HomeFeaturesDailyBriefingsRapidReconSpecial ReportsAbout Us

« October 2009 | Return to Commentary | December 2009 »

November 25, 2009


On Casualties, Media and Ownership

Media Crickets Thrive During Afghanistan Casualty Spike

By Steve Schippert | November 25, 2009

As the Earth spins, the effect dictates that its inhabitants are driven into the predictable cycle of night and day, day and night. And so too it can be said of the effect of periods between election cycles and American media coverage of war.

Bill Dupray at the Patriot Room notes an article drawing attention to the fact that in Afghanistan "Obama's war casualties nearly double Bush's worst year," and the American media are virtually silent.

Statistical Reference: iCasualties: Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan

Now, I'm no more a fan of calling our fallen "Obama's casualties" any more than I was of calling them "Bush's casualties" over the previous 7+ years. It's ignorant political hackery and a cheapening of their sacrifices. This isn't a criticism of Bill Dupray, as I'm reasonably certain that he sees it much the same way, even in noting the article as it was written.

But the media? Yeah, they're fair game. Their prior conduct makes them so.

From the period of the 2004 Presidential election cycle through about the middle of the Iraq Surge that turned the tide there, it was virtually impossible to drive a car and listen to a radio news break that did not contain a nameless mention of how many Americans were killed in action the previous day. Nor could one watch a single newscast without the same episodic phenomenon even more laden with anti-Bush commentary in context of the casualty figure of the day. It was a daily rolling body count. It was a disgusting display of the demise of journalism in which honoring the fallen by name or personal story simply could not manage a measure of committed air time.

Driving to work or watching the news today is a blessed relief. Gone are the incessant nameless, faceless body counts as commentary disguised as news. All one needs the stomach for is a daily dose of Nancy Pelosi and the apparent life-and-death crisis of our generation's time: Government-run and -mandated health care.

I'm actually all for it. If you can never find the time or space to honor even a few of the fallen by name, show his or her face and tell their stories, I prefer not to be deluged with body counts.

But even in relief, the crickets from the MSM double-tiered and double-standard observation deck on reporting casualties is an outrage that should not go without conscious acknowledgment. For only the cognitively challenged can conclude that if President George W. Bush or any other Republican were president today, the reportage on casualties would be no different than it is for President Barack Obama.

And that is not an indictment of President Obama. It is an indictment of a media congregation that clearly reports and editorializes similar circumstances differently depending on which political party and/or popular figure is in power.

The war is ours, not his. The casualties our ours, not his.

Editors and journalists, report on our war and pause before selecting and editorializing news to suit your political agendas and favorites. Leave that to us, the ever-dwindling consumers of your product. But it is unlikely you will heed our plea. But Christmas is coming soon. And that leaves us relegated once again to ask for that from Santa. For the eighth year - and two presidents - running.

November 12, 2009

United States of America

Time, Complacency, Catastrophe

The Metric For Intel Reform Is Still Words, Not Deeds

By Michael Tanji | November 12, 2009

"Never again" we told ourselves, as we tacked pictures of victims leaping from the World Trade Center buildings to the streets below to the walls of our cubes. Eternal vigilance is what we pledged, openly or silently, so that another 9/11 would never happen if we had anything to say about it.

Well, on the aspect of scale the massacre at Ft. Hood may not be a 9/11, but in many other respects it is still an astonishing failure.

Leave ethnicity and religion out of it: A man who seemed at odds with his oath to his country; a man whose superiors questioned his fitness to serve and his mental state; a man who openly communicated with people who advocated violence against Americans and in particular soldiers; a man who donned the garb of those who have a substantial track record of violence and hatred against Americans; does this sound like the sort of person who shouldn't have been under intense scrutiny for the threat he posed? Someone whose ability to carry out such acts should have been minimized?

Of course he was under some scrutiny, but what data was collected and evaluated was given short shrift for myriad reasons, not the least of which is political correctness. Yet if we take ethnicity and religion out of the equation again, we would still find ourselves in a place where the people who could have made the most use of the information at hand - the people with the most to lose given the circumstances - were apparently ignorant of the threat in their midst.

Barring the revelation of some greater and more sinister plot that Major Hasan was linked to, and to which our ability to deal with effectively would have been compromised had he been taken out of play (his violent actions being an unforeseen event), there are far too many indicators that point this being yet another intelligence failure. To be more accurate, an intelligence-mechanism failure: a failure of the system to serve all its customers - not a simple case of being caught unawares because of ignorance.

Of course post-9/11 the ODNI was supposed to help fix all of that. New rules about "responsibility to share" and new tools to help collaborate across the intelligence community were supposed tear down stovepipes and help ensure that everyone studying the same problems worked together to cut down on institutionalized ignorance and reduce opportunities for surprise.

How's that working out then?

No security mechanism in place on any military base or shopping mall or high school stops what happened at Ft. Hood last week from happening tomorrow. Nothing, except for what intelligence we have on those like Maj Hasan (ethnicity or religion immaterial). Is this an intelligence problem? Yes. Is this a law enforcement problem? Yes. But the age-old argument about what to do with such people (law enforcement says get them off the street, intelligence says keep them around to see what else they drag up) comes to the same conclusion: they are threats to be dealt with rapidly and comprehensively. If they cannot be isolated, it should be made painfully clear to them that they are under intense scrutiny, thereby neutralizing their effectiveness as instruments of terror and death.

Somewhere, someone new to this business is tacking up a picture of the victims of the Ft. Hood massacre and telling themselves "never again." Next door to that person is an old intelligence hand shaking his head and wondering "why can't we get this right?"

  • AudioFebruary 2, 2010
    [Listen Here]
    What on Earth can Usama bin Laden, the mystical calculus of climate change and US Homeland Security have in common? Does bin Laden really agree with the President of the United States on matters weather? How is it that the...

Special Reports

Recent Features