Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is said that the first casualty in war is the truth, I believe this to be true. However the second casualty in war is the muted acceptance born in apathy and quiet acquiescence.
Sounds pretty good huh, I mean were killing bad guys without risking our own. Thing is, the truth is we don't really know who the hell we are killing, at best we are guessing it is bad guys. This is the second news story on drone attacks in the past two weeks with a similar theme, so pay close attention.
Quote:
(AP) — Pakistani intelligence officials say a third suspected U.S. missile strike has hit a tribal area near the Afghan border, killing nine militants and bringing the total toll to 17 dead in the strikes.
Nine dead militants, good, good... Nine less
Quote:
The officials say the third strike hit some vehicles carrying alleged militants who may belong to the Haqqani network, one of several militant groups in North Waziristan.
Some more alleged militants, good, good, few more down.
But then there is this.
Quote:
The officials did not know the identities of those killed but said they were militants.
Thats right, they weren't even identified, just "suspected" militants. How the hell do we know, because someone said so? How do we know this isn't like the early stages of the Afghan war when Northern Alliance war lords were picking "suspected militants" who turned out to be nothing more than their opium competition.
Does the AP or Reuters or anyone in the press ever take the time to verify whether these "suspected militants" were in fact militants? Does anyone ever even bother to question this? I expect my government to lie to me, it is what they do best, but I also used to expect the press to try and discover the truth.
No more Woodward and Bernstein these days, nope, just presstitutes wrestling for the front row center chair at the White House press briefings and willing to do any nice favors to get there. After all, its all about access right?
With military strikes such as these, a BDA is performed after the operation. That gives the necessary information on the number killed, if the target was eliminated, etc. However, this does not mean that the media has access to this information. The appropriate leadership always has access to this information, however.
The total inclusion of the media into military conflict is a fairly recent event; Vietnam being a good example. As time has progressed, the media has been imbedded with troops, reported right from the lines, etc. The American public has gotten the idea that they are entitled to every single military commander's decision. I find this an interesting phenomena, as it has clearly led to inane rules of engagement.
I guess I just do not understand this insatiable need to question every decision by our military commanders. If you are worried about abuse, there are multiple safeguards in place to deal with those that go outside the rules of engagement. Of course, if you're a conspiracy theorist and do not want to believe anything our military commanders report then I guess this would be of little use.
With military strikes such as these, a BDA is performed after the operation. That gives the necessary information on the number killed, if the target was eliminated, etc. However, this does not mean that the media has access to this information. The appropriate leadership always has access to this information, however.
The total inclusion of the media into military conflict is a fairly recent event; Vietnam being a good example. As time has progressed, the media has been imbedded with troops, reported right from the lines, etc. The American public has gotten the idea that they are entitled to every single military commander's decision. I find this an interesting phenomena, as it has clearly led to inane rules of engagement.
I guess I just do not understand this insatiable need to question every decision by our military commanders. If you are worried about abuse, there are multiple safeguards in place to deal with those that go outside the rules of engagement. Of course, if you're a conspiracy theorist and do not want to believe anything our military commanders report then I guess this would be of little use.
Well right now the United States is doing its very best to sell some good news in the Afghanistan/Pakistan/Iraq/Yemen wars and occupations. They go to some lengths to point out this many suspected militants here, this many suspect militants there, but there is rarely any confirmation as to whether these numbers are accurate.
I accept the fact that my government is going to sell the best possible product and shine as much PR in a favorable manner as it can for this extremely unpopular war, but what I don't accept is that the press just accepts this.
Might as well just put out a weekly form press release where the press just writes in that weeks tally of "suspected militants".
If you wonder why there is so much skepticism, it is because my government has earned it. Nice implication with the whole "conspiracy theory", however I'm well aware of the usage of terms like "suspected" militants, if they were sure they would just say militants, but they're not.
Of course anyone who denies the US military doesn't use psyops and or PR would have to be a conspiracy nut. Easy how that works isn't it.
It is said that the first casualty in war is the truth, I believe this to be true. However the second casualty in war is the muted acceptance born in apathy and quiet acquiescence.
Sounds pretty good huh, I mean were killing bad guys without risking our own. Thing is, the truth is we don't really know who the hell we are killing, at best we are guessing it is bad guys. This is the second news story on drone attacks in the past two weeks with a similar theme, so pay close attention.
Nine dead militants, good, good... Nine less
Some more alleged militants, good, good, few more down.
But then there is this.
Thats right, they weren't even identified, just "suspected" militants. How the hell do we know, because someone said so? How do we know this isn't like the early stages of the Afghan war when Northern Alliance war lords were picking "suspected militants" who turned out to be nothing more than their opium competition.
Does the AP or Reuters or anyone in the press ever take the time to verify whether these "suspected militants" were in fact militants? Does anyone ever even bother to question this? I expect my government to lie to me, it is what they do best, but I also used to expect the press to try and discover the truth.
No more Woodward and Bernstein these days, nope, just presstitutes wrestling for the front row center chair at the White House press briefings and willing to do any nice favors to get there. After all, its all about access right?
The first casualty of war is truth. Obama should be ashamed for allowing the 2 fraudulant wars to continue.
Well right now the United States is doing its very best to sell some good news in the Afghanistan/Pakistan/Iraq/Yemen wars and occupations. They go to some lengths to point out this many suspected militants here, this many suspect militants there, but there is rarely any confirmation as to whether these numbers are accurate.
I accept the fact that my government is going to sell the best possible product and shine as much PR in a favorable manner as it can for this extremely unpopular war, but what I don't accept is that the press just accepts this.
Might as well just put out a weekly form press release where the press just writes in that weeks tally of "suspected militants".
If you wonder why there is so much skepticism, it is because my government has earned it. Nice implication with the whole "conspiracy theory", however I'm well aware of the usage of terms like "suspected" militants, if they were sure they would just say militants, but they're not.
Of course anyone who denies the US military doesn't use psyops and or PR would have to be a conspiracy nut. Easy how that works isn't it.
My father, a former Air Force captain who served in Vietnam, commented on the similarities between that conflict and the one in Afghanistan the other day. We've got the same focus on daily body count of suspected "Al Qaeda" or "militants" (or "Vietcong") as indicator towards victory. If we can kill enough of 'em, it shows we're on the right track and we've got the end zone in sight... Which we all know how that panned out. Only the South Vietnamese government might have been a little more coherrant and had more support in the war than the current Afghan administration--which is a remarkably scary thought.
Well right now the United States is doing its very best to sell some good news in the Afghanistan/Pakistan/Iraq/Yemen wars and occupations. They go to some lengths to point out this many suspected militants here, this many suspect militants there, but there is rarely any confirmation as to whether these numbers are accurate.
I accept the fact that my government is going to sell the best possible product and shine as much PR in a favorable manner as it can for this extremely unpopular war, but what I don't accept is that the press just accepts this.
Might as well just put out a weekly form press release where the press just writes in that weeks tally of "suspected militants".
If you wonder why there is so much skepticism, it is because my government has earned it. Nice implication with the whole "conspiracy theory", however I'm well aware of the usage of terms like "suspected" militants, if they were sure they would just say militants, but they're not.
Of course anyone who denies the US military doesn't use psyops and or PR would have to be a conspiracy nut. Easy how that works isn't it.
Given the focus upon each and every strike, yes, I agree the government is using PR to try and make this war appear favorable. However, I do not believe, nor do I get the indication that you do either, that our military is purposely targeting civilians. Unfortunately, the microscope on our military actions does indeed highlight when there is a civilian casualty. By the way, the not trusting anything our military says is what I meant by conspiracy theorists. Nonetheless, I believe this overly intense focus upon our military commander's actions has had a detrimental effect upon our ability to effectively engage in combat.
Ultimately, the intense focus on each of the strikes has caused our military to engage in increased PR and the PR has caused greater questioning of our military actions. It's a bit of a self licking ice cream cone.
My father, a former Air Force captain who served in Vietnam, commented on the similarities between that conflict and the one in Afghanistan the other day. We've got the same focus on daily body count of suspected "Al Qaeda" or "militants" (or "Vietcong") as indicator towards victory. If we can kill enough of 'em, it shows we're on the right track and we've got the end zone in sight... Which we all know how that panned out. Only the South Vietnamese government might have been a little more coherrant and had more support in the war than the current Afghan administration--which is a remarkably scary thought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel
Given the focus upon each and every strike, yes, I agree the government is using PR to try and make this war appear favorable. However, I do not believe, nor do I get the indication that you do either, that our military is purposely targeting civilians. Unfortunately, the microscope on our military actions does indeed highlight when there is a civilian casualty. By the way, the not trusting anything our military says is what I meant by conspiracy theorists. Nonetheless, I believe this overly intense focus upon our military commander's actions has had a detrimental effect upon our ability to effectively engage in combat.
Ultimately, the intense focus on each of the strikes has caused our military to engage in increased PR and the PR has caused greater questioning of our military actions. It's a bit of a self licking ice cream cone.
No, I do not believe our military targets civilian populations, in fact our military probably goes out of the way more than any other to prevent them. However, we also rely upon intelligence from Pakistani forces who are not exactly the most reliable players in this game.
I do not see the military or the US government having to engage in a PR war because of these reports, I seem them engaging in a PR war because the war itself is seen by a majority if Americans as unfavorable. The us of a PR campaign it to do its best to paint a bad situation in the best favorable light and to show that progress is being made.
How many stories of "X" number of "suspected" militants run compared to how many show where the Taliban is gaining ground, funding and expanding its influence in say, the NY Times or Washington Post?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
