anyway; it's strategies that make a difference.

Because the testimony of a tortured person is junk without corroborating intelligence, right? For instance, when John McCain was tortured to name his flight squadron members, he named the linemen of the Green Bay Packers!I think it's far better for our country's image to outlaw torture, because like Chiroptera wrote, its potential for abuses are great, yet the potential for real usefulness - i.e. ticking-bomb scenario - are terribly small. And if it did become necessary, then it wouldn't stop anybody for using it, like you wrote.

I hate to condemn my friend, but I assume he was thinking of the surge strategy and other tactics. Of course, it's the Bush administration which informs the media, so the media is not at fault.Overall, he thinks that we shouldn't know everything about the war, at least not as much as we do. "People don't like war," he says. "It's too dirty for them." It sometimes angers me because he has no record of military service, and yet he speaks with such enlightenment on these issues.And anyway, I don't think the media has had much to do with any war effort! It simply doesn't have that much influence.

Hi Tal!I assume that you are currently serving in Iraq. If so, thank you for your service, and I hope that you had a good Independence Day. I have some questions about your post for you. But surely an IED is more than a mere statement! It seems that IEDs are but one tool of a lethal insurgency which has driven Iraqi political and social life into the gutter. Because of this insurgency, Iraq is now in the throes of a civil war. I think the media is simply reporting this hard fact. Doesn't the public have a right to know this? You may be right in that the insurgents hope to stimulate negative news from the Western media, but I think that's an indirect part of their main strategy. Their real strategy to is force Iraq into chaos with these lethal weapons. Apparently they've done a gruesomely good job, because Iraq has progressed horribly from our perspective. Hopefully this surge will secure areas of the capital and we can get some progress on the political and economic fronts. If I ever get into a college class where I need a good paper subject, I might choose this topic, because I think there's some good research to be done in this area.I'm sure you know front-line conditions in Iraq far, far better than I do, so please correct anything that I misstated.

Perhaps you're right, and the media is being manipulated by the enemy. However, I think it's a mistake to blame the war's conduct on the media; rather, the responsibility lies with the actions of our administration. This war has been mismanaged right from the beginning, from which we did not even have a compelling reason to go to war. At least, I didn't think we had one.But we've gotta make the best of it, so I hope that things get better soon. Already I think that Baghdad is beginning to stabilize a little better; hopefully this is an indication of things to come.

You obviously know more about this topic than I do, so I will definitely listen intently to what you write. I hope that this doesn't get off-topic, but here it goes.Who exactly is our main enemy in Iraq, and who would claim victory if we left? All of the Iraqis? Well, I don't think that the war has proceeded that well. Judging by the reports from the media, Iraq seems to be cratering. Please correct me if I'm wrong.By the way, would you consider State of Denial by Bob Woodward to be a good source of information about Iraq? Because that's what I'm reading right now, and I was curious about what you thought of the book.

I found something that interested me.Jay Garner, an ex-general, was the man initially in charge of post-war Iraq. After the major conflict was over, Woodward writes that widespread looting corrupted Baghdad and that there was a massive "power vacuum" in the country. To respond to this vacuum, Garner consulted with several northern Kurds who wished to set up a diverse Iraqi interim government. In addition, Garner planned to pay the Iraqi army and keep most of the Baath party members to ensure that the government kept working. In May 2003, before Garner could implement his plans, he was abruptly replaced by Jerry Bremer, whom he was forced to work for.Garner thought that Bremer made three huge errors: "broad de-Baathification, disbanding the [Iraqi] military, and rejecting the Iraqi council set up [by Garner]." These decisions effectively gave the United States 350,000 more enemies, including 50,000 of Iraq's educated elite and 300,000 trained professional soldiers. I've only read a third of the book, but Woodward seems to be emphasizing these mistakes as the turning point, after which Iraq began to descend into violence.Do you think that that's accurate?