Update: recommended reading includes, “Thoughts on ‘Strategic Compression,’” and “The Global Information Environment and 21st Century Warfare: Targeting Public Opinion in the 5th Dimension” (PDF).
Original post: In response to this post by Gar at the Nomads, and this by Robert at the Marmot’s Hole. This comment by Joshua at OFK is also generally related.
It’s clear that our own media is used against us by insurgents. Sometimes (via one-sided, biased reporting) that media works against us anyway, wittingly or not. If we’d had that sort of coverage during WWII we likely would not have had the will to do it, and our enemies would also have used our own media against us. Mistakes are always made and constant public scrutiny of military matters does not help.
The media has no place reporting up-to-the-minute on troop movements, operations, etc. We – the public – do not need to have or have a right to timely reporting on that, period. Those that do need to know will be in positions to read such military reporting. CNN et al are the poor man’s (e.g. insurgents) intel. We can get our reporting a week or a month after the fact. Along the same lines, any news outlet the knowingly publishes classified info should be fined near out of existence, reporters tossed right in jail, including Novak.
Likewise, constant critical evaluation of every move our military makes, often with political bias and/or news market share in the mix, is an undeniable boost to our enemies.
To those that think the threats of WWII and “global terrorism” aren’t comparable, you’re absolutely correct; the current threat is a lot worse. A nuke (real one, not a dirty bomb) blast designed to create an EMP to overload/destroy our electrical grid could literally set us back for several months. The impact of that on our economy would be devastating, and I don’t mean less going to the movies and cutting back on eating out. For those that think terrorists aren’t constantly trying to obtain such materials and entice scientists with the know-how, you’re only fooling yourself.
Having said all that, just getting the media to stop aiding the enemy will not win the de facto war in Iraq. We have to admit we royally screwed the pooch by disbanding the Iraqi army, but that’s in the past. What we need to do is this;
- First and foremost, get the oilfields working at full capacity. If we have to surge 50,000 or even 100,000 more troops for a year to do this, or more, we should. The Iraqi government needs to be funding itself and its security.
- Second, revenues from Iraqi oil should be used to build and equip a security force of the size required. I don’t know what that size is; it will depend on the situation at the time. That security force should include more than enough to guard oil production, the borders, the nation’s infrastructure, going after insurgents, as well as some large prisons designed for long-term detention. It should not focus on strategic forces until internal problems are firmly dealt with (think long years). The U.S. can provide that sort of security off-coast.
- Third, with said security forces in place, Iraq would need to clamp down on the borders with a shoot first and ask questions later policy. Same thing with insurgents within Iraq. Caught insurgents tried and punished. What that punishment would be should be up to the Iraqis. Kill them or throw them in prison forever, I don’t care.
- As the second and third steps fall into place, the U.S. could drawdown to a skeletal advisor force. That will probably be long-term (think Korea, but much smaller scale.
That is how we get out of Iraq, and win. It will not take months, and anyone calling for us to leave in such a timeframe is an idiot. Sorry if you believe that and it hurt your feelings, it’s a fact (fill this out if you need to). Those in congress calling for such a surrender are clueless.
Back to the media; it’s not the decisive factor in the war, but it is a definite negative that needs to be reigned in to something more reasonable. No freedom is absolute, and the fact that much of the media does in fact give aid to the enemy needs to be taken into consideration.
Much of what you write makes sense, BUT…
even if we had a total media blackout, the insurgents are not going to quit killing US troops. They aren’t even going to quit killing in a horrific way. Most of the mutilated bodies turning up in roadside ditches have been Iraqis.
Your war plan sounds good and nice, but we need clear means to assess periodically whether we are making progress towards our goals. A vague timeline of “It will not take months” is completely unacceptable.
The war in Iraq is a foreign war. Nobody attacked us. We are not defending our soil against foreign invaders, so this is not a life or death fight.
If there really is progress, then the military ought to be able to communicate that progress to the American people, who heard the message of the Bush administration through the media and gave their strong support to the initial invasion.
This is the real problem, Richardson. It isn’t the success of the insurgents in making headlines with bomb blasts. It’s the failure of the administration and the military in communicating clearly the goals and progress towards meeting those goals.
A media blackout is not the solution. Delayed reporting void of operational details and a ban on showing insurgent videos (i.e., beheadings and the like) would perhaps be appropriate.
Insurgents do enjoy the attention Western media gives them, however. Notice how they film themselves and then spread on the net? This is meant to both recruit and to affect American morale. That the Western media helps with the morale issue is icing on the cake for them.
Yet that’s the answer. If you don’t like it, ok, it’s going to take years, at least. It’s almost funny, reliance on arbitrary timelines to control things that don’t equate to timelines. If you’re stuck in traffic when will you get there? If you have cancer, when will you be healed? Those are things that cannot accurately be judged from the beginning, or even into it in many cases.
Timelines are inappropriate; conditional based decisions are the way to go and they should be kept secret; from the insurgents and everyone else. Operational security over the long-term is more important. Progress and setback reported, yes; after the fact by some time.
The administrations communication is a problem less; but that in no way negates the problem of the media furthering the goals of insurgents by playing the role of their de facto propaganda machine against America.
” If you’re stuck in traffic when will you get there? If you have cancer, when will you be healed? Those are things that cannot accurately be judged from the beginning, or even into it in many cases. “
The cancer analogy doesn’t work. Cancer is inside our very bodies and we cannot “pull out of it.” We do have a choice whether or not to stay in Iraq. We always have that choice. If we are in Iraq two years from now, we have a choice. If we’re there five years from now, we still have a choice. There is no permanent commitment and there is no guarantee of victory.
I respect your military experience and that you have more of an insider’s view of the war than I do, but continued US participation depends on continued support from the American people. I speak as an ordinary American who is extremely uncomfortable with the idea of a long-term occupation and doubtful of the possibility of destroying the insurgencies and establishing a secure, stable, working government friendly to the US.
“Insurgents do enjoy the attention Western media gives them, however. Notice how they film themselves and then spread on the net? This is meant to both recruit and to affect American morale. That the Western media helps with the morale issue is icing on the cake for them. “
Yes, they do enjoy the attention. Recruiting videos aren’t filmed for broadcast on CNN, however. They may appear in a news story about insurgents, but terrorist groups do not film them primarily for that purpose. Those recruitment videos showing black-masked fighters in the Army of God shooting up targets to the tune of the Quran are passed around through Islamist networks. You’re mixing two different things here: the effect of US media war coverage on US morale and the use of Islamist-created multimedia to recruit guerillas and win support amongst the Ummah (Muslim community). Two different audiences, different media.
It’s not an all encompassing analogy, but it does do more justice than you’re giving it. GWOT is and must be dealt with. Radiation therapy is painful and damaging, but it’s often that or give up. Pulling out is giving up, because the problem will not go away. In this case, the problem would spread. It likely would also encourage Iran. Pulling out at this stage is not a viable option. Neither are timelines (milestones are, but again, secrecy is needed).
I don’t think the where insurgents rank the aid they get from our media – as in the influence on opinion they gain from massive exposure of their exploits – is really important and probably is not quantifiable; that it is aid and they do seek it matters.
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article , War, and Winning at Area Studies, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting.