RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,164856,00.html You have a point there, Ollie, except you forgot some basics about studies, correlations, and what to make of them. 1) You never support a position with the results of just one study, no matter how good the study appears to be. 2) Any college student who even attempts to infer, much less conclude that a correlation suggests causality will be immediately recognized as either a comedian or a fool. 3) Suppression of free speech is just that. It is nothing less than ironic that some folks can advocate unrestricted access to firearms in spite of the literally thousands of deaths annually(many times more than US killed in Iraq in five years) in America yet criticize dissent and attempt to link dissent to American casualties. 4) Our country must engage in free and open debate unless there is a direct attack on our country by a clearly identified enemy and a clear and unequivacal declaration of war* by our Congress. Hurumpf! *AUMF is not a declaration of war.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: bwf27,
Insurgencies and conflicts that William S. Lind and others refer to as 4th Generation War do have an information warfare component, especially with regard to news coverage. It was a lesson the Russians learned in Chechnya 1994-1996 and 1999-present. To me, that means that any government that wishes to undertake a fool's errand of epic proportions better get lots of people signed on to the action (which the media was, until things started to deteriorate.)
I would think that it would be interesting to think about how the Soviets' experience in Afghanistan was influenced by media coverage. I don't think that there was much internal media coverage of what was going on, yet they still failed. So blaming bad media coverage for all ills in fighting an insurgency is misplaced.
Originally posted by tevers9941: Insurgencies and conflicts that William S. Lind and others refer to as 4th Generation War do have an information warfare component, especially with regard to news coverage. It was a lesson the Russians learned in Chechnya 1994-1996 and 1999-present. To me, that means that any government that wishes to undertake a fool's errand of epic proportions better get lots of people signed on to the action (which the media was, until things started to deteriorate.)
I would think that it would be interesting to think about how the Soviets' experience in Afghanistan was influenced by media coverage. I don't think that there was much internal media coverage of what was going on, yet they still failed. So blaming bad media coverage for all ills in fighting an insurgency is misplaced.
Frankly, I'm astonished Ollie would stoop so low as to quote any study that came out of that dreadful left-wing bastion of reality-based "liberal" thought: Harvard University. After all - neither Mr. North or our president have ever shown any particular fondness for the facts in the past (or present).
However, Ollie completely misses the real problem: it isn't merely the media in this country that (horror of horrors) reports bad news coming out of Iraq. It is ALL media from EVERY country, whether friend or foe. The world opinion is unaminous in that the war in Iraq was started on nothing more than a foundation of falsehoods, the aftermath unplanned for and incompetently managed, and the country of Iraq is officially classified as a 'failed state'. The fault of which lands squarely on the backs of this administration - and that is where it will stay.
The lack of good news is because there precious little good news, and when that finally gets out, the bad news quickly squashes it. And any news coming from the current administration should only be viewed with a few truckloads of salt as their credibility is in the tank.
And Ollie, you can spare us the Rovian scare tactics.
(QUOTE)I made a major mistake in a hotel room this week. Not the Eliot Spitzer kind of "mistake" – but with a television remote. While changing for a late dinner, I tried to tune in to Fox News Channel, but the electronic device took me instead to MTV and some kind of "reality show." For a few minutes as I dressed, I was treated to several attractive young American women discussing their "relationships." The most oft repeated sound in this "conversation" was "Duh!" – a word that does not appear in my Webster's dictionary. But now I know what it means.(UNQUOTE)
Ollie - Your biggest mistake was tuning to Faux News Channel if you were genuinely interested in receiving unbiased and factual information, especially news involving the Bush Administration on most anything.
Duh! Silly me, of course, it would be most uncharacteristic for you not to tune into the White House propaganda news channel. How else could you be so well informed with truly accurate and factual information at all times?
You have a point there, Ollie, except you forgot some basics about studies, correlations, and what to make of them.
