Harvard Study: The media's Anti-War stories "embolden" Iraqi insurgents

From here

Discuss.

Let's adopt totalitarianism. No pesky dissent then. That'll show them!

I knew that it wouldn't take long for the "But the media is just doing its job when it orgasms over every single negative story coming out of Iraq!!!!" crowd to come out.

I personally don't believed that they should be silenced but I also believe that we shouldn't ignore the sometimes nasty consequences of the stories that they report.

How wonderfully enlightened you are!

No. It merely means you should weigh the value of your criticism against the support it lends to the enemy. When your country is at war, your criticism SHOULD be directed at improving the means to win. If your criticism is merely to undermine the war effort and to break your own side's resolve, you shouldn't be surprised if the enemy taps into that.

It is no big secret: no armed force or insurgency is going to defeat us militarily UNLESS they can influence public opinion here enough to break our resolve. When criticism here starts focussing on withdrawl (rather than winning), OF COURSE the enemy tries to amplify that. Of course.

^^^
So, one shouldn't ever disagree with one's country being involved in a war?

I know, without a doubt, that statistically illiterate warmongering blowhards are emboldened by vastly oversimplified and misleading mass media write-ups of supposed studies about Iraq the blowhards have never read, but only when those vastly oversimplified and misleading mass media write-ups happen to agree with the blowhards' preconceived notions and therefore aren't part of what the blowhards believe to be a liberal media conspiracy to silence the truth about Iraq.

hh - read this again, slowly.

^
So many words. So little content.
[in response to Parrot's post]

It states that one should not ever undermine a war effort by criticism of same. Yes, yes. Fascists everywhere agree!

If your disagreement with your country's involvement in a war manifests itself in undermining or de-legitimizing the war effort, you are working to make your country lose. You are advocating a loss; that you disagree with the war makes no difference. If you choose to do so, fine; no one's going to silence you. But we will call you on it.

All those who advocate quitting do is embolden the enemy to keep doing the things that would make us want to quit.

Indeed. The position "I disagree with the war, but want us to win" is entirely hypocritical. As long as we're clear.

And of course, I put it to you that there are circumstances in which you'd do the same.

And after a very little digging---this is based on a media write-up of a non peer-reviewed, unpublished working paper by two newly minted Ph.D's no one's ever heard of who between them have published a reviewed paper exactly once, three years ago. I can only imagine what the statistically illiterate warmongers would make of sensible people challenging them to "discuss" anything on the basis of such evidence.

Here's a novel idea. Instead of worrying that accurately reporting the US' actions and its citizens' doubts might strengthen the enemy, how about changing the US' actions and addressing its citizens' doubts?

In other words, ya'll are unwilling to take responsibility for the consequences of your words.

Taken verbatim, that is perfectly reasonable, and I support the idea.

By the same logic, advocating any action that will inspire other countries or organizations to take up arms against the US also works towards making America less safe, and its struggles harder. Whoever advocates such actions undermines the US and its chances in war; that you agree with the war effort makes no difference. If you choose to do so anyway, fine; but don't be surprised when you're called on it.

One can disagree with the war and still not wish one's country defeat. Unfortunately, I don't think many on the left understand that. Their reasoning seems to be that because they didn't agree with the Iraq War, that it MUST fail: so they declare defeat, trash our soldiers in the field, try to delegitimize our leadership, and attempt to keep the focus on the negative. Such tactics are not aimed at victory, or even in better conduct; they're aimed at defeat. And working for defeat is aiding the enemy.

So long as my country operates reasonably within its Constitutional stuctures, I'll never wish defeat for my country. If I disagree with going to war, I'll raise my voice. But once the country is committed to war, I won't aid the enemy by proclaiming defeat or undermining soldiers in the field just because I didn't get my way.

While it's not "my" country, I certainly don't wish the US defeat. But I don't see ANY possible outcome of the current war in Iraq as a victory for the US, and I do think it's worth pointing out the immensity of the defeat this war entails in order to do two things: cut the losses as far as possible, and learn from this mistake for the future.

One can not wish a country's defeat, and yet still want compatriots to understand that there is a defeat.

So basically, you'd rather we censor the media to avoid provoking the terrorists?

That's a stupid idea when it comes to Danish cartoons, and it's a stupid idea when it comes to reporting on public opinion.

And taken verbatim that is perfectly reasonable and I support the idea.

However, in the current situation, it's difficult to see any country or organization taking up arms against the US, because of its actions or any other reason. Those countries that are overtly hostile have been for many years (Iran, North Korea) or have recently changed to a government with an inherently hostile attitude toward the U.S. (Venezuela). And that must be weighed against two formerly hostile countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, that now aren't.

Are we safer? Fighting extremists, dictators, and terrorists does inevitably force some people to get off the fence and pick a side. There will doubtless continue to be many, many people in Iraq and Afghanistan who will oppose us, violently if possible. But I'm not really worried about the man on the street who hates the U.S.; I'm worried about the guy who controls a state who hates the U.S. and is willing to act on it. From that perspective, I'd have to say we're much safer than we were pre-9/11.

I completely disagree that victory is impossible. Things have improved greatly in Iraq in the last year, both for us and for the Iraqis. It is still a work in progress, but it is far from lost.

If your troop losses are going down and you're achieving more of your objectives and you're continuing to deal harsh blows to the enemy, that isn't defeat.

You have a national debate BEFORE the war. If the war can be avoided, great. If not, once the course of action is decided, it doesn''t do anyone any good to keep dragging out the debate, especially once the shooting starts. The only people that benefit from that is the enemy who think you aren't willing to go the distance and aren't unified.

Once the war is on, do what you can to get victory in the shortest time possible to get the killing over.

The constant coverage of Cindy Sheehan does more to help the insurrgents than simply killing a GI or two does because it emboldens the enemy.

In Iraq, there are definitely more people taking arms against the US and its troops than before.

9-11 was not engineered by a guy who controlled a state. And the guy who controlled Iraq was neither able nor willing to act on his hatred of the US to the extent that the men in Iraq's streets are now.

Yes indeed. That is at least half of the lesson that should be learned from this debacle, by pointing out its extent.

In this case, one of the main problems of the war is that the course of actions is STILL not decided.

I disagree. We decided to go to war and that means winning. The debate now is do we pull out before victory, in this case a stable Iraq, is achieved. If we commit ourselves fully to that war and the victory, the issue will not be in doubt for us or for our enemies.

War isn't about body counts, it's about will, the will to do what it takes to win. Everytime Al Jazeera shows Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or Cindy Sheehan, they know we aren't as committed to the fight as we could be and should be. It's a victory for them and they know all they have to do is hold out a little while longer.

More than there were 2 or 3 years ago? I don't think so. If there are, why have our combat losses shrunk?

No, but he had the protection of a state.

We could end the man in the street's ability to act against us simply by sealing ourselves up in our bases; not so Saddam, who was a consistent thorn in our side for years. I'd also hasten to add that, even though Saddam appears not to have had WMDs, it is now established that he worked to engender the belief that he did.

But that's water under the bridge. Regardless of how you evaluate Saddam's threat level, we are in Iraq and we do have to see it through.

I heard the most imbecilic comment from Barack Obama the other day (the following exchange is a paraphrase):

John McCain: "Obama says we should leave Iraq but that we could go back if Al-Qaida was there. I've got news for him: they are there."

Barack Obama: "Al-Qaida wasn't there until George Bush brought them there."

I nearly snapped. "You fight Al-Qaida whenever and wherever you find them, idiot!" I yelled at the radio. This is typically Bush Derangement Syndrome; the inability to think rationally if George Bush is somehow involved. Even if you accept Obama's premise--that George Bush is responsible for Al-Qaida being there--that in no way releases him from the obligation to fight them there.

No, but if fighting in Iraq is what brings, holds and supports them there, then ending the military fight is the best way to effectively fight AQ.

Paladin and JFC, you're both proclaiming we should support "victory". But I repeat, the main problem is that we still don't know what victory is supposed to be. "A stable Iraq" is a much too vague description; Iraq was as stable under Saddam as you could hope it to be any time in the next few decades.

So what do you really want? A democratic Iraq, i.e. one that divides itself into several countries, continuing wars with Turkey and starting wars with Iran and probably Israel in the process? A non-democratic Iraq, and if so, what will make its regime different to Saddam's? And will it be kept in power by a continued American presence -- McCain's centennial plan?

The successes you mention involve less Americans being killed this week than last week. And that's good; I think we can all agree on that. But it doesn't bring you one step closer to a victory you can't define.

If you're drawing AQ out of the woodwork and into a fight, you fight them. We shouldn't be looking for ways to not fight AQ.

A peaceful, stable Iraq that operates under its own Constitutional democracy. What is peaceful? Peaceful doesn't mean ZERO attacks by extremists; it means that attacks are rare and that groups that plan them are prosecuted. What is stable? Stable doesn't mean no threats to the Constitutional regime; it means that no threat is capable of bringing down the regime.

A democratic Iraq exists right now and is not divided, nor at war with Turkey, nor likely to start wars with Iran or Israel.

While I grant that Iraq's Constitutional regime will probably be somewhat lacking in our eyes, I see nothing that makes me think a new Saddam is in the offing.

That's how we did it with Germany. Myself? I see American troops in Iraq (granted, far fewer that are there now) for the forseeable future.

I have defined it to the extent it can be defined. I can't tell you that each and every condition will be met by 3:00pm Baghdad time October 18, 2008; but I can tell you that we move steadily in that direction.