May 31, 2004
HOW?
The Real Story of Fallujah: Why isn't the administration getting it out? (ROBERT D. KAPLAN, May 31, 2004, Wall Street Journal)
If Al-Karmah is reclaimed, if Fallujah itself remains relatively calm, if the Marines can patrol there at some point, and if mortar attacks abate measurably--all distinct possibilities--the decision not to launch an all-out assault on Fallujah could look like the right one.But none of the above matters if it is not competently explained to the American public--for the home front is more critical in a counterinsurgency than in any other kind of war. Yet the meticulous planning process undertaken by the Marines at the tactical level for assaulting Fallujah was not augmented with a similarly meticulous process by the Bush administration at the strategic level for counteracting the easily foreseen media fallout from fighting in civilian areas near Muslim religious sites. The public was never made to feel just how much of a military threat the mosques in Fallujah represented, just how far Marines went to avoid damage to them and to civilians, and just how much those same Marine battalions accomplished after departing Fallujah. [...]
[I]...found that there are many different Iraqs and different levels of reality to each of them. Presently, the administration lacks the public relations talent and the organizational structure for conveying even the positive elements of the Iraqi panorama in all their drama and texture.
Because the battles in a counterinsurgency are small scale and often clandestine, the story line is rarely obvious. It becomes a matter of perceptions, and victory is awarded to those who weave the most compelling narrative. Truly, in the world of postmodern, 21st century conflict, civilian and military public-affairs officers must become war fighters by another name. They must control and anticipate a whole new storm system represented by a global media, which too often exposes embarrassing facts out of historical or philosophical context.
Without a communications strategy that gives the public the same sense of mission that a company captain imparts to his noncommissioned officers, victory in warfare nowadays is impossible. Looking beyond Iraq, the American military needs battlefield doctrine for influencing the public in the same way that the Army and the Marines already have doctrine for individual infantry tasks and squad-level operations (the Ranger Handbook, the Fleet Marine Force Manual, etc.).
The centerpiece of that doctrine must be the flattening out of bureaucratic hierarchies within the Defense Department, so that spokesmen can tap directly into the experiences of company and battalion commanders and entwine their smell-of-the-ground experiences into daily briefings. Nothing is more destructive for the public-relations side of warfare than field reports that have to make their way up antiquated, Industrial Age layers of command, diluting riveting stories of useful content in the process. Journalists with little knowledge of military history or tactics and with various agendas to peddle can go directly to lieutenants and sergeants, yet the very spokesmen of these soldiers and Marines themselves--even through their aides--seem unable to do so.
Nothing in the history of our democracy suggests that the government can get the truth out about a policy in competition with a press that prefers another. Posted by Orrin Judd at May 31, 2004 2:09 PM
Check out a similarly-themed post at the Belmont Club:
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004_05_01_belmontclub_archive.html#108574381344809028
Posted by: Scof at May 31, 2004 3:03 PMThe "media" isn't monolithic.
If FOXNews or a conservative periodical are willing to highlight a story, it will occasionally force other outlets to follow suit.
Even tabloids occasionally break a story that becomes widespread in mainstream national media.
Further, even if reporters prefer a certain angle, media outlets are for the most part for-profit organizations; If it's a slow enough news day, they'll have to find SOMETHING to report.
The quickened news cycle helps here, as more stories are needed.
Yes, they are:
http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/012982.html
Posted by: oj at May 31, 2004 3:17 PMoj:
You should learn to make your links active like this:
"IS IT A DONKEY?"
The press (I hate 'the media') does tend, like the public, to evolve toward consensus. You'd have a hard time finding any mainstream journalists flogging the gold standard these days, which would not have been the case in 1885; no matter how much they might differ on other economic ideas.
In line with the discussion the other day about alleged irreligion in the press, I counted up all the editors at my paper. There are 5: one Assembly of God, 2 Buddhists, 1 Episcopalian and 1 nondenominational Christian. The publisher is also a Christian, though I don't know what kind.
In fact, I've been working for newspapers since 1966, and so far as I know, I've never known an editor who was not religious.
If it's monolithic, it would be on the conservative side.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at May 31, 2004 8:21 PMThat's ok, Harry, we hate the media, too.
Posted by: David Cohen at May 31, 2004 10:06 PMAs well as scientific objectivity.
Posted by: oj at May 31, 2004 10:53 PMThe answer is that the armed forces need to harness the power of the internet and satalitte television. How about letting grunts blog their experiences at the front. A military C-Span carrying some of the briefings that Kaplan talks about. I would probably watch it instead of Fox.
Communication is part of the war. Our Troops need to fight that part of the war in an integral way. If we eliminate the media from their role as middle men and let our soldiers talk to us directely, the media's ability to manipulate the agenda dispears.
I think that is what Kaplan is saying.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at May 31, 2004 11:53 PMHarry:
The "media" refers to any information dispensing tool, be it newpapers, magazines, television, the internet, etc.
The "press" is just newspapers, isn't it ?
Has anybody read Rudyard Kipling's short "The Village that Voted the Earth was Flat"?
In it, a small group of press types (and one entertainment producer) get nailed by a speed trap in a small English village circa 1920, and vow revenge. The story details how they got their revenge -- through media manipulation and popular entertainment.
The Village that voted the Earth was flat,
Flat as your hat,
Flatter than that...
The political aspects of war, which are important as Kaplan states, is the duty of President and other civilian leaders.
Or do we really want a military controlling the propaganda aspects of the war? That route lays Caesarism.
We have an ultra-competent military and rather incompetent party hacks as office holders, so it's natural to want the military to take over more and more responsibilities. But it's too dangerous.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at June 1, 2004 2:31 PMNewspapers and magazines, michael.
Newspaper editors still set the news agenda for everybody else, though how much longer that will last is a question.
It is still true that Americans get more news from the AP than anything else.
I don't have any difficulty in working for believing editors. I've never yet been asked to write a story based on any religious concept of any kind.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at June 1, 2004 3:51 PMDiscount prescription Fioricet online
Posted by: fiorcet at November 17, 2004 12:12 AM