Tuesday, March 08, 2005
War by the book and the arrogance of the New York Times
It is the responsibility of those at the top of the chain of command - the ones who write these rules of engagement - to make sure that such rules are as close to mistake-proof as possible. That means studying hard the approach to each and every checkpoint put up by the United States military to make sure civilians understand that they should slow down. It means studying tactics used by others, like the British in Northern Ireland and the Israelis in the occupied territories, to gather every shred of useful information out there about how to construct checkpoints in a way that makes their presence obvious to anyone.
At one level, who could be against helpful suggestions?
At another level, imagine how galling it must be to be a commander in Iraq and read that Gail Collins and Andrew Rosenthal have some great ideas about how you could have avoided killing innocent civilians. When I think about that officer reading this editorial, I get sick to my stomach with sympathy for him and contempt for the Times. It is one thing to question a strategy or pick at the mismanagement of procurement (an ancient problem in virtually all armies), and quite another to remind American officers that they need to "make sure that such rules are as close to mistake-proof as possible." The arrogance is breathtaking.
But the decadent immorality of the Times -- or at least the writer of this editorial -- transcends his or her arrogance. The editorial leads with a story of American soldiers accidently shooting children:
On Jan. 18, American soldiers on patrol near Mosul were ordered to stop an oncoming car. After giving some warning shots, six soldiers sprayed the vehicle, firing at least 50 rounds. Chris Hondros, a photographer for Getty Images, said that when the car had come to a stop, he "could hear sobbing and crying coming from the car, children's voices." A car door opened, and six children, one only 8 years old, tumbled into the street, splattered with blood. The parents of four of the children lay dead in the front seat, their bodies riddled with bullets.
According to the Times, this is because American soldiers are "told to shoot first and ask questions later." That is a fradulent argument at many levels, not least because it assigns culpability to the wrong side. Nowhere in the editorial does the Times assign culpability where it belongs: on the shoulders of the insurgents who fight without uniforms, and whose objective is to breed terror and despair in the detonation of high explosives at civilian targets. That Coalition and Iraqi soldiers and police take innocent lives battling the insurgency is purely a function of the tactics of the insurgents, who are profoundly criminal by any standard of law or morality.
6 Comments:
By 
Cardinalpark, at
Tue Mar 08, 09:01:00 AM:
Certainly hard to dispute the notion that the times ed page is a bunch of arrogant windbaggery. but just layer on the ultimately discrediting empirically proven fact that "journalists" -- of the MSM op ed variety -- hate the military. Hate it. It stands for everything they reject - discipline, values, selflessness, sacrifice, team play, love of country. You name it, the press hates it. The stakes are high in the military, mistakes mean death. Writing you can hit backspace; can't do that at a checkpoint.
We shouldn't touch our rules of engagement; we're too damn nice in the first place. Maybe their op-ed guys should man a few checkpoints and see how they feel when a car bomb goes up.
By Gordon Smith, at
Tue Mar 08, 01:01:00 PM:
So how would you rather hear the NYT report this? Would it sound like this?
Insurgents, using terrorist tactics, have become masters of transforming benign objects and situations into deadly ones. Suicide bombers of both sexes, Car bombs, and other unconventional weapons make the work of our military so difficult that things like the killing of four innocent children at a checkpoint are inevitable.
Is that better? Folks are so all-fired indignant when we ask our military to take responsibility for the harm they inflict. Aren't Republicans the party of personal responsibility? Then let the military take responsibility. Yes, the shootings are in response to the insurgent threats. And, yes, the insurgent threats are in response to the U.S. invasion. And, yes, the U.S. invasion was (supposedly and arguably) in response to the cat-and-mouse game played by Saddam Hussein. And, yes, Saddam Hussein was acting in response to various international pressures and an antipathy towards the U.S.
The buck never stops getting passed this way. I hear the arrogance you talk about, but I think you're just looking for something to complain about.
The military doesn't have to like the press. The press can be agitators. I want my free press to agitate. I want debate and exposes. Press that serves as government mouthpiece (Fox News, Armstrong Williams, Jeff Guckert/Gannon, Maggie Gallagher, William Safire, David Brooks, Washington Times, etc.) serve only to obfuscate the issues of our times.
It ought to be disturbing when four innocent children are killed. It ought to be disturbing when a recently freed hostage is attacked by the good guys.
By Cardinalpark, at
Tue Mar 08, 02:34:00 PM:
Screwy Hoolie - interesting name.
Actually, editorial opinion should not seek to "agitate". Balance, objectivity and truth are rarely well-served thru agitation. On the contrary, agitators feel compelled ultimately to back their "position" at any cost. They're not interested in truth.
They're interested in being right. There's a not to subtle difference.
The question is how should an editorial address a mistake, which it is plainly obvious this was. If the US military intended that the Italian writer die, I assure you, she'd be quite dead. And unable to write all kinds of preposterous self aggrandizing stuff.
In an editorial this soon after this incident, it seems that demanding a thorough investigation is about all you can sensibly do. Hurling accusations might be interesting but is not especially helpful or closer to acquiring truth. It certainly fosters an atmosphere of mistrust and alienation.
You can say the military can hate the press all it wants, but let me posit a plausible impact of press imagery. Can Kevin Sites, the NBC reporter who accused a US Marine of killing a wounded Iraqi inside a mosque, ultimately cause a Marine to die who pauses to reflect on his target in war? I think he can have that impact. And I think an editor's job is to take some of the emotional edge off a reporter's communication. It is not an editor's job to communicate a value judgment on what it means to be in the military. It is not their job to express their dislike for the military and what it stands for.
And that's the issue in the editorial - not whether the military hates the press, but the other way around.
The NYT editor philosophically fails to embrace the military even though it stands for and defends him or her. Jack Nicholson's character said it best -- "you want me on that wall." The editor wants your USMC corporal at that checkpoint. You want democracy in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine...don't you? It has a cost. You want al Qaeda dead and away from our airports and train stations.
By Cardinalpark, at
Tue Mar 08, 02:34:00 PM:
Screwy Hoolie - interesting name.
Actually, editorial opinion should not seek to "agitate". Balance, objectivity and truth are rarely well-served thru agitation. On the contrary, agitators feel compelled ultimately to back their "position" at any cost. They're not interested in truth.
They're interested in being right. There's a not to subtle difference.
The question is how should an editorial address a mistake, which it is plainly obvious this was. If the US military intended that the Italian writer die, I assure you, she'd be quite dead. And unable to write all kinds of preposterous self aggrandizing stuff.
In an editorial this soon after this incident, it seems that demanding a thorough investigation is about all you can sensibly do. Hurling accusations might be interesting but is not especially helpful or closer to acquiring truth. It certainly fosters an atmosphere of mistrust and alienation.
You can say the military can hate the press all it wants, but let me posit a plausible impact of press imagery. Can Kevin Sites, the NBC reporter who accused a US Marine of killing a wounded Iraqi inside a mosque, ultimately cause a Marine to die who pauses to reflect on his target in war? I think he can have that impact. And I think an editor's job is to take some of the emotional edge off a reporter's communication. It is not an editor's job to communicate a value judgment on what it means to be in the military. It is not their job to express their dislike for the military and what it stands for.
And that's the issue in the editorial - not whether the military hates the press, but the other way around.
The NYT editor philosophically fails to embrace the military even though it stands for and defends him or her. Jack Nicholson's character said it best -- "you want me on that wall." The editor wants your USMC corporal at that checkpoint. You want democracy in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine...don't you? It has a cost. You want al Qaeda dead and away from our airports and train stations.
By Gordon Smith, at
Tue Mar 08, 05:19:00 PM:
Cardinalpark,
First of all, I appreciate the conversation we're having. I can always count on Tigerhawk readers to engage a lefty like me with intelligence and respect.
Secondly, my name has something to do with my blog.
Above all I want freedom, yes. Here at home first. A free press is the cornerstone of a free society. Just as the military must take responsibility for the civilians it kills, the press must take responsibility for the public opinion it forms. And I must take responsibility for both the killing of innocents (those are my tax dollars buying the bullets) and the impact of my words (I'm not a journalist by any stretch, but I am a blogger, and my words are out there). But I am, above all, free to interpret the world as I see it, and that is the value and function of a free press.
We need not lecture other nations about freedom if we're not going to tolerate it here at home.
The press ought to question everything that comes out of the mouths of this government and its spokesmen. There have been too many lies to count, and the press has been complicit since 9/11 in foisting many of these lies (committed or omitted) on the citizens of this free nation. Whether examining the veracity of the government's statements reveals integrity or falsehood is up to the government.
I don't watch Fox News because I don't like reading naked propaganda. If you don't like the press questioning your government, don't read it. But don't be surprised when things you thought were true turn out to be lies.
By Cardinalpark, at
Wed Mar 09, 08:59:00 AM:
Screwy hoolie -
Mistrust of government is nearly certainly something most honest conservatives possess, much moreso than an honest lefty. It is hypocrisy in the exercise of that mistrust that is getting to the point of daily amusement. For instance, the image of Robert Byrd (he of the KKK youth) and Teddy Kennedy (the deeply moral fellow who abandoned his drowning mistress), ragging on the first black woman to be nominated for a senior cabinet position. Now that's an awesome bit of government show, and the Times doesn't in the least reflect on that irony.
Now, you undoubtedly have a view that says the current White House Administration has dissembled. It may have on occasion. What White House hasn't? The "I never had sex with that woman" White House?
It's a question of priorities. In times of war, neither the NYT, nor our enemies, nor the NYT as a proxy for our enemies, are entitled to perfect information. I am ok with that. I will sort it out and figure out my own truth.
What I don't think is right, is for the NYT op ed page to think it knows more that some poor fellow manning a checkpoint in Iraq. They don't, they can't, they never well. Neither can Kevin Sites know what it means to confront a person intent on his savage demise until he's done it. So they should watch their pontification. Particularly as they allow their pulpit to be used by folks with other nefarious motives...look at the Valerie Plame blowback as another great example of editorializing first, thinking later...
They need to grow up, get some sense and write intelligently and humbly.
