A New Way Forward In Iraq

[Toad]

Originally posted by Hap
Seriously, do you realize that to say so is pretty equivalent to saying the bad guys obtain their motivation to kill us and perserverence in the face of destruction from our press coverage?

hap

Hmmmm.... were you politically aware during the VietNam war?

I was in the service at that time; I know the press coverage had a large effect on our own troops.

I think the press coverage had a huge effect on North Vietnam actions and strategies.

I also think the Tet offensive is a clear indication of the power of the press to demoralize our own forces while encouraging the enemy.

All me to quote to state the case quickly and effectively:

Tet

The Tet Offensive is often offered as an example of how American and Allied forces were completely outclassed by the Viet Cong and PAVN, the Siege of Khe Sanh being one of the key 'tragedies' of the Tet Offensive. The facts are that, for North Vietnam, the Tet Offensive was an unmitigated and wildly overestimated disaster. There was no mass, popular uprising and all that was achieved was the exposure of both Viet Cong and Main Force units to the withering destruction of American and Allied firepower. The Viet Cong in South Vietnam were effectively wiped out and ceased to play any effective role in the war from then on. The North Vietnamese mounted an undeniable invasion of South Vietnam through neutral Laos and Cambodia; an act of military amorality equal to Pearl Harbor and the two invasions of Belgium by the German Army in 1914 and 1940. Virtually all their first line combat units were decimated, suffering over forty thousand killed and half that number wounded.

None - absolutely none - of the military aims of the Communist forces were achieved and it was called off by Vo Nguyen Giap when its failure became obvious. It was a military defeat of the order the French Army in 1940 or the Gallipoli Campaign.

Yet, 'conventional wisdom' by the apologists and mythmakers hold the TET offensive up as a shining victory for the North.

At Khe Sanh, particularly, an outnumbered US Marine garrison inflicted a huge defeat on the Communist forces. There, a combination of fighting spirit and technology beat the four NVA divisions arrayed against them and foiled Giap's aim to repeat Dien Bien Phu. This also destabilized overall Communist strategy for the Tet Offensive, tying down valuable forces in the North, hardly a display of the alleged superior military thought of this 'master' strategist and his political master, Ho Chi Minh. The Tet Offensive was a military miscalculation of the most callous and egregious kind, a complete waste of the military resources deployed by the North.

If you've studied the VietNam war, you realize that the above quote is an accurate summation of what happened. The VC and the NVA were decimated during Tet. Yet that's not how it was reported or portrayed in the media and it marks the point where American politicians began to look for a way out instead of a way to win.

I'm sure my opinion stems from my time in the service back then but it hasn't changed one bit.

[john9001]

what toad said is the truth, Walter Cronkite reported the tet offensive as a major victory for the communists, LBJ then said "if we have lost Cronkite, we have lost the war".

cronkite, the tokyo rose of the vietnam war.

[oboe]

From a wikipedia article on the Tet Offensive: Media Impact

Studies of media impact on public opinion
Daniel Hallin and Clarence Wyatt also studied the effect of the media on public opinion. They found virtually no evidence to support any causal relationship between editorial tone and bias in the media with loss of public support for the war.[24] Hallin maintains that there was in fact a shift in the tone of coverage during and after Tet, but this change was a reflection of the shift in the opinions of elite decisions makers in the United States.[25]

Professor John Mueller also studied the effects of the media on public opinion during the Korean and Vietnam conflicts. He found no relationship between the media and popular support but linked support to casualty levels.

Army historian William Hammond, considered an authority on military and media relations concluded that there was little evidence showing a link between media coverage and popular support. Hammond wrote "that press reports were...more accurate than the public statements of the administration in portraying the situation in Vietnam." But by 1968, the charge that the press lost Vietnam had become an article of faith to many Vietnam veterans.

24. ^ Darley, William M. (2005). War Policy, Public Support, and the Media. Parameters.
25. ^ Hallin, Daniel (March, 2003). Presentation given at the “American Media and Wartime Challenges” Conference (PDF).

Doesn't address the affect of U.S. media on NV popular opinion or morale though.

[Toad]

Now research the influence it had on the political leaders of the war, ie: Johnson.

Politicians eat, sleep and breathe the media; it is the universe in which they exist and have meaning.

You might also check NVA Col Bui Tin and see what he thought of the media role in the war.

[Toad]

Oh, and one other thing... you might read "A Better War" by Sorely and then tell me who lost in VietNam.

Read up on Abrams and his strategies and tactics...and their successes... and tell me the military "lost" in VN.

The military DID NOT lose; Tet is merely one example. Khe Sahn is another. Approximately one fourth of all the television film reports on the evening news programs in the U.S. during February and March, 1968, were devoted to describing the situation of the Marines at Khe Sanh. It was portrayed as a desperate situation; I watched them.

In fact, the NVA once again got it's bellybutton handed to it at Khe Sahn. Yet it was portrayed as a "loss" and this too had it's effect on the politicians.

So if the military did not lose... and it clearly did not... what happened?

The US politicians and public lost the will to win. If you think the media had no role in that with the continual negative reporting.. like from Khe Sahn... I'd just have to totally disagree with you.

[oboe]

This is an excerpt from Stephen Young's interview with Bui Tin:

Q: What about the results?
A: Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise;. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for re-election. The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to re-establish our presence, but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely. We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was.

Q: What of Nixon?
A: Well, when Nixon stepped down because of Watergate we knew we would win. Pham Van Dong [prime minister of North Vietnam] said of Gerald Ford, the new president, "he's the weakest president in U.S. history; the people didn't elect him; even if you gave him candy, he doesn't dare to intervene in Vietnam again." We tested Ford's resolve by attacking Phuoc Long in January 1975. When Ford kept American B-52's in their hangers, our leadership decided on a big offensive against South Vietnam.

Q: What else?
A: We had the impression that American commanders had their hands tied by political factors. Your generals could never deploy a maximum force for greatest military effect.

According to Tin, it was Nixon's breach of law during Watergate and subsequent resignation that boosted the morale of the NV.    And Ford's inaction emboldened them.

His reference to the American commanders' hands being tied due to political considerations are references to US/Soviet relations, I believe.    

I've never contended the military lost the Viet Nam war.   I think they won it in fact.   South Viet Nam lost the Viet Nam war.   American goals weren't achieved, but that is not due to a defeat of our military.

I've cited and referenced the results of 3 separate studies that absolve the media of negatively influencing public opinion on Viet Nam, Toad.    I didn't set out to find them, I just stumbled across them in my research on Tet.  I don't blame you for not agreeing with them, since they run counter to your experience and conclusions.    I'm OK with agreeing to disagree, and I will bear in mind that the issue is still contended.

This whole thing is causing me to re-evaluate the Right's reaction in light of their 'personal responsibility' mantra, though.   To tell you the truth I never would've believed how quickly they jumped to blame someone else for their failures.   I don't think Iraq is lost yet, so to me it's a little early for people to be looking for scapegoats.    We'll just have to see where things are a year from now, after these extra troops have augmented the Baghdad forces.     But I'll keep the lesson I learned about the Right this week for a long time.

[Toad]

I do disagree.

I'd say it is nonsense to say the media doesn't shape opinion. How do people form their opinions? The only information is from the media. You can't just sit and ponder Iraq with no input, no facts, no discussion.

People react to what they see, read and hear from the media. How else can it be? Seems self-evident.

[BluKitty]

Originally posted by john9001
you have a better plan? lets hear it mon general.

"My Plan" was never go into Iraq in the frist place ... now ... well I knew it would be a mess and you want 'me' to clean it up?

I guess I could give some idea's, but when you don't listen to people with the wisdom to see that protracted wars are bad...and ouccupation of Iraq would obviously be protracted......  I don't know what to say.... we can try , but even Sun Tzu would sigh....

Originally posted by luksterExactly. When half the country is sitting back the whole time moaning about this whole thing being "a bad idea" what do you expect the enemy to think? It emboldens and empowers them in believing we don't have the will to win.

Oh we have the will.  But not when there is not a good reason.  Why are we in Iraq agin?  to pull potential terrorist recruits to Iraq instead of aginst the U.S mainland?  To give the Iraqis freedom?  (have you even heard of Darfur?) I say that's the thinking of a coward, or a war profiteer.  Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, in which we lost very little in comparison to the Iraq war.  What is this war about agin? Oil?
 Personaly I think of most people who talk as you, as cowards, but I won't call you names.  Going to war is a brave venture, rightous or not.

Bush's biggest mistake was in not realizing we are a country of those who lack ideals, without the foresight or the will to see the war through. Shame on him and us.

A war about what?  Why should we back any war, let alone this one, that some questionably elected, 'incompetent', draft dodging 'coward' thought of?   Bush's reasons have been proven false--anyone with much sense of world events could have told you this in 2002.  I don't belive it now, or back it then,  so why should I back it now?  Only reason I can think of is for the sake of the troops... IMO for the sake of the troops..... bring them home.

[Toad]

Do you know anything about the 102?  Palace Alert? The 147th Fighter Group?

The base canards get tiresome.


Oh yeah... question.

If the Supreme Court had decided for Gore, would you then say Gore was "questionably elected"?

[Yeager]

If the Supreme Court had decided for Gore, would you then say Gore was "questionably elected"?
====
hell ya!  The cheaten bastidge!  and just think, we would have waged a trillion dollar war against the two stroke engine....and lost  

[VooWho]

Originally posted by Toad
I do disagree.

I'd say it is nonsense to say the media doesn't shape opinion. How do people form their opinions? The only information is from the media. You can't just sit and ponder Iraq with no input, no facts, no discussion.

People react to what they see, read and hear from the media. How else can it be? Seems self-evident.

I can see it now. The year is 2020 and America is envaded by Terroists, and home born terroists. They stike major cities with car bombs, and subway bombs, and shoot thousands on the streets. They've taking bases in New Mexico, where they are getting supplies threw the Mexican Border. America is at war, and everyone is defending freedom. Soon massive invasion of 600,000 National Guard soldiers and Army Troops raid New Mexico, and 200 troops are killed in action with 13,000 wounded. The media starts bashing the current president for not sending in enough troops to New Mexico because of 200 troops killed. New Mexico is now in American hands and the border is secured. Pockets of resistance still wounders New Mexico and bordering states. After two months of saving New Mexico 1,400 troops have died. The media starts saying we are loosing the war, and only shows car bombs, dead civilians, soldiers, and RPG attacks on homes and offices. What they don't show is a secure border, thousands of arrests on the border and supporters of the terroists, and progress in restoring New Mexico. Soon America starts leaning towards the media and now its been 2 years since the war in New Mexico, and 2,000 troops have died. Only 600 in 22 months. Soon the Reps loose the office and the dems are now in power. 1 month later troops are rushed out of New Mexico, and New Mexico falls into the hands of terroists. We lose New Mexico because the media wanted to make a profit and they didn't care how.

I can see this happening. To me it is happening now in Iraq. Yes we went to war with little troops, but we didn't think there be insurgents after Saddam was out of power. Yes we have lost troops, but since what 4 years of being in Iraq we have lost as much men as the first day of D-day landings on American beaches. Yes we have slacked off from sending in more troops, but people and nations make mistakes. It happens everyday but we don't see in on the news. Every time I watch the news its CNN, MSN, CBS that are bashing the war saying we are loosing, there killing us and we can't stop it. On the other hand Fox news is a little bit more supportive, saying we are making some progress, but at a high cost. I no longer listen to the news when it comes to Iraq. When the media says different things, I turly think its crap for profit. I just think alot of Americans don't understand the difference from fighting an enemy head on like the Civil War, or on big massive front lines like WW1/WW2. In Iraq its none of those. You are fighting an enemy hiding in civilian clothing. Theres no way an army can fight that. With the little troops we have, theres bigger gaps in locating insurgents. Its like the border. Not that many miles of fences covering the border, which means there bigger gaps, and the people we don't crossing, are crossing over at these gaps in our defense. More fencing means more protection. More soldiers means more protection for Iraqi civilians and coalition troops. Even with more troops, we well lose troops. Its war, and there well never be a war with no deaths. Who ever said war was easy. I say support our troops say YES WE CAN WIN! Shove that YES WE CAN in the insurgents faces and make them eat it, and then they well get the message that YES WE CAN WIN, AND WE WELL!

[Viking]

That is about as likely as America being invaded and terrorized by hordes of Icelandic fishermen led by Admiral Angus.

[Hap]

Originally posted by BluKitty
"My Plan" was never go into Iraq in the frist place

This would have been my plan, had I the intel that there were no WMD.

As far as war for oil, I thought that was the bootie.  Plunder oil, etc.  

We must brush up on our plundering.

Where's the Viking guy????


Regards,

hap

[Kurt]

Originally posted by VooWho
Yes we went to war with little troops, but we didn't think there be insurgents after Saddam was out of power.

You fail to mention what an idiotic assumption that was on the part of the administration.  This assumption that Thomas Jefferson was going to come to fill Saddams shoes and everything would be peachy.  It was short sighted and foolish.

We are still in Germany 60 years later.  We are still in Korea 50 years later. Wars don't clean themselves up and there are no 'quick' invasions.  Clue in.  We will still be in Iraq 10 years from now... Maybe more... But in 2003 GW sold you that we would sew this up in months, and you believed it.  You ate the bait.

Yes we have lost troops, but since what 4 years of being in Iraq we have lost as much men as the first day of D-day landings on American beaches.

Ok, but what you FAIL to mention here is that the war in Iraq is now LONGER than the entire U.S. involvement in WWII.  We conqured the whole damn pacific ocean and Europe in four years... But our current foolishness can't even get a grip on the freakin Anbar province.  Thats the difference between a war done right and a war done wrong.

You are fighting an enemy hiding in civilian clothing. Theres no way an army can fight that.

You're right, there isn't.  And its not like we only found out 3 days ago that they didn't have uniforms.   Did they run onto United 93 wearing uniforms?  No.   We knew this was the case four years ago, but now the government says 'Oh, gosh, we never expected this'.... BULL.  And you are eating that spin for breakfast.....

I say support our troops

[/b]
I say support them too..  But didn't you just say we can't win?  Read back a paragraph before you say you didn't...  

I do support our troops, they didn't ask for this.  But I don't support what Washington is doing.

YES WE CAN WIN!

You just said we can't win because the bad guys won't wear uniforms... Make up your mind.

You keep letting Fox pump you full of spew... I know I'm not fooled.

[Sparks]

Interesting thread.....

But I still think everyone here is over simplyfying the situation.  I have read several articles recently on the power struggle going on in the Iraqi government - Shia / Sunni.  It is pretty well acknowledged that some of the death squads are actually being run out of the interior ministry and the police and security forces are involved - example; recently UK troops stormed and destroyed a police station in Basra after concluding it was a death / torture centre.

We (the US and UK) are in the middle of a stoneage civil war. The majority democracy we beat our chests over creating will never work in Iraq while the local population is prepared to saw off the head of it's neighbour with a kitchen knife for being a different type of muslim.

There was a very interesting piece in Newsweek detailing the power base in Baghdad and how the US may even have to do a deal with Muqtada al-Sadr to bring him in to the politcal arena just to get some kind of peace.

Remember there has already been a considerable investment made in the rebuilding of the oil infrastruture of Iraq and I can't see that being simply abandoned.  If the west pulls out then China will have absolutely no qualms about stepping in and dealing with whatever regime may follow.
400 billion already spent and much more to come - this isn't going to be thrown away. My personal opinion is we will see a US alignment behind the major power base - the Shia - with whatever deals necessary being made to stop the civil war between Shia factions (Al-Sadr and Maliki); the Sunni minority will be labeled the cause of the problem and be aligned to the main terrorist acts so that Iraqi government (Shia) suppression can be justified.

So the need for the 20,000 ? The power in the Shia majority is split between the government and Muqtada Al-Sada based in Sadr City - a no-go area for the US.  For the government leaders to have full control Al-Sadr must be knocked down a peg or three.  I think we will see an assault on Sadr City with the hope of forcing Al-Sadr to the table with Maliki in a postion of weakness so a favourable deal can be struck - note that already the position is that US forces will be in support of government forces - government forces already accused of sectarian crimes against Sunnis.

In summary this is nothing to do with the final establishment of a true majority democracy, this is a recognition of the failure and the beginning of the protection of an investment for the future.