|
|
The Arm of Decision
Posted by Stephen Green · 8 November 2005
Four years into the Terror War, "What's the most important element for victory?" is a question long overdue. It's also a question our national leadership, nearly all of our intellectuals, and none of our mainstream media have yet to answer. President George W Bush hasn't told us, because he doesn't know. His rivals for the Oval Office never answered the question – either because they also don't know or because they don't like the answer. Our Congress and Senate ought to be debating this issue, the most important of our postmodern era. Instead, they're doling out the pork, posing for the cameras, or busy keeping the campaign dollars flowing in by treating small, partisan differences as matters of life and death. Here we are, with a real life-and-death struggle on our hands, and our leadership fiddles while the barbarians beat us at our own game. Our public thinkers – pundits, intellectuals, whatever you want to call them – are the people we should most rely on for guidance in times such as these. However, they've come up short even using the pathetic standard by which this blogger measures them. Too many of our intellectuals are caught in the past, real or imagined. Most liberal thinkers think one of two things: That this Terror War can be safely ignored (or treated as a police matter, which is effectively the same thing) or that "America isn't worth dying for." Either path leads to defeat – but at least Cindy Sheehan is cheering openly for the other side. Conservatives fall into three camps. Paleoconservatives, like Pat Buchanan, have joined in the loony left's "blame America first" chorus. If only we'd cut off Israel, buy off the Arabs, retreat behind our borders, and act a lot more like France – then we wouldn't be in this mess. Neoconservatives hold the naïve hope that if we just topple the dictators, democracy will sprout like shiitake mushrooms after a cool rain. Vanilla conservatives might have some reservations about singular campaigns in this war (George Will's reservations about Iraq, for example), but usually get all gung-ho whenever and wherever the troops are involved. But as I discussed in an essay called "Game Plan" last year, this war is about a lot more than combat. Our mainstream media haven't answered the question, because they know the answer – and they're deathly afraid you'll find out what it is. But we'll get to them in a moment. --- We've suffered three global wars in the modern era, and now we're in a fourth. Before trying to define the arm of decision in the Current Mess, it would help it look at how we got where we are today.1 The First World War was the first war to be decided by chests – and I don't mean war chests. It was the age of wool uniforms and of the machine gun. It was the age of mass production and mass conscription. Young men by the millions put their wool-covered chests up against machine gun nests. Whichever side ran out of young, male chests first, lost. Unlike its sequel conflicts, World War One was distinctly non-ideological. Several basically like-minded nations waged total war over trivia, and millions died in the resulting slaughter. What ended the stalemate on the Western Front was the arrival of 30 American divisions – each worth two of Europe's, degraded by four years of constant losses. Most demoralizing to Germany was the fact that 30 more American divisions were on the way – and 30 more after those. No wonder the Germans cried "uncle!' before a single Entente soldier crossed their frontier. In the end, crudely put, we won the war because we had more chests than they had bullets. In the Second World War, chests still mattered – but not nearly as much as before. Combined, Germany, Italy, and Japan could never have mustered the manpower to conquer the world. Yet they still came within a hair's breadth of doing just that in 1941-42. They came so close because the WWII was much more about stuff than it was about chests – and the Axis powers had a head start on the Allies when it came to building world-class guns and tanks and ships and planes. (Doctrine also mattered in the early years, but by 1943 all sides enjoyed solid warfighting doctrine. The Allies were lucky to have survived long enough for the Axis doctrinal advantage to even out.) Immediately after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, Winston Churchill said famously, "The war is won." What he meant was: America's productive might had been forced onto the Allied side, all but guaranteeing victory. Churchill wasn't counting our divisions – he was counting on our factories. Production had become the arm of decision. The Cold War lasted 45 years, but our losses totaled a "mere" 93,000 men. When you consider we lost five times that number in the 34 months we waged WWII, it's clear that in the Cold War, manpower mattered far less than before. Our factories didn't matter as much, either. The Soviets out-produced us in every measure that mattered in WWII: Steel, chemicals, tanks, planes, bombs… the Soviets made more of them, and sometimes even their quality was better. In fact, it wasn't until the 1980s that we gained a solid qualitative edge over the Russians – and by then the Cold War was already waning. Were quality weapons and winning the Cold War related? You bet your macroeconomic ass, they were. The Cold War was the first – and perhaps only – macroeconomic war. For us, quantity counted, but only up to a point. To maintain a stalemate, we needed only enough men and machines to make the Soviets think twice. To win, we needed a quality of men and machines that the oppressed men of the creaky Soviet machine couldn't match. We still needed men and we still needed stuff – but our free economy was the arm of decision. Only a free economy could produce the quality needed to defeat the Soviet Union's quantity. Although our economy was never as free as I would have preferred, it remained free enough to put Communism into "the ash-heap of history." The West had to drum up nearly 300 divisions of poorly-armed men to win the First World War, but only half that many for the Second – even though the fighting was more global. At the end of the Cold War, the US and Western Europe combined mustered fewer than 100 exquisitely armed divisions. Over the last century, it's obvious that manpower has mattered less and less. "Stuff" took the spotlight for a while, but has been replaced over the last 30 years by the high-tech weapons systems made possible by market economics. Today we face a new global threat. Like the Soviet Union of old, our threat is ideological. Unlike the Soviets, our new threat isn't a nation-state. The enemy has no divisions. It has no tanks, nor fighter jets, nor nuclear missiles. Our threat is repressed young men with the desire to die for Allah, and to take as many infidels with them as they can on their road to Hell. America's "Army of One" is nearly that – we have a mere ten regular divisions on hand. Our Air Force isn't much over half the size it was just a dozen years ago, and future procurement of ever-more expensive planes promises an ever-smaller USAF. The US Navy isn't just shrinking – its ships are aging faster than the denizens of a Miami retirement condo. But size doesn't matter like it used to, not even as recently as September 10, 2001. And our free economy? It's still succumbing to state intervention on an asymptotic curve – but, speaking in strictly military terms, our economic might has lost its importance, too. So what does matter? What is the postmodern arm of decision? Previously, I wrote that in order to win the Terror War, we must "prove the enemy ideology to be ineffective," just as we did in the Cold War. In that conflict, we did so in three ways: by fighting where we had to while maintaining our freedoms, but most importantly by out-growing the Communist economies. I argued that similar methods would win the Terror War. We'd have to fight, we'd have to maintain our freedoms, but the primary key to victory in the Current Mess is taking the initiative. What I didn't see then - but what I do see today - is what "taking the initiative" really means. It means, fighting a media war. It means, turning the enemy's one great strength into our own. Broadcast words, sounds, and images are the arm of decision in today's world. And if that assessment is correct, then we're losing this war and badly. Vietnam was the first war reported in real-time. Not coincidentally, Vietnam was the first war this nation lost2. Neither Lyndon Johnson nor Richard Nixon had a media plan for waging a partly-media war. What little info-management there was, was mostly WWII-style propaganda – hardly appropriate for the media-savvy Sixties. Vietnam was largely an ideological-nationalistic conflict. The media wasn't yet the arm of decision, but it was obviously gaining strength in comparison to older means of waging war. A war properly geared for TV (we'll get to what that means shortly) was probably still unwinnable in Southeast Asia, but we would have come away with fewer losses – on the battlefield and in "hearts and minds." Thirty years on, the media has done nothing but grow in strength. And yet for the most part, war supporters (myself included) trivialize the media, ridicule it, or ignore it. Meanwhile, for all their crude technique, our enemies understand the power of media, and use it to their great advantage. Noted author, intellectual, and former Army intelligence officer Ralph Peters described the First Battle of Fallujah as an example of how to get it as wrong as you possibly can. We bragged that we were going to "clean up Dodge." And the Marines went in, tough and capable as ever. Then, just when the Marines were on the cusp of victory, they were called off, thanks to a brilliant, insidious and unscrupulous disinformation campaign waged by al-Jazeera. I was in Iraq at the time, and the lies about American "atrocities" were stunning. But the lies worked and the Bush administration, to my shock and dismay, backed down. That's the power of the media, the arm of decision in action. Using little more than video cameras, terrorists convinced The Most Powerful Man on Earth™ to back down and grant them a victory they hadn't earned on the battlefield. A loss like that one should have come as no surprise, after Bush's "Mission Accomplished" fiasco on May 2, 2003. Back then, I called Bush's aircraft carrier landing/victory speech "brilliant" as "pure political theater." I was wrong. And I should have known better, since just three weeks before (after the seizure of Baghdad), I wrote: That's not to say we're finished. Far from it; the real work has yet to begin. We've bought the deed to a crack house in a bad neighborhood, and now we've got to turn it into a place where decent people can live decently. The folks next door aren’t going to be too happy with our gentrification efforts, either. We can expect lots of drive-bys while we pull the weeds and put up new drywall. That's typically glib VodkaPundit prose, but no less prescient for being so. Bush should have known the same thing – and used the media to prepare us, and our enemies, for what was to come. Instead, Bush empowered his critics, the mangy-haired protest-anything types, and every single "I told you so" columnist sitting to the left of Bill Buckley. Bush also empowered the terrorists with that speech, and it's to my very great shame that I once applauded it. Am I saying that Iraq is a lost cause? Far from it. While the White House remains clueless, our armed forces have been busy analyzing the After Action Reports, and adjusting their tactics accordingly. Again, we go to Ralph Peters. This time he's talking about the Second Battle of Fallujah: It was evident to all of us who had served that we'd have to go back into Fallujah, but the administration – which I support – made the further error of waiting until after the presidential election to avoid casualties or embarrassments during the campaign. Well, fortunately, in the Second Battle of Fallujah the Army and Marines realized they had to do it fast, before the media won again and the politicians caved in again. The military had been burned once and they were determined not to get burned again. And they did a stunning job--Second Fallujah was a model of how to take down a medium-size city. Great credit to the troops, mixed reviews for the politicos. Now that is what I meant by "a war properly geared for TV." Washington was geared up right for the Blitz to Baghdad in 2003. Instead of the broad front of a "stuff" war, our digital troops raced north with almost reckless abandon, heedless of their flanks – and MSM embeds went along for the ride. As a result, reporting was, for a few short weeks, "fair and balanced." Their lives quite literally on the line, frontline reporters filed their featured bylines with everything from admiration to honest criticism. And they did so virtually always as Westerners first, reporters second. Today, too many reporters report from the relative safety of Baghdad hotels. Their reports – and the public's understanding of the war – have suffered as a result. And too few of the original embeds remain reporting for duty. When reporters who don't see what's going on write stories without context, they fail to steel the public for bad news and to put the good news in perspective. It's fair to ask if the Iraq Campaign was a necessary component to the Terror War. It isn't fair to compare Iraq to Vietnam, when the two wars have nothing, zero, nada in common. It's fair to ask if our soldiers are dying in vain, or because of stupid policy, or because of inferior equipment. It's not fair to run headlines like "Battle Deaths Continue to Mount." No shit, Sherlock? A real story would be, "Battle Deaths Decline as Fallen Soldiers Miraculously Resurrected." It's fair to question Bush's policies. It's not fair to act as a conduit for enemy propaganda. It's fair to ask if Iraq is draining resources from our efforts in Afghanistan. It's not fair to complain that Afghanistan isn't perfect yet. It's fair to complain about indecencies at Abu Ghraib. It's not fair to virtually ignore atrocities committed by the other side everywhere else in Iraq. But our media, aware of their power but ignorant as to its uses, would rather play "gotcha" than provide critical perspective. Germany lost WWI because they couldn't match our manpower. They lost again in 1945, because they couldn't match Allied productive might. We could very well lose this war, because our leadership has so far failed to recognize the power of the media. We might also lose because our enemies are oftentimes more media-savvy than we are. We could lose also because our mainstream media seems to find terrorists less unattractive than having a conservative Texan in the White House. --- There is no "fixing" the American mainstream media, unless change comes organically. When I wrote last year that we can't win this war by giving up our freedoms, I wasn't kidding – without a free press, we're doomed. But I do mean to serve notice to the MSM. When a nation loses a war, it looks to punish the people it believes are to blame. After Vietnam, neither Washington nor our Armed Forces were ever the same again3. But if we lose this Terror War, our media will be seen as largely to blame. They'll suffer blame for their ignorance and for their petulance. They'll suffer blame for seeing al Jazeera as comrades closer than the privates and NCOs and officers fighting to protect the First Amendment. They'll suffer blame for putting their hatred of a Republican President before their love of country. Whether that assessment is fair or not, it is how the public will see things. Then the public would demand changes. And they'd probably get them, courtesy of a government looking for scapegoats, real or imagined. Should that day come, we'd lose our free press, and we'd lose our freedoms. We'd lose our country. I don't mean to imply that the MSM needs to hop on board the bandwagon and cheerlead for any President along any military campaign, no matter how foolhardy – far from it. In case you hadn't noticed, I used a good portion of this essay to complain about Washington, and that's something the media can do a whole lot more effectively than one small blogger. Criticism isn't just necessary, it's a necessary good. But the MSM needs to relearn constructive criticism, and they need to remember which country defends their rights, and which group of people would gleefully slit their throats4. Today, the arm of decision is the media, and it's impossible to predict what new power will someday eclipse it. But if our media companies lose their First Amendment freedoms in a populist spasm of government power, they'll have only themselves to blame. The media have the power. They wield the arm of decision. Even if only for our own sakes, let's hope they learn to use it with more wisdom and foresight than they have these last four years. Footnotes 1These brief historical summations are meant to be very brief – and thus woefully incomplete. Also, things weren't as cut-and-dried as I've presented them, and there was a lot of overlap between the eras I've described. But the larger point, concerning the arms of decision of various wars, still stands. 2Don't get me wrong here. Most days, I'm mostly certain that going into Vietnam was a mistake. And on any day, I'm damn certain that the Draft was a moral and political abomination. So let me preempt any talk that I'm accusing Vietnam War protestors or Walter Cronkite or anyone else of being unpatriotic. What I'm trying to do is examine dispassionately some of the mistakes made in the past, and try to figure out how we can do better in the future. 3To the broad public, neither the White House nor the Pentagon is held in the same esteem they were before Vietnam. The military has regained much lost ground since 1968, but at a price steep in blood and treasure – and mostly because the military has long understood the power of the media. They learned that lesson the hard way, and changed themselves from within. 4Why is it that one nobody writing in his basement can see that, but your typical MSM editor with an entire news department at his beck and call can't? Or is it that he can see it, but would rather score points than save his own neck?
Comments
The msm concept of objectivity, which is essentially emotional and intellectual neutrality, cannot embrace any partisanship except against that which is aimed at undermining that same concept of objectivity. That makes them the enemy, for fundamental epistemological reasons, of your position. And anyway, the msm, and the rest, are just a mirror. The prime mover of change is not the media, but their customers and constituents. And those are moved by ideas, ideas that were long in place prior to any of these events. The problem is that we are running on intellectual fumes, and the most influential intellectuals of the day are antagonistic in deep ways to the Americanism that is needed to win. When the madrassahs are teaching some aspect of Americanism alongside rote repetition of the Koran, then there will be hope for a final victory. Shocking but true. The best we can plan for now is to prevent jihadi victory. How? Reduce our self-doubt enough to prevent the fanatics from acquiring the weapons that would permit them to win. That, in itself, is a very tall order. While your points are well-taken, I’m not sure how far your argument takes us in that direction. The false concept of objectivity of the media combined with the self-doubt of the American people is what gives jihadi propaganda such muscle. Our self-doubt will evaporate for some time if another shoe drops, but you'll have to win the battle over the meaning of objectivity with arguments other than what you have presented here.
Excellent piece! Posted by: Vince at November 8, 2005 03:10 AMWell said! We may lose the war, but only if public support continues to decline as a result of the defeatism and negativity from opinion shapers Posted by: Dan, California Yankee at November 8, 2005 03:41 AMTO: Stephen Green "It's also a question our national leadership, nearly all of our intellectuals, and none of our mainstream media have yet to answer. President George W Bush hasn't told us, because he doesn't know." -- Stephen Green ...you have never been a serious student of how to wage war. The first and foremost rule is not to tell the enemy what you are going to do. More to follow later.... ...now it's time to go workout. Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at November 8, 2005 04:30 AMDid you say... "Monster?" Posted by: Will Collier at November 8, 2005 04:33 AMUntil someone steps up to the plate and says that this is a religious war, there is no reason to argue about how we will win. We need to stop this politically correct bullshit. Posted by: AllenS at November 8, 2005 05:16 AM"But if we lose this Terror War, our media will be seen as largely to blame." Don't you guys ever get tired of recycling the "stab in the back" stuff? Posted by: Ted at November 8, 2005 05:18 AMDoes this mean you're not going the Pajama Media? Posted by: Been There Done That at November 8, 2005 05:39 AMIts too self-serving to say this war is one of Media. While I agree that MSM has been feckless, alternative media have yet to find their voice. The real war is one of ideas. The Islamists are willing to fight and die for their ideas. The West, by and large, is not. Islamists reject the West's secular, materialist organizing principles in favor of 7th century spiritual values. The West can only articulate the vision of a US-dominated status quo. Who will win? Recall that early Christianity fought the Roman Empire from within be appealing to the poor, powerless, disaffected masses. Perhaps we are seeing Islam fighting the Western (American) Empire from within by appealing to the same poor, powerless, and disaffected masses. The West cannot win this war with savvy media packaging. It needs a compeling Idea that appeals to everyone fairly. The US used to be inclusive and tried to provide a level playing field. No longer. Just saying "You can vote now" isn't enough. Most of the world feels excluded from the US paradigm, as do more and more Americans. The West has yet to engage the opposition in this war of Ideas. Posted by: Greg at November 8, 2005 05:41 AMThank Whomever for the blogosphere... at least between them and the general "believe in the troops" attitude (even among the crew that have bought, hook line and sinker, into the "... but hate, despise, and distrust anything the Pentagon or White House say because they can never be the good guys" attitude that... oh yeah, the MEDIA works so hard to engender and strengthen) I don't know, Stephen. I think maybe for us to have a worthwhile media Arm for the 'greater war' of the GWOT, we're going to have to spend another 5-10 years in the current 'one country reformed at a time' situation. If even some honesty goes into reporting during that time, maybe the Old Mindset among the media will start to fade. What I fear is that it will take another 35 years (enough time for the Vietnam generation to die off) or more before the self-perpetuated attitudes among the media in regards to the Pentagon, the White House, and Republicans, can turn back into at least giving them as much credit as a truly random person off the street. (As opposed to the huge trust given a Professional Viewpoint From The Street, or a Professional Protester) Posted by: Dave at November 8, 2005 05:42 AMAllenS... I agree completely. Islamofacism is at war against what we worship here in the West--our Church of Freedom. As much as I hate to do it, I agree with Tom Freidman on this point. However, to tie this to Steven's brilliant point, the media are loathe to defend anything religious, even if it the Church of Freedom that allows them to speak. Posted by: azlibertarian at November 8, 2005 05:43 AMBig Brother Media promotes a single lie manufactured by a guy named Joe yet the anti-liberators feel their cause justified. Seems to me Big Brother Media has the unwashed masses under the Big Brother's thumb. Posted by: susan at November 8, 2005 05:44 AMTed, If this piece seems recycled to you then you don't know original thought when you see it. Bravo, Stephen. Still owe you a drink for the NLCS, but I think you will need to buy me one as well, after that debacle of a World Series. (You know, come to think of it, you would probably get a big kick out of this little true anecdote.) Posted by: Kenny Pierce at November 8, 2005 05:46 AMThere have been many essays connecting the inevitable paths of conflict from WWI through the present situation, and I believe this is one of the best. That been said, I am not convinced that the media will pay for their digital insurrection. They will pay, but only because technology is allowing news consumers to go elsewhere for news and analysis. The balance of people are still generally too blinded to their own daily concerns to really notice what is going on. In my circle of friends, there is only one person who is following the Paris rioting as much as I am (he is addicted to blogs as well), and there are a handful who have "heard something about that" and even more who had no idea whatsoever. The abandonment of the media will be due to convenience and business model as opposed to ideological payback. The alarming bit is that although the MSM gets things wrong so much, they are in fact the best prepared and able to get the basic news facts from the source and distribute -- it is the presentation and analysis where they fall down. We have a vested interest in keeping their networks in place as they do, but for different reasons. Great piece -- scuttles my plan to write on this as I can't improve on it! Posted by: skymuse at November 8, 2005 05:57 AMTry this: The Pentagon tries to come up with a metric for success in the war on terror: *Terrorist attacks that take place on U.S. territory show a continuous decline. * The number of states in the Arab and Islamic worlds with representative or inclusive governments that oppose terrorism is increasing. * Roughly 90 percent of Islamic clergy are preaching against terrorism. * The majority of Arab language media are editorializing against the use of terrorism and giving negative reportage to acts of terrorism. * Polling index of Arab/Muslim opinion polls are increasingly favorable. * Groups previously identified as terrorists but have chosen to adopt non-violent means are increasing. Posted by: Chester at November 8, 2005 06:12 AMIt seems to me that this essay exposes that fundamental dishonesty of Bush supporters -- and the great damage it is doing to the United States. The most important factor is not skilful propaganda that deceives our citizens. It is that our citizens know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. But that idea has been held in contempt by the White House -- and by the right wing propaganda machine for years. Contrary to this essay, the people really in danger are the Republicans , Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc -- as the American people discover how they have been misled and the heavy price of right wing deceit. Roughly $4 Trillion is being stolen from our Social Security/Medicare Trust Funds. Thousands of our sons lost in an unnecessary war based on a lie. The Mainstream News Media has by and large allowed itself to be intimidated by the brownshirts of the right. That has allowed President Bush to lie to the country with impunity. The lies of Iraq have been revealed recently. But what's not been exposed is the lies Bush told after Sept 11. Hey, Don Williams, you left out some rhetorical flourishes. You forgot to mention "lackeys," "running dogs," and "hirelings of the moneyed classes." Just trying to be helpful. Posted by: Bilwick at November 8, 2005 06:28 AMYou're funny, Don. At first I thought you were just stoopid, but then I recognized the satire. Brilliant! Posted by: Howard at November 8, 2005 06:31 AMDear Ted, Your essay is brilliant. More people need to understand what and whom we are fighting. The rumbling in France just now is going to change some minds on the Continent, which will be a good thing. Maybe some of that will rub off on the peaceniks over here. We need more Michael Yons and Bill Roggios. Posted by: Calvin Weissenfluh at November 8, 2005 06:50 AMI think Stephen's analysis is pretty accurate as far as it goes. However, it says little about what we should do next. Wait for the media to learn to report responsibly? That's not going to happen anytime soon, if at all. What our side need to do is actively put out information in a way that the MSM can't (completely) ignore it. This is where the neo-con project is not so naive and dreamy after all. The only real PR victories our side has had in this war have occurred when the neo-con democratization agenda has been seen to be succeeding, i.e. elections in Iraq and Afghanistan, the cedar revolution in Lebanon, the beginnings of political openness in Egypt, etc. Unfortunately, these big events get overwhelmed by lots of pinprick attacks by the other side on the evening news and CNN. The other side of the coin is getting more attention payed to the attrocities of the jihadists. We have a real problem when the Abu Ghraib incident, horrible though it is, gets months of coverage while the murder of children in Beslan disappears from media consciousness after a few days. Posted by: american in europe at November 8, 2005 07:05 AMExcellent as always Stephen. As to your 4th footnote, I propose a third answer. The hard-core lefties (the ones who are reflexively anti-capitalist, etc.) find common cause with the Islamists, in that they both hate the "materialistic western value system". They believe that because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", that their heads will be spared. Make no mistake, however. It is the ultimate goal of the Islamists to kill everyone on Earth. Posted by: Brian at November 8, 2005 07:13 AMThe media will not be reformed with a WoT loss. The media will not be shamed. As stated by anothr intelligent poster, until the aging hippy hate-America crowd dies off, the media will continue to be hostile to American success. A loss in the WoT will only fuel the meida's sense of righteousness. They will see a loss as vindication. Consider the type of person embodied in the post by Don Williams. Whether his was satire or not (I doubt it), that line of thinking is prevalent not only amongst narcissistic Americans, but among the media as well. Losses, reversals, corruption, lies all serve to reinforce the message these anti-Americans preach. Who doesn't like to be vindicated and proven right? This is why we see the left gloat over American failure - not because of the failure, per se, but in that it proves them right and legitimizes their narcissism, and we all know narcissism must feed itself. This ravenous mental imbalance is also why we see those type constantly twist any kind of news into a blame-America or blame-Bush game. They are looking for any angle to feed their narcissism. I also believe this media situation will not get better until the egotistical long-hairs are gone. But then, I've been saying this war is lost for some time now. We refuse to recognize religion as the problem - Islam. Posted by: William Thrash at November 8, 2005 07:32 AMBrilliant essay. To underscore your point, consider how much further along we'd be in winning this war on terror if the media were acting responsibly, if they were acting as if they were on our side. We all know intuitively that if we as a society really came together to embrace the war on terror that the terrorists would be finished. There would be no doubt on our victory. And we all know that it is the media that largely prevents this kind of consensus being reached. The media truly has become the greatest ally of the terrorists. Give us a media like we had during WWII and we wouldn't even be worried about winning this war...it would be seen as a slam dunk. Posted by: Thought at November 8, 2005 07:45 AMThe mainstream media can't acknowledge that this is a religious war. Having none, they would lose what standing they have. Posted by: Festus at November 8, 2005 07:52 AMThe media is a business, and they put business first. Unfortunatly the biggest available audience, day in and day out, which is what you need to pay the bills since you sell audience to advertisers whether there's real news or not, is soap opera women (%40 of women, a minority but a big one). Every story has to match this audience's interests. It edits the news for the nation. It's shameful that the media put business ahead of country ; but the fix is to ridicule the soap opera audience into their own shame for watching that stuff. Then either the media will change, or, lacking the next biggest audience, go out of business. I have the feeling that people don't really want hard news (think city council meetings), which is why soap opera rules today. Andy Rooney, at the end of http://rhhardin.home.mindspring.com/imuscut.arooney6.ram , suggests taking the news out of the profit center, which is his way to the same point, that ratings have ruined it. I favor ridicule of the audience ; which enhances freedom as well, since it's politically incorrect as well. Posted by: Ron Hardin at November 8, 2005 08:11 AMDon is funny, wait for Joe Wilson's other shoe to drop. --- But I cannot agree that naming the religion is a good idea. Do we really need 1 billion mad at US? There's more than 1 way to skin a cat. Posted by: Sandy P at November 8, 2005 08:22 AMTO: AllenS ....it IS a 'religious-war', and I'm not saying it is or it isn't at this moment, I'm just trying to make a point... ...then Stephen "the atheist" Green has already lost it. And that could go far to explain some of this angst he's experiencing at the moment. If there is no god, and the Muslims are certain that god is on THEIR side, then Stephen, and his fellow 'believers', will never have the moral courage to cope with the coming fight with these Muslims. Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at November 8, 2005 08:23 AMP.S. As an analogy I offer this.... Stephen is going into a gun fight armed with a 'club'. Posted by: Chuck Pelto at November 8, 2005 08:24 AM"But our media, aware of their power but ignorant as to its uses, would rather play "gotcha" than provide critical perspective." Well, they also have to compete in the free market which you (and I) adore. "The Sky is Falling" sells much better than "All is Well." The media may be to blame, but it may be to blame because of it's incentive for profit. Posted by: Chuck at November 8, 2005 08:28 AMI believe it was Christopher Hitchens who wrote something to the effect that "do they honestly believe that a defeat in Iraq is only a defeat for Bush?" Good question, and one that the MSM needs to keep in mind each time they begin an article or put together their latest news piece. So the only way we can win is to convert to whatever version of Christianity you believe? No thanks. Here's a thought: what if Kerry had won? If the media were more supportive, even if President Kerry was less enthusiastic about the war, would we be in a better position? Posted by: owlish at November 8, 2005 08:50 AMIncisive essay. If people look for someone to blame for losing the war against radical Islam, Americans will turn correctly on the media first. It's not the only force at fault, but it is critical. It's almost a certainty that the privileged position of the media in the last 50 years - a credentialed priesthood with special access to the "gods" - will come to an end, along with its pretensions of being a profession. But the negative reaction could go further and involve attacks on basic speech and press freedoms. It's important in such situations to remember: these are generic individual rights each of us has, NOT corporate privileges of the MSM. I think most Americans understand this intuitively, and they are (unlike Europeans) far more sophisticated and jaded about media bias and incompetence than they were 30 years ago. But "free" "news" is new to the Middle East, and it's a great vehicle for agitprop. Al-Jazeera is not journalism in our sense at all, but a grievance outlet allied with Islamic radicals. This leads to a chilling conclusion: If such "journalists" are allowed to operate in the West, will they not be subjected to vetting and screening? Will sedition laws not be applied to them? And if to them, why not then to journalists from the NYTimes or BBC? Posted by: Dallas at November 8, 2005 08:57 AMChuck(le) is right -- As Vodka pointed out: ...Noted author, intellectual, and former Army intelligence officer Ralph Peters described the First Battle of Fallujah as an example of how to get it as wrong as you possibly can. We bragged that we were going to "clean up Dodge." .... And this is why it failed. We can't tell them what we're going to do. I'm STILL waiting for "shock and awe." --- No, if commie Cabana Boy had won, we'd be worse off. Check out his Feb 1970 interview w/The Harvard Crimson. He hasn't changed. Still puts his faith in the UN. Posted by: Sandy P at November 8, 2005 09:13 AMFor what this is worth, I agree with most of this assessment. However, I go a few steps farther. Media is one major outlet, but not the only one. The mdia is only a mirror. It might be broken, but it still only reflects what is there. We have troops on the ground in a bad situation. What we don't have is a solid diplomatic regime aimed at corralling all the surrounding countries. In addition to solid diplomacy, we need to create a regional solution. As long as half the countries in the middle east are overtly hostile to the United States, or the United States is hostile towards them, we will never win this battle. PERIOD. We need to get the surrounding countries to step up and create their own regional solutions to the problems they are facing that spawn the hatred of America. America is not in a position to lead this effort. We don't have the credibility to do it. We need to get the Muslim states to come together to create their own solutions to terrorism, energy problems, religious intolerance, etc. These are the incubators of extremism. When these problems boil over the people look for a scapegoat. America is an easy target. Extremist leaders use these problems as a reason to blame America, and fuel the fire of hatred. The area countries need to step up to address their own problems. Jimr Posted by: jimr at November 8, 2005 09:15 AMTO: Sandy P "I'm STILL waiting for "shock and awe."" -- Sandy P I think we're keeping that one for a more appropos situation. Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at November 8, 2005 09:33 AMTO: Jimr "We need to get the Muslim states to come together to create their own solutions to terrorism, energy problems, religious intolerance, etc." -- Jimr I think that is what the administration is trying to accomplish. However, it's going to be a very long haul; despite our typical American desire to 'get it done NOW! Gosh Darn It. NOW!!!!' Stephen does have an excellent point about the power of the 'press'. But as you said, there are more outlets than the so-called major media. The trick will be to so thoroughly discredit the so-called major media that only dope-heads will pay any attention to them. I gave up on them as a reliable source of information YEARS ago. The problem is most others haven't....yet. The administrations challenge is to get more people to see the so-called major media the way I do. I don't see them at all.... How Rove accomplishes THAT is going to be interesting to watch. Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at November 8, 2005 09:38 AMNicely done essay, Stephen. Thank you for putting the time into it. I don't think that the publishers themselves are so much anti-Bush/WoT, as they are profit hunters. It is the reporters that have the ideology, and they fashion the slanted reports to be sensational enough to make the publishers think it will sell. I still have a hard time believing they felt betrayed by the initial reports leading up to the war. I think it was mearly a convenient excuse to drive the negative. Posted by: Tom M at November 8, 2005 09:39 AMEnemies of our coutry have been infiltrating the media for decades. As Val pointed out at babalublog.com we Cuban-Americans are very aware of the power of internationalist/leftist propaganda (I can't call it journalism). It put Fidel Castro in power and continues to protect him today. Posted by: conductor at November 8, 2005 09:43 AMAnyone remember the Sedition Act of 1917? No, I didn't think so. The press was quite effectively either harnassed or squelched; troublemakers were handled through vigilantee justice abetted by cooperative judges. The war won, a few reds harassed or deported, these things stopped. So, no, I'm not letting a treasonous and seditious press hide behind the Bill of Rights. We don't have the luxury of being milksops. Posted by: igout at November 8, 2005 09:45 AMSimply put, this is brilliant. Posted by: Rob Collins at November 8, 2005 09:49 AMMy take on this is that this is a religious war, and it is going to take decades to win (if we do), and the "hearts and minds" battle is going to be the decisive one. And our MSM has been at best rather useless, and is more often part of the problem. The punishment of the media has already begun, numbers of readers and viewers are declining, a direct result of the discerning. And not soon enough. Posted by: Don Brown at November 8, 2005 10:07 AMThat was yar. Posted by: Kelly at November 8, 2005 10:16 AMigout, be careful of pre-emptively answering your own questions. I'm willing to bet most people here remember the Sedition Act (of 1918). Great essay Stephen. I think the result we'll get, which is also the best one, is a synthesis of MSM and news blog. I think people need to read both to know what's going on, and ever larger numbers of people do. Posted by: byrd at November 8, 2005 10:26 AMAmerica's policies are corrupted, short-sighted, and amorally greedy, but it will be the media's fault if we lose the "war on terror?" If anything, there is too little investigation and reporting of the true motives and real results (or lack thereof) of U.S. policies. When is the last time you read real, comprehensive reporting of pending legislation, including all the little special interest paragraphs that get in there somehow? Most people don't even know who their legislators are, nor do they vote. How can you believe that the shallow, infotainment, media has such a powerful influence on policy? Lobbyists and special interests/industry write legislation, not the citizens. Posted by: Open Mouthed Fool at November 8, 2005 10:26 AMI think the analysis is fine as far as it goes, and the writing is better than you give yourself credit for, but there is one thing you've neglected that is very important: the media is the only way the enemy can win, and the only way we can lose; it's not the only way that we can win. We have an advantage in that winning on the ground creates realities that must sooner or later be faced by both the media and the jihadis. It's the trouble with maps. The US could not be seen as mired in an invasion quagmire once Iraq had definitively fallen, so the media invented the insurrection quagmire. While the war of occupation stumbled at first, there were many opportunities for the media to paint Iraq as a total failure. Those opportunities are less and less available. (When was the last time you heard about Route Irish? That is because it's not particularly dangerous any more.) Eventually, the changed situation on the ground becomes undeniable. Then, as with Hurricane Katrina, the questions in the aftermath are about the bad reporting. Blogs help with this, as do other new media sources, and they were not available to fix the problems in Vietnam. But since they are available now, it's harder for the media to cover up something, no matter how loud they shout their alternative message. So the enemy can win in the media by breaking our will, but they cannot win on the battlefield. We can fight the battle in the media as well as on the ground, and we can win in either, but the enemy can win in only one. Super! Stephen, I think you're absolutely correct that the greater WOT is foremost a global war of ideologies. Consider: The global wars of the last century were fought on many fronts with many groups of combatants, not all of whom were uniformed troops or organized in any way. Likewise, there are many fronts in the WOT, not all of which are immediately obvious. One of the fronts in this conflict -- perhaps even the most important front -- is the battle for the hearts and minds of Western Civilization. For generations the MSM have owned that battle -- the war in Vietnam wasn't lost until Walter Cronkite told us it was lost -- but no more. The MSM buy ink by the barrel, but it is a 'shirts v. bullets' equation: We have more pixels than they have barrels of ink. And we've got way more pixels than they've got pixels. Why do you suppose that the NYTimes have pulled their big guns back into the defensive position of TimesSelect where they can lick their wounds and preach to that small choir who will pay to be told what they want to hear? Could it be because the pixilated peashooters of the press were proving to be outclassed by the massed machinegun fire and heavy artillery of the Blogosphere? We've proven that the great bulls of the MSM can be steered by us ankle-biters. We've even managed to rip the throat out of a few of the most egregious (Dan Rather, anyone?).** We have many battles yet to win, but one that stands out: We must not allow the MSM to draw a line between "real journalists," who enjoy a 1st Amendment privilege, and everyone else, who had better just shut up. Make no mistake, that's a behind-the-lines attack aimed at cutting off our pixel supply. I think it's doomed to failure -- Pandora's Box is open and they'll never stuff all us imps back in there -- but they're certainly going to make it an all-out effort. The MSM know that squelching all opposing voices is essential if they are to dominate the battlefield of ideas and they're calling in all their allies: The politicians, who don't appreciate being criticized by anyone who isn't part of 'The Club', have fired McCain-Feingold across our bows. The UN wants to turn our other flank by controlling the global internet and denying us off-shore foxholes. And, of course, there are plenty among us who can't think for themselves but only repeat the talking points they've been fed and long for the good old days when an unassailable father-figure in the MSM or government told them what to think. Good shootin' Troopers! We will win the war of ideas if we just keep up the barrage and mind the ammo supply! **Yes, that's pretty darn self-congratulatory, but have you ever heard a pep talk that wasn't [or one that didn't mangle a few metaphors along the way]? Posted by: Swen Swenson at November 8, 2005 10:44 AMThe key to winning the war against our enemies in the Islamic world is to create public institutions credible enough to overcome tribal and sectarian violence. Our teacher here is Alexander Hamilton, who nationalized war debts and monetized those same debts, thereby giving the most adamant opponents of a federal government an interest in the long-term success of that government. Iraq should do likewise by putting its oil industry tax revenues in the hands of a national trust in which every citizen has ten shares. The shares would be restricted securities: minors, for instance, would not be allowed to transfer shares for ten years after issuance. Thus, every citizen, Kurd, Arab, Sunni, Shiite, etc., would have an interest in making sure that the oil flows. Likewise, the new government should purchase and refinance all existing government securities, even those issued by Baathists. Thus, the citizens would be financing all debts through oil and other production and have cash in abundance for private investment. When Jefferson was inaugurated in 1805, he did not dare unravel Hamilton's system, despite the hostility of his party to Federalist policies. There's a plan, and it could be implemented anywhere, even in countries that don't have oil. If a country has public debt and potentially productive people and resources, it can prosper, so long as money is sound and relatively untouchable by partisan politicians. It is the winning recipe for Argentina and Mexico as well, if they have the political will to create financial institutions that are not easily manipulated by governments. (Andrew Jackson destroyed Hamilton's financial plan by abolishing the Bank of the United States and replacing it with his "pet banks." The Panic of 1837 set in motion many of the events that led to American disintegration in 1861.) Posted by: James from Georgia at November 8, 2005 10:50 AMTO: Stephen Green Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at November 8, 2005 10:56 AMMedia matter because readers sometimes have more power than governments. Readers include citizens and enemies. Is a competing form of governance cooking here? Keep blogging. Posted by: Ken Moore at November 8, 2005 11:11 AM"Hearts and minds" will not win this war. Will NOT. This is a war against religion. Winning their hearts and minds means they would have to be won over by "satan." Islam believes all infidels are of satan. We cannot win a hearts and minds campaign. To claim so is just ignorant of Islam. We won;t win this until we recognize the enemy for what it is - a sham religion built around murder and domination. Islam wants to dominate the world; there is no room for co-existence in Islam and any muslim religious enough to follow the Qur'an will kill to advance his religion. You can't win that with a "media campaign." The media campaign would only help to clear away the politically correct notions that prohibit us from identifying the enemy. Then, there is still the war to win. Since I've been saying, the media will never shake off this politically correct mindset in time, we are destined to lose to Islam. Posted by: William Thrash at November 8, 2005 11:19 AMSteven, A heartfelt essay, but I have to agree with Jeff Medcalf. Calling this the "post-modern" era doesn't make it so. Rather, "post-modern"** is a worldview only some people have. To paraphrase Sun Tzu: Appear strong where you are weak, and weak where you are strong. The President faces a very complex matter, only one facet of it is Iraq. There is Iran. There are the indications that France has used active espionage measures to undercut our President during an election year. There is the UN's den of thieves and murderes. There are the hostile factions within the State Department, CIA, and other elites within and without Washington. And of course, a media that proclaims its devotion to "speaking Truth(TM) to power" in a low budget, visually intensive medium. My point is that Bush doesn't effectively fight the media war IN THE US because (I am guessing) that any claims he make will be (falsely, unfairly) undercut by his political, bureaucratic, and ideological opponents, USING THE US MEDIA. However, if one looks at the media coverage in Iraq, in Arabic, one finds that the locals are using their media decisively to undercut the Islamists. Where it REALLY counts, we are winning important media battles. I am not suggesting that the President is infallible. I AM suggesting that the President has a strategy that is working toward a much more complex situation than we recognize, and that the appearance of weakness is one aspect of it. MG **To VASTLY oversimplify: modern ~ My intellect defines the world, I am its only subject, and everything else is objects. Think "I am an Island" by Simon and Garfunkel. postmodern ~ My environment defines me. I am only an object, tossed around by external forces. Think "All we are is dust in the wind". Posted by: MG at November 8, 2005 11:23 AM Didn't take Ted and Don Williams long to drag in the Nazi references, eh? Good essay and I tend to agree with the commenters writing that the MSM won't change until the old generation who think geopolitical history began in 1962 and ended in 1972 has died off... the lesson of Exodus, for the religious among us. imho, the politicians have to learn that the MSM is NOT what it was 30 years ago. The NYT couldn't get ANYONE to care about women members at Augusta National a couple of years ago, and there is a lesson there for anyone with eyes to see. The old saw about never getting in a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel may be obsolete... bits and bytes are now cheaper than ink and while Rather and Mapes are apparently too stupid to learn, most people are not and a truly aggressive media strategy is possible, NYT and WaPo notwithstanding. Also, LBJ was not entirely wrong when he said, "when you have 'em by the balls their hearts and minds will follow." We need to go full Roman on some of these SOB's, convince their (few) survivors they stand to lose a LOT in return for a small chance at small gains, and then show how little we care about the media screaming. From this POV, what is happening in France is a Godsend... the MSM don't know how to play it in a way that makes Bush and the PATRIOT Act look bad, so they tried to ignore it but after 2 weeks they just can't anymore. When the MSM makes its pusillanimous, snarky criticisms of the GWOT, just say, "You want to wind up like France?" and move on. Posted by: Marty at November 8, 2005 11:28 AMThe real metric of victory is purple fingers. As to the MSM. I don't think it matters near as much as it did in '68. We also have one very important advantage. Our choice of enemy. As long as they maintain their barbarity we will have a significant advantage. Their current behavior in Europe is very helpful. Also the Euro appeasers are doing a great job in discrediting the idea of accomodation and Moslem immigration. I'm not too worried about a pull back. It would be a serious setback. However, it would cause an intensification of the war which would bring us right back in it. Posted by: M. Simon at November 8, 2005 11:36 AMDear Mr Green: Historical question. You write (in paragraph 7): "The Soviets out-produced us in every measure that mattered in WWII: Steel, chemicals, tanks, planes, bombs… the Soviets made more of them, and sometimes even their quality was better. " I'm astonished. If this is true, why was the United States ever Lend-Leasing anything to the Soviets? Could you tell us your source for this assertion? Or am I reading it wrong? Rest of the piece is fine stuff. I hope it gets some links and reprints. Sincerely yours, Nice essay, but I quibble with this: "Neoconservatives hold the naïve hope that if we just topple the dictators, democracy will sprout like shiitake mushrooms after a cool rain." The fact of a democracy in Iraq, if it works out, will make a statement that the media cannot refute. Not the NYT, not Al Jazeera. The Soviet Union enjoyed a virtual monopoly on the minds of its citizens, yet they still managed to know a better way existed. Truth does manage to out. In this context, the neocon Iraq strategy is a political and media strategy. The living example of a functioning democracy cannot be erased even with the most powerful propaganda. Posted by: Jim Bass at November 8, 2005 11:54 AMAn excellent piece. This is my favorite subject that obviously deserves more attention. This subject drove me away from newspaper subscriptions and watching agenda driven journalism on the boob tube. Someone needs to get into the classrooms of journalism schools and address ethics, reporting, bias, etc. I would have classes on "agenda journalism" where students are forced to watch "Hardball", Olberman, any broadcast network news, Rathergate, etc. Forced to read the archives of NY Times, Washington Post, SF Chronicle, etc. and compare Clinton (& his administration and house democratic leaders) quotes on Iraq WMD vs. the Bush Administration. The "intellectual dishonesty" will froth to the top. Sick, I just get sick typing this. It must have made you ill, but it needs to be done like a beating drum. -Sergei Posted by: Sergei at November 8, 2005 11:58 AMFallujah, The pull back from Fallujah helped us immensely in the long run. It discredited the governance policies of the insurgents. The pullback was a tactical defeat and a strategic victory. Think Battle of the Coral Sea. WW2. Posted by: M. Simon at November 8, 2005 12:21 PMBrilliant & succinct -- thanks Stephen. Another idea: history shows that totalitarianism eventually weakens either by overaggression (Nazi Germany & Japan) or by the simple fact that its subjects are desperately unhappy (Communism - pick a country). Islamofacism is doomed by its inherant flaws. Its spreading aggression will cause a world-wide backlash at some point. Its repressiveness won't make its people happy. The Free World (there's an old phrase for you) is the shining alternative. The WSJ writes quite eloquently about this; why doesn't the rest of the MSM get it? Posted by: Andrea at November 8, 2005 12:33 PMJim Bass - the media is ALREADY refuting it. What makes you think they'll suddenly get a case of reporting the truth? Posted by: William Thrash at November 8, 2005 12:36 PMBravo Zulu on the link from Barone. This puts you in the highest rank, imho. Posted by: Tassled Loafered Leech at November 8, 2005 12:49 PMOf course you are right that the media play a crucial role in victory or defeat here, but they played a pretty significant role in engineering defeat in Viet Nam as well, and they haven't been held to account in any way for that. Even though I mostly agree with your essay, it isn't obvious to me how it is going to become somehow clear that the media is helping to cause failure, at least not so that it is clear to everyone who doesn't already agree. Who is it that you propose is going to hold the media accountable, an increasingly frustrated government? Do you propose that enough people, particularly on the conservative side, will agree that somehow the government might become enabled to curb freedoms? doug Posted by: doug quarnstrom at November 8, 2005 01:14 PMOne thing jumps out at me from both Stephen's essay and many of the comments: But if we lose this Terror War, our media will be seen as largely to blame. If we actually lose the war - not just the Iraq campaign, but the war itself - we're going to have other, much larger problems than whether to blame the media or whether freedom of the press might be limited. A truly lost war means a caliphate. It probably also means massive destruction and death in the US. People are talking as though it's not possible to really lose this war; assuming that after a "loss", we will still have the same government, that what the public decides will matter, and so on. Do the commenters (and our host) assume that it's actually impossible for us to lose on that scale? It's an interesting question for me. Posted by: jaed at November 8, 2005 01:26 PMHey, Steve, long-time lurker, first time comment, congrats on the Michael Barone mention. You *have* made it to the big time... Congratulations again! Posted by: Brendan at November 8, 2005 01:32 PM"People are talking as though it's not possible to really lose this war..." And that is a big problem fostered by comfortable lives where we believe information can defeat the most vicious of enemies. Americans are accustomed to going home every night, watching Law and Order, and believing that nothing could ever get worse. Media pimps provide us with what we're supposed to think as they interpret the news for us and soothe us with assurances that feel-good platitudes are all that is required to tame any savage beast. That false method of good intentions to solve the world's ills takes a logical symbiotic relationship with the generally positive outlook of comfortable Americans. In effect: we're blinded not only by the media, but by our own optimism. Islam is winning, and we can't even name them as the culprit. Posted by: William Thrash at November 8, 2005 01:42 PM"A truly lost war means a caliphate. It probably also means massive destruction and death in the US." Precisely. But unless the radical Islamists unleash some truly planet-busting WMD, I see it as more likely that a massive strike in the US will result in the entire Middle East being turned into slag. Osama bin Hid'n grossly misunderestimated US reaction to 9/11 .. will they repeat that mistake? Only time will tell. Posted by: Swen Swenson at November 8, 2005 01:44 PMThat was brilliant, however I believe you have the last part backward. If we lose the media will be the hero's of "I told you so"... Reality is that we are winning. When the dust settles and people who relied on the MSM for information realize they were being sold fantasy the trust will be broken. We empower the media through our belief that they are presenting fact. Without that trust no one watches and they shrivel up and die. If we lose the war on terror the military and government will again feel the wrath of the population. There is one problem remaining. In the past the victor wrote the history, I'm not sure that applies anymore. Posted by: Bernie at November 8, 2005 01:59 PM"But if we lose this Terror War, our media will be seen as largely to blame." Maybe, like vietnam, we can blame it on the idiots that run the war wrong. Posted by: actus at November 8, 2005 02:01 PMIs it possible to lose on a scale that means the destruction of Western Civlilization as we know it? This really is the key question. In many ways it is difficult to see how. Many people think it terms of a single nuke in New York or something. While that would be bad and would trigger an extended period of reciprocal nastiness, I doubt it would end WestCiv. What worries me is the multiple nuke option. I do not know how fragile our infrastructure is. I presume some number of sneak nuke attacks woule destroy us if executed simultaneously. But the question is, is that number large enough to make accomplishing it unlikely? A second question is, are our enemies likely to underestimate the number and go for it anyway. Most of us in the blog readership have probably read that rant from an Iranian General going on about how they know about 29 sensitive sites in the West and have a plan to attack them. We all know about the poetic licens often used by our antagonists in Islam, but is this poetic license or do they actually have this plan. Is their plan to sneak six or seven nukes into major western civilizations and detonate them simultaneously? It is that calculation that worries me the most. The mullahs just might be wacky enough to gamble the fate of Iran against a chance to level the playing field in the name of Allah. doug Posted by: doug quarnstrom at November 8, 2005 02:03 PM"The mainstream media can't acknowledge that this is a religious war. Having none, they would lose what standing they have." The president doesn't acknowledge its a religious war. The moment he does you can bet it will be reported on. Posted by: actus at November 8, 2005 02:07 PMDoug, you're assuming that muslims must strike us militarily to beat us. You're thinking that they are going to need to take a confrontational approach to cause destruction. They don't need to, at all, and the process has already begun. There are over 3,000 Islamic religious centers here in America, many supported by our government. CAIR's stated goal is to replace the constitution with sharia law. That's where the problem is birthed. In the US's quest to whore itself to political correctness and "inclusion" and "respect," can you see any politically correct government denying Islamic inclusion? Once we allow voluntary sharia law as a gesture of politically correct "respect" and "inclusion," it's all over. Indonesia islamified when muslims only accounted for 25% of the populace. It is now fun and legal to behead little christian children in that country. Islamification doesn't require a D-Day style invasion by rabid Islamists. It's already here. In Islam, there is no room for non-muslims. You are either muslim, or you die. Dhimmitude for the west was discarded long ago by Islam. Only when you have converted or died will there be "peace." Posted by: William Thrash at November 8, 2005 02:17 PMDear Gregory Koster: You're parsing this as: but it's meant as: "The Soviets out-produced us in the Cold War (by every measure that mattered in WWII)... " Is that more clear now? Willaim, Sure, there are probably many ways the West can be defeated. Hell, all that needs to happen in Europe is a waiting game. Once Europe is lost, America's problems will be much harder. I agree with you about Sharia though. Watch France closely. If they appease by letting the ghettos govern themselves officially under Islamic law, then the west will have suffered a major defeat. doug Posted by: doug quarnstrom at November 8, 2005 02:44 PMYou are a thoughtful, considerate, and lucid writer. The nation needs more people like you. We are besieged by zealots on all sides: the religious right, the shameless media (and I mean ABC AND Fox), the far left, feminists, anti-immigration lunatics, God, where do I end. What is lost in all of this is the art of compromise, which is by all accounts the oil that greases democracies’ wheels. We have been pushed and pulled from left to right, to further right, back to left, then back to the right. Lord it is sickening if you are a moderate centrist—or did I mean just a reasonable person hoping to make a better world than the one we inherited. Posted by: Scott at November 8, 2005 03:07 PMInteresting essay. Excellent essay. Only a couple of comments... if Bush does understand this, he really *can't* say so, can he? Can you just imagine how the media and his political opponents would twist any comment about the need for the media to be on our side? It would be a disaster for him. Military bloggers have been complaining about the media for some time, though they usually don't put it in the same context as this essay. But you'd think they were attacking the very essence of freedom to suggest that the media report responsibly. Trying to explain that the choices the media makes, in language and content, has real world consequences, that people *die*... and this just doesn't get through the thick skulls until someone says "traitors" and then it's all about outrage. When a media talking head mentions the battle for hearts and minds... if they say "we are losing" it... Make sure you all realize, even if they don't, that it's a Royal "we." And William... ""Hearts and minds" will not win this war. Will NOT. This is a war against religion." What the heck do you think religion *is*? Posted by: Julie at November 8, 2005 03:32 PMScott: I wonder what compromise you think the Islamics will go for? They are demanding our submission to Islam as their #1 priority. Cessation for support of Israel is way down the list. How does an Islamic "compromise" with "satan?" This isn't an attack, although it could be construed as one. I genuinely would like to know what a moderate thinks we can compromise with murderers on. Posted by: William Thrash at November 8, 2005 03:33 PMTO: Julie "Make sure you all realize, even if they don't, that it's a Royal "we."" -- Julie I think it would be more accurate to say the "Imperial" 'we'. Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at November 8, 2005 04:00 PMFighting Islamic Fundamentalism IS a worthy goal. You are right that it can be won in the media - but not in the U.S. media. MTV, Pepsi and Britney Spears were already doing all they could to "undermine" Islamic Fundamnetalism. The weapons were in place and being put to good use. Unfortunately, Iraq was not a center of Fundamentalist Islam. It was a secular dictatorship - and it was NOT conected to Bin Laden and NOT a threat to it's neighbors, much less to the US. Iraq was quietly being westernized via internet and satellite dish and Hollywood, along with much of the Arab world. Then Bush and his neocons put their 1992 plan to take over Iraq into play, and undid years of success. But the real "war" was already being fought long before Bush- the madras vs the sattelite dish and the internet, Hollywood, Pepsi and Britney Spears. And the West was winning. "If all you have is a hammer, then every problem starts to look like a nail" - Cheney and Rumsfeld took their hammer ( our fine military who deserves MUCH better than neocon clowns ) and hit the nail that they thought was sticking up. They invaded Iraq "because they could". Destroying Fundamentalit Islam by "corrupting" them with western ideas would be a slow "victory", but freedom of IDEAS ( via those same sattelite dishes and the internet ) would get to the mideast. Osama put out the bait for Bush to start a "Crusade" - he bet that the fake Texan from Connecticut and his band of Vietnam draft dodgers would jump at the chance to act "tough" when it meant other people's children would do the dying. And Bush & company took the bait - hook line and sinker. Osama now had his wish - Islam was being attacked and now would come together instead of breaking apart and being "corrupted" by the West. Vietnam is now a lovely tourist destination. Funny how they were "corrupted" by the West. Yes, we can win the "war" - but this war cannot be won by bullets and bombs. You win the war by "corrupting" their society with ideas of freedom. You lose the war by inciting hatred and grudges. Winning the "war" begins when we bring our troops home. This war needs to be fought in the WORLD media. And no Americans need to die. Posted by: fasteddie at November 8, 2005 04:17 PMJulie - many western religions are all about feeling good and sounding politically correct. Islam is all about submission. Having you ask that question tells me you need to study the Qur'an and find out what Islam is really all about. Three months ago I thought Islam could be bargained with. Study of the Qur'an has taught me otherwise. For a muslim to be "won over" in his heart and mind means that he has to allow "satan" to win. Until you understand that, you will never understand Islam. Posted by: William Thrash at November 8, 2005 04:21 PMStephen, The U.S. did not lose in Vietnam. The Democrats surrendered. The Islamic Fundamentalists have two things we seem in very short supply of: A belief that the next place will be better than this is common amongst religions, but I am not aware of too many that encourage a faster path to get there. Posted by: Tom M at November 8, 2005 05:17 PMStephen - kudos ! ....it IS a 'religious-war', and I'm not saying it is or it isn't at this moment, I'm just trying to make a point... The point you're making is asinine. If your moral courage comes from the content of your religion rather than the content of your character then it must be a feeble thing, Chuck. I'm an atheist and a veteran, so I guess I've never had moral courage and wouldn't be able to cope with fighting these Muslims huh? We may not have moral courage, Chuck, but we atheists do have an eye for irony. Enough to be amused by someone taking shots at other peoples religious positions while simultaneously claiming to follow the man that gave us parables about the beams in our own eyes. Also enough to be amused by someone who implies that his co-religionists are filled with enormous moral courage by virtue of their faith regardless of what their God has to say about faith, mustard seeds, and mountains. Posted by: SeanH at November 8, 2005 05:33 PMGood essay, and although I really don't agree, it makes me think, bringing about some rough conclusions; The media is no more than a conduit for ideas Increasingly democratic governments are becoming increasingly driven by ideas The ideas are still formed by reality The ideas still have to contest with reality I'll explain later when I have some time.
Remember that Islam is a religion of a billion people, and while some of them hold the ideas you keep talking about, they are a small minority, and their radicalism spawns from dictators and oil money, funding radical schools and mosques, rather The French didn't get where they are by embracing Muslims, they did it by excluding them, by forcing them (economically, socially, culturally) into the situation where they are now. STOP trying to type-caste the entire group. The radicals want you to do that, because that would force all of Islam into their miserable camp, and all the world into misery. Posted by: William at November 8, 2005 05:54 PMTO: SeanH "The point you're making is asinine." -- SeanH And you're the Queen of England. RE: Actually... "If your moral courage comes from the content of your religion rather than the content of your character then it must be a feeble thing, Chuck." -- SeanH ....my moral courage comes from the confidence I have in my Lord. RE: Big Whup "I'm an atheist and a veteran, so I guess I've never had moral courage and wouldn't be able to cope with fighting these Muslims huh?" -- SeanH Mine is probably greater than yours, buckie. Or have I regaled you with the incident involving a malfunctioning parachute on a night jump? And that voice in my mind's ear telling me EXACTLY what to do to save my sorry ass from immediate termination. Regards, Chuck(le) - Excellent Steve, we are winning and shall completely win because of people like you and the the majority of people like those who have posted here to your site. I would like to see articles like this in the NEW York Times, because they make sense, however you may not want to have your good name associated with them. Alaa from http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/ has an Iraqi take on "THE ARAB MEDIA" that is worth looking at. He is there on the ground and an ally ",,,As I have said before, the War on Terror should take into account that perhaps the main arena of the struggle is the Media and Information fields. This terrorist phenomenon combines primitive urges and ideologies with the use of the modern technologies of satellite T.V. the internet etc. In fact, the Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda-like people design their operations with the prime objective of attracting maximum media attention. Thus Media attention is a weapon in itself, and the main one from the view point of these terrorist groups, and this subject should be a matter of primary consideration to strategists and planners of the War...." learn more > My own take on the situation, as I have said before, there was a large scale effort by the communists in the 60s to promote in the people a distrust of our own governments. ... So who is supposed to do the work and create the wealth so the flower children can sit around and smoke pot? (Nothing like smoking a joint... after a hard days work.) This is why Sir Winston said "Democracy is the worst form of government..." PS George Bush correctly identified the need to unite. AND if the Govenment of Canada changes to the Consrvatives and it is so close, we have another ally. . You know, some one I'd like to considered for a Republican Presidential candidate for the next election is retired General Richard Myers. Posted by: Riz Wyman Barr. at November 8, 2005 06:41 PMWilliam: I also am friends to a muslim family - they escaped the shah's fall in the 1970s. I am on speaking terms with both the mother and father, the brother, the sister, and have had a 23+ year friendship to the oldest son. The difference is that they are non-practicing muslims. Show me a moderate muslim, and I'll show you a muslim who is not very religious. The only people talking about moderate muslims are infidels. If 99.99999999999999% of the muslims worldwide are moderate and peaceful and love to sing kumbaya with you, then where the hell is the avalanche of "moderate" muslim outrage over killing children? http://www.williamthrash.com/#COMMENTARIES There's over a billion muslims worldwide. Over a third of them support killing infidels in the name of Allah. That's 300+ million muslims. An you accuse me of being crazy? I'll wager you have zero clue about the extent of Islamic murder. Do you know how many hours it took CAIR to decry the French riots? Come on, they're all "moderate" aren't they? Try DAYS. Did you know that CAIR, the bastion of politically correct kumbaya "we're all moderates" American muslims stated goal is to replace the constitution with sharia law? No, my friend, I'm not crazy. I just don't have my head in the politically correct position: up-my-rectum. Posted by: William Thrash at November 8, 2005 06:48 PMWilliam:(I see we have another William... I'm responding to Thrash) "For a muslim to be "won over" in his heart and mind means that he has to allow "satan" to win." As a Christian, to be "won over" in my heart and mind, it means that Satan has won. If my heart and mind are won over, of course, I will no longer view it that way. Tell me again what I don't understand. Chuck(le): "I think it would be more accurate to say the "Imperial" 'we'." Actually, my first impulse was to use "Imperial" but then I wondered if everyone else would think it meant the same thing I meant. You are probably right... I went with "Royal" because while it wasn't quite right it was at least the way a single person refered to self with a plural. Posted by: Julie at November 8, 2005 06:51 PMTerrific piece; IMHO, my post today (The Mediacrats High Wire Gamble) could be a companion piece to yours. You wrote that the MSM will lose if we lose the war. I certainly agree but I would suggest the MSM will lose even, perhaps especially, if we win the war. If we win, the cognitive distance between what is presented by the media (and the Democratic party) and what will be seen to be reality, will prove impossible for the MSM to survive. They are already hemorhaging readers and viewers, in part because so many people realize we are not in Vietnam Redux, but by most metrics, are winning. It is almost a certainty that within a year we will be seeing troops returning from Iraq and the number of Americans fighting (and dieing) will be declining; I believe that will happen whether or not the Iraqis are fully prepared to defend their own country (and I think they will, but it doesn't matter; we will be leaving in large numbers in any event). Julie: if you mean winning their hearts and minds by converting them from Islam, then I agree 100%. If you mean allowing them to be muslim and expecting them to cozy up to "satan?" That won't happen. Posted by: William Thrash at November 8, 2005 06:54 PMChuck(le): "Mine is probably greater than yours, buckie." Oh yeah? Well, mine isn't all that long, but it is big around as a bean can! My dad can lick yours too! [Bzzzt] Oops, recess is over.. Posted by: Swen Swenson at November 8, 2005 06:54 PMThe question you didn't address was, "why have things thus changed?" Why can a non-nation state have so much influence, why can the press have so much influence? First, it is still impossible for a war to be waged, especially on the scale of the Islamic Jihad, without substantial monetary and state sponsorship. We have failed to adequately hold nations responsible for waging war against us, namely the Saudis and a few others, and thus this cabal of enemies can continue to harbor our enemy, in fact they are our enemy, and we do nothing to stop them. Second, the press is looking for a story. We have failed to provide them with a story that sells. It's not their responsibility to make the story, their only responsibility is to make money and further careers. The American people will support almost any number of casualties, any setbacks, so long as they think progress is being made. Our nation needs to properly identify this war's cause, Islam, they need to hold nations responsible for fighting us, and they need to sell the sizzle of the progress of the war, not just the glitzy technology. Julie: Just to expand a fraction on the conversion idea - that won't happen, either. The American media can never let a religious solution interfere with their politically correct solution of appeasement under all circumstances. Can anyone imagine the first politician suggesting a religious answer to Islam? Holy hell. Posted by: William Thrash at November 8, 2005 07:06 PMThrash, First off, yes, Muslims are trying to spread their religion, no, they aren't all determined to do it with force, most of them actually have lives outside of religion as well. Even so, it's what you call a universalizing religion, and dammit, if your solution is to convert them, presumably using the awesome resources of the west, how does that make you any better? Posted by: William at November 8, 2005 07:26 PMDid I say convert? I don't think so. That's your bug-a-boo. All that really matters to *me* at this point is that Moslems believe that killing people is wrong and that democracy isn't, after all, in opposition to their faith. That the radicals see this as satan winning is their problem. You seem to be defining any Moslem who isn't a radical as an unbeliever, Moslem in quaint custom only. Are you claiming that the people in Iraq who participated in the elections are not actually believers? Posted by: Julie at November 8, 2005 07:29 PMTO: Mike Rentner "We have failed to adequately hold nations responsible for waging war against us, namely the Saudis and a few others, and thus this cabal of enemies can continue to harbor our enemy, in fact they are our enemy, and we do nothing to stop them." -- Mike Rentner I think that's part of the strategy. No overt pressure on them for the time being. Get a solid democracy operating in their midst and they'll tumble like so many houses of cards. Just my thought.... Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at November 8, 2005 07:44 PMTO: Swen Swenson "My dad can lick yours too!" -- Swen Swenson ...to say "My God can whip your god." But that would be me speaking to SeanH. I have no idea of the nature of your 'faith'. But I can take a guess.... And based on what I've observed of you, I think the comment applies to you as well. Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at November 8, 2005 07:47 PMJulie - what you describe is the Islamic doctrine of Abrogation. Iraq can provide a place (sometime in the future) as a "safe haven" (laughs) for "moderate" imams to attempt to force change on Islam. Unfortunately, there are too few imams who truly want to change Islam from one of conversion or death (take heed, William, that's the difference between Christians and Islam - there's no do or die with Christians) to one of co-existence. Islam and co-existence is as compatible as an abortionist and a pro-lifer in the same chat room. Still, the possibility exists that Islam can be changed in several decades if the safe conditions exist for the few moderate imams to try Abrogation. There will always be those muslims who reject Abrogation. Currently, imams who propose to do away with the Qur'an's commands for jihad are all being killed as infidels. Muslims have no qualms about killing another muslims if they think "satan" has gotten to them. The big question is: do we have several decades to sit around while they're killing us in hopes that a few imams will be able to Abrogate? The idea is like trying to solve global warming by pissing in volcanoes. William - I am a practicing Christian who doesn't want to spread the word of God. It's not my thing. Personally, I don't want to save your ass, and I don't care if you find religion or not, whether you need it or not. Too bad you have such a bigoted view that you believe all Christians act a certain way. Might want to aim some of that bigotry at Islam. A muslim will behead you for not converting. A Christian will smile and go away. I guess you prefer beheading. Posted by: William Thrash at November 8, 2005 08:01 PMTO: William Thrash "A muslim will behead you for not converting. A Christian will smile and go away. I guess you prefer beheading." -- William Thrash I don't think he believes it can happen. At least not in HIS lifetime, here. Regards, Chuck(le) Sun Tzu said: "It is not the acme of skill to defeat your enemy, it is the acme of skill to defeat your enemy's plans." That was understood by Sun Tzu. Maybe someone should tell the New York Times. As Lenin called them ... useful idiots. Posted by: Jeff Crump at November 8, 2005 08:11 PMRight Chuck, we get too wrapped up watching pontificating politically correct talking heads on TV and think that by imitating them and sounding intellectual, we can impress everyone else into peace. What muslim who thinks we're infidels is going to be impressed at how we can imitate egotistical "sober-minded" "thinkers?" What murderer is going to be so impressed with this article we're all responding to that he wouldn't saw Mr Vodka's head off? Discussion is good to a point. Education is extremely valuable. But failure to recognize the enemy is an error guaranteeing defeat, no matter the type of war being fought. Posted by: William Thrash at November 8, 2005 08:16 PMTO: William Thrash "What muslim who thinks we're infidels is going to be impressed at how we can imitate egotistical "sober-minded" "thinkers?"" -- William Thrash ...to couch it in these terms.... It matters little what sheep think, if wolves are of a different opinion. Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at November 8, 2005 08:19 PMChuck(le) "...to say "My God can whip your god." Eh? Posted by: Swen Swenson at November 8, 2005 09:28 PM"Too bad you have such a bigoted view that you believe all Christians act a certain way." Are you being serious here? Do you enjoy rankling us? You typecast all Muslims and then explode when I return the favor? Think this may prove my point of how Muslims react to you? "Personally, I don't want to save your ass" Then why the hell do you care about those billion muslims? Never mind, I can answer that. You don't. You just care about yourself, and you don't care if we nuke/ kill off/ inflict misery upon 1/6 of the world's population, if it lets you rest easy at night. Actually, I really do not trust your logic in answering questions, so I'll revert to statements. Those smiling Christians colonized Africa, North America, and South America in the name of God (albeit supported by ulterior motives, like modern Muslims), killed off or enslaved most of the populations, on top of utilizing the religion to wage the most deadly wars of the day back in Europe. And this is but a small bit of their misguided actions, excluding for instance, the crusades, our witch-hunt Puritan fathers, or the version of Christianity that supported slavery in the South. Today Christians are fairly peaceful. It is possible for a violent religion to evolve, Christianity proves it. You take 30% support as proof that Muslims support terror, yet last time I checked, the majority usually represents the opinion of the group, and 30% does not constitute a majority. Your typecasting would drive the other 70% into the hands of the radicals, and improve nothing. And this is accepting those poll figures. Seeing the numbers of Muslims living in dictatorial countries, especially countries in which they are soaked with propaganda, that, if it were all you were exposed to, you too would want to kill Americans, this number would seem fairly positive. Then there are other factors, such as the Russian actions in Chechnya, or the Israeli misteps in protecting their country, that would provide legitimate support for terror of liberation, not terror of religious conversion. Still unacceptable, but entirely not rooted in Islam. Stop oversymplifying. Make this a war on terror, radicalism and those that support it, not Islam. Posted by: William at November 8, 2005 09:36 PMWow, that's my first reaction. I think you hit the nail on the head. Though, I just did attend a presentation by retired Army LTC Scott Rutter who is also a Fox News analyst. Basically, he said he thought the Army needed to do more to get the news out. He said that worst story that gets out is the one they don't tell. Remember at the beginning of the war when we were getting daily updates from CENTCOM? Do we still get those and the media just doesn't care? Posted by: Brandon at November 8, 2005 09:38 PMChuck, just curious: Does your faith come with a cape too? As a Christian (who understands that Christ spoke to principle and not you waving your dick around like it was made of titanium) when/where exactly did you lose The Way? Seriously? Short version: Hearing voices isn't a good thing. Great piece, Stephen. Sorry the Divine One saw fit to have Chuck spit on it. Posted by: 6Gun at November 8, 2005 09:42 PMTO: 6Gun "Chuck, just curious: Does your faith come with a cape too?" -- 6Gun We donn need no stenking 'cape'. RE: Spit? "Sorry the Divine One saw fit to have Chuck spit on it." -- 6Gun What's the matter? Do you suffer from learning English from the vaunted American public education system? Or is it a tertiary language for you? Why don't you check my extended reply via the link provided (see above). RE: The Lost "As a Christian (who understands that Christ spoke to principle and not you waving your dick around like it was made of titanium) when/where exactly did you lose The Way? Seriously?" -- 6Gun Who knew that christians came with such foul mouths? I think you're projecting here, 'bro'. But I'll tell you what. When you crash and burn with a malfunctioning parachute and walk away from it. When you, in your funky four-wheeler, get into a snit with an 18-wheeler at interestate speeds and walk away from it. And, when you can think back on both incidents and remember a voice as clear as if they were right there beside you, when you were actually all alone, telling you exactly what to do to save your sorry ass.... ....do come back and talk to me again. And then I regale you with other tales of how odd this place is. Hope that helps.... Regards, Chuck(le) TO: William "...legitimate support for terror of liberation, not terror of religious conversion. Still unacceptable, but entirely not rooted in Islam." -- William ....I think you'll have a hard time trying to sell that in Kashmir. Not to mention that town in Thailand where those three christian school girls were beheaded last week, on their way to school. You can bury your head in the sand, and that appears to be exactly what you are doing here, but that will not change the fact that there are religious issues involved here. This is just the latest campaign in a war that has been going on since Islam attempted to overrun Europe in the early 9th Century. Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at November 8, 2005 10:06 PMChuck(le) "...to say "My God can whip your god." Oh, I get it. No need to read between the lines Chuck(le). It never occurred to me to drag your god, my god, or anybody else's god into it. I was just mocking your juvenile "Mine is probably greater than yours, buckie" comment. Sorry it went over your head. Don't worry, when I mock your prissy religiousity you'll know it. TO: Swen Swenson "I was just mocking your juvenile "Mine is probably greater than yours, buckie" comment. Sorry it went over your head. Don't worry, when I mock your prissy religiousity you'll know it." -- Swen Swenson You project. I was throwing it back in your face. And you thought I didn't get 'it'? And, apparently, it took a while for you to figure it out too. Had to call one of your 'life line' numbers? Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at November 8, 2005 10:20 PMP.S. I still have my suspicions that you do not fully appreciate the comment I made. I'll give you a 'clue'.... How does an atheist have a god that can actually help him out in a very 'tight' spot? Would you like to buy a vowel to go with that? Posted by: Chuck Pelto at November 8, 2005 10:24 PMChuck: The other example is a prime one of getting hung up on a tiny example and ignoring the larger trends. Hate crimes happen in every large group, Muslims are no exception. Yet that is not the root cause of most terror. The root cause of most terror is radical Islam, an out-of -control pawn created by dictatorships and oil-money. What are the chances that the beheadors watched media funded by one of those two? or went to a mosque funded by one of those two? or went to school funded by those two? Surprisingly large. It could be a hate crime, could be radical Islam, but I honestly doubt it is a reflection of the fundamental nature of Islam. Religious issues are involved, that's irrefutable, but they are not the root cause, and attempting to stop terror by attacking Islam would be like trying to stop war by attacking rifles. Funny that you see a tactical continuity between 9th century and now Islam and no tactical continuity in the actions of the Christian community in that time. Or are we going to emphasize the actions of the Ottomans and forget the actions of Christian nations like Britain and France, which set up the current situation in the Middle East? Posted by: William at November 8, 2005 10:38 PMTO: William "Kashmir is a territory currently being fought over, subtly, by two very powerful nation states, with religion as a mere pawn." -- William Your head IS buried deep. Religion is the deciding factor. And, just to add sauce to your goose, there ain't no colonialist white people involved. Nor are there any in Thailand. "Hate crimes happen in every large group, Muslims are no exception." -- Williams Well. Recognizing them as 'hate crimes' is a step in the right direction. Recognizing that the Muslims hate the christians and the hindus and the Jews and, apparently, the French and even the Muslims that are not Muslim enough, is a good start. Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at November 8, 2005 10:42 PMChuck, Even if I speak for no one else... You may want to consider donating for the bandwidth you're soaking up on Steven's site. Jeezus H. Christ, man! Get your own damn blog! Adam(le) PS> you're not half as funny as you think you are. Posted by: adamthemadman at November 8, 2005 10:45 PMMy apologies Stephen, it would appear I've been feeding a troll. Thanks again for a truly thought-provoking post. Posted by: Swen Swenson at November 8, 2005 10:47 PMWe may lose MSM, but we will not lose free speech. Ordinary citizens are now empowered to speak with a voice loud enoguh to be heard around the nation and the world. Posted by: Simon Hawkin at November 8, 2005 10:50 PMTO: William "...the fundamental nature of Islam." -- William ...will be determined by who is left standing after they've finished 'hacking out' what is the 'proper form' of Islam. I think I've mentioned this before, but the more violent will decide what Islam is. Why? Well, because in their own way of decision-making/concensus-reaching, they'll kill off anyone who disagrees with them. It IS their way of 'doing business'. If you doubt that, please re-read your history. They murder their own equivalents of the Roman Catholic Pope. RE: Anyone Wanna Buy a Blind Spot? "Funny that you see a tactical continuity between 9th century and now Islam and no tactical continuity in the actions of the Christian community in that time." -- William Are you attempting to put words in my mouth? You should learn better. 8th Century. Offensive campaign against Europe begins with the seizure of Spain. 12th-13th Centuries. Christian Counter-offensive campaigns in the "Holy Land". After initial success, the Christians are eventually driven out by the Muslims. 15th Century. Christian counter-offensive in Spain returns the Iberian peninsula to Christian control. Meanwhile Ottoman Turks seize Constantinople and begin campaign into eastern Europe to be stopped outside the gates of Vienna. Early 20th Century. WWI provides a springboard/excuse for England and France to go on an offensive into the Holy Lands. Albeit their interest is not 'christian'. They're really just after the oil. And control of the Suez Canal. Mid 20th Century. The Jews come home. Late 20th Century. The beginning of the latest offensive operations on the part of the Muslims. But this time, they are not limited to Europe. Operational areas include Westner, Southcentral and Southeastern Asia, Australia, the United States and Europe. However, lacking an effective standing army, the Muslims have adopted Fabian tactics. Hope that helps.... Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at November 8, 2005 10:54 PMTO: adamthemadman "Get your own damn blog!" -- adamthemadman Already got one. Or did you miss that link with the REALLY extensive review of Stephen's essay? Besides....all the BOZOS are HERE. "PS> you're not half as funny as you think you are." -- adamthemadman As if I really cared..... Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at November 8, 2005 10:57 PMTO: William I found THIS particularly informative... In one instance, a booklet distributed by the Saudi Embassy in Washington offers instructions on how to “build a wall of resentment” between Muslims and infidels, said Nina Shea, director of the Center for Religious Freedom. Funny form of 'good neighbor policy'. Don't you think? Regards, Chuck(le) Chuck, you got the right of it. After reading the responses, I realized that my engagement was only leading this into the typical bash-Christianity idiocy that dominates whenever religion is brought up. Interesting how we are not allowed to identify the enemy (violent Islam) without inflaming those who could care less about the enemy when there's a Christian to bash. How pathetic. These guys probably know nothing of Meccan and Medinan beyond that they're holy sites - which means they have zero clue as to what we're facing. They simply believe that by acting all cosmopolitan in their best imitation of "sober" egotistical television "elites," they'll talk their way out of war with Islam. Of course, four months ago, I thought the same way. Amazing what research can do for you when you clear away the subjective disease of political correctness. Posted by: William Thrash at November 9, 2005 07:24 AMI've reprinted this in my own journal for preservation. I found this essay to be wholly informative and well written. Even made me giggle once or twice. As we've seen with the election, the power of the media is unknown to the public, and well known to its wielders. That's how Rupert Murdoch helped steal two elections and got an idiot chimpanzee into the White House right under the nose of the American public. If he can do that, why can't President Chimpanzee see he can win a war with Murdoch on his side as well? This essay was wonderful. Thank you for the insight. Posted by: Kevin at November 9, 2005 08:07 AM"But our media, aware of their power but ignorant as to its uses, would rather play "gotcha" than provide critical perspective." And our politicians focus on wounding their (political) rivals and protecting their own seats and power rather than doing the difficult, sometimes politically costly work we need them to do. The media, public intellectual discourse, modern politics... Very sad all around. Posted by: Mark M at November 9, 2005 08:22 AMThe media succeeds at promulgating their version of the truth only because Americans continue to subscribe to the MSM and to pay for Hollywood's offal. Despite dropping newspaper subscription numbers and softness at the box office, this isn't changing fast enough to effect the outcome. Think the MSM and Hollywood are twisted? Boycott. Posted by: PD Quig at November 9, 2005 08:33 AMGreat piece-Always enjoy your stuff. Glad you finished it before you start changing diapers! Good luck in December! Posted by: David Spence at November 9, 2005 08:44 AMTO: PD Quig "The media succeeds at promulgating their version of the truth only because Americans continue to subscribe to the MSM and to pay for Hollywood's offal...Boycott!" -- PD Quig On the nosey. I said exactly the same things over on my blog, www.comensarations.info. Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at November 9, 2005 09:18 AMThank you for posting this article. It, and the comments that follow, have been very informative. You've done a nice job of showing how conservati |