This "PC" war is killing people!

[Reginald]

All this adherance to "compassionate" "open information" war is, IMHO causing more problems than getting stuck in and getting it over with.

All the procrastination that is occuring outside of the Iraqi cities is creating an environment where friendly fire is becoming all too common. We have to be careful, someone might get hurt. The people IN the cities are suffering because we cant get aid in (I will bet you sixpence that the Ba'ath members have plenty of food and water). Our people are being sniped at, suicide bombed (because we give the benefit of the doubt to those who look to surrender), Kuwait is having missiles hurled at it. Other Arabs are "Day tripping" into the country to have a pop at us.

And thats just what is happening at the "front".

Look at the stuff that is being slung at our people from the rear...

TV reports stating that we are short of food, and water, Hey maybe when we are short of ammo and The Iraqis watch TV they will be able to time one of their counter offensives. Media reporting that the high command is "Divided" over the war plan.

In the UK Robin Cook writes an article in the anti-war sunday People news paper stating "I want our troops home and I want them home before more of them are killed."
Sounding pretty immediate there...and then this person who only a few days ago was hailed as one of the most careful and skillful orators in the commons claims...But Mr Cook subsequently released a statement saying he was not advocating the withdrawal of British forces from Iraq. He said: "Now that the war has started it's vital that it ends in victory. There could be no worse outcome than one that lets Saddam Hussein survive.

Nice back peddle that, Im sure your initial comments were of great comfort to our forces. Dont back down Robin, stick to your guns so we know what you mean.

And while all this is going on, people (Ours and theirs) are dying.

I tell you, If I had the guts to be fighting in this war (Which I admit I dont) I would be feeling a tad unappreciated at the moment.

[Tmy]

Hey is the war going well or not? You cant have it both ways.

Its either "things are going great we've only lost a handful of lives in battle, we're in control ofmost of the country"

OR

"we need to untie our hands cause we're getting killed here and things are not going well."


I dont understand your friendly fire argument. I would think that you would have less freindly fire if your fighting a more careful (ie PC) war.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Tmy
Hey is the war going well or not? You cant have it both ways.

Its either "things are going great we've only lost a handful of lives in battle, we're in control ofmost of the country"

OR

"we need to untie our hands cause we're getting killed here and things are not going well."


I dont understand your friendly fire argument. I would think that you would have less freindly fire if your fighting a more careful (ie PC) war.

False dichotomy fallacy.

It's not an either or choice. The war plan is flexable. Enemy resistance is a continuum. The ebb and flow of battle is a fact of war. Why don't we just wait till,...say,....the 3rd ID is rendered "combat ineffective" by the enemy...then there will be actual evidence of major problems with the war plan.

Don't hold your breath tho. ;)

-z

[voidx]

I love this flip flopping on the status of the war. Its the problem with having it covered with as much media attention as it has been. Is it going well or not is not a measurement that applies to warfare, I'm sorry. There are numerous fronts, hotspots, targets with more priority and importance. Sometimes you run into complications, sometimes you meet little resistance, sometimes you run into large setbacks which require you to rethink how to go about things. I would just ask people to go do some informed reading about either of the world wars, or Vietnam or whatever. Its not black and white. Are we winning the war? Well to that you'd probably be asked, well in which area, and define "winning".

[Rose]

The war coverage is beginning to remind me more and more of a football game commentary. "Our team" is failing to gain yardage, so the talking mouths start discussing the weaknesses of the players and the plays called. It would be amusing if the matter weren't so serious.

As for PC killing people, well, it seems to me that we are reducing the body count. The "problem", as it were, is that for every few hundred Iraqi civilians we are avoiding killing, we're trading off an American or British soldier's life. Is it worth it? That's a question I am not ready to answer. The only people really capable of answering, I suspect, are those troops who are the ones that might be called upon to pay the cost.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Rose
The war coverage is beginning to remind me more and more of a football game commentary. "Our team" is failing to gain yardage, so the talking mouths start discussing the weaknesses of the players and the plays called. It would be amusing if the matter weren't so serious.

As for PC killing people, well, it seems to me that we are reducing the body count. The "problem", as it were, is that for every few hundred Iraqi civilians we are avoiding killing, we're trading off an American or British soldier's life. Is it worth it? That's a question I am not ready to answer. The only people really capable of answering, I suspect, are those troops who are the ones that might be called upon to pay the cost.


The price the civialians pay doesn't come into it?

[specious_reasons]

On the other hand,
http://www.themeasurementstandard.com/issues/303/eng/painemilitary303.asp

"Embedding" reporters seems to be a PR success:
The sagacity of the tactic is that it is based on the basic tenet of public relations: It’s all about relationships. The better the relationship any of us has with a journalist, the better the chance of that journalist picking up and reporting our messages.
So now we have journalists making dozens—if not hundreds—of new friends among the armed forces. And, if the bosses of their new-found buddies want to get a key message or two across about how sensitive the U.S. is being to humanitarian needs or how humanely they are treating Iraqis, what better way than through these embedded journalists? As a result, most (if not all) of the dozens of stories being filed contain key messages the Department of Defense wants to communicate.

Ivy Lee, one of the pioneers in the PR industry, promoted this kind of "openness". You engage the reporters in order to get your side of the story told. Of course, not all of it's going to be good, but you're playing the odds here. On the whole, haven't the stories coming from the embedded reporters been positive towards our troops?

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
On the other hand,
http://www.themeasurementstandard.com/issues/303/eng/painemilitary303.asp

"Embedding" reporters seems to be a PR success:


Ivy Lee, one of the pioneers in the PR industry, promoted this kind of "openness". You engage the reporters in order to get your side of the story told. Of course, not all of it's going to be good, but you're playing the odds here. On the whole, haven't the stories coming from the embedded reporters been positive towards our troops?

...one would be very surprised if they weren't positive. It's a VERY dangerous desert out there.

;)

Barkhorn.