Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Our Reporters: Aching for Defeat
Our reporters are dying to see us lose. They want it so badly, they can almost taste it. Powerline has footage of one CBS loser, interviewing General Abizaid, that the task at hand is no longer one of victory, but of "managing the defeat."
Fortunately, this is news to Abizaid.
But it's not just her: Check out this frightening obtuseness from some of our other reporters, responding to a general explaining that counterinsurgency is not one of just kinetic operations, but involving a full spectrum of political, military, and economic measures, and that our task is not so much to subdue every bad guy in Iraq, but to teach and develop the Iraqi security forces to be able to carry on the fight themselves.
Read on:
Ces't wha???
Are we even in the same press conference? Of course defeating the insurgent militarily is not the direct job of the officer in charge of training Iraqi forces. Ultimately, it is Iraq's job to secure their country - not ours. This was the case all along, from the earliest days of the war. Since when does recognizing this fact, and expecting the Iraqi security forces to pull their weight while training and resourcing them to do so mean that "we're not fighting to win?"
Fortunately, General Chiarelli explains what ought to be pretty basic to someone who covers this full-time - that in a counterinsurgency fight, the nonkinetic is to the kinetic what three (or more) is to one.
I don't even think Burns understands what "kinetic" means in this context.
More from CNN's Barbara Starr:
No, you drooling moron!!!! Chiarelli never said that, and neither did anyone else. What they were saying was that kinetic operations alone would not produce victory. It is still the mission of U.S. forces to close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver. But absent the full-spectrum counterinsurgency operations, the most that can produce is local and temporary success.
Kinetic operations are one leg on a multi-legged stool. Just because a general acknowledges the critical nature of success in the political and economic facets of the insurgency DOES NOT MEAN WE DON'T WANT TO WIN KINETICALLY!!!
How frigging idiotic do you have to be to be a Pentagon reporter????
Splash, out
Jason
Fortunately, this is news to Abizaid.
But it's not just her: Check out this frightening obtuseness from some of our other reporters, responding to a general explaining that counterinsurgency is not one of just kinetic operations, but involving a full spectrum of political, military, and economic measures, and that our task is not so much to subdue every bad guy in Iraq, but to teach and develop the Iraqi security forces to be able to carry on the fight themselves.
Read on:
General, this is Bob Burns from AP. I'd like to take you to back to your comments about what's happening in Anbar province. When General Zilmer conducted an interview earlier this week to talk about the report, he said that defeating the insurgents is not his mission.
And my question for you is, whether you're talking about Anbar or any other part of Iraq, when did you reach the point in the counterinsurgency fight where you're not fighting to win?
Ces't wha???
Are we even in the same press conference? Of course defeating the insurgent militarily is not the direct job of the officer in charge of training Iraqi forces. Ultimately, it is Iraq's job to secure their country - not ours. This was the case all along, from the earliest days of the war. Since when does recognizing this fact, and expecting the Iraqi security forces to pull their weight while training and resourcing them to do so mean that "we're not fighting to win?"
Fortunately, General Chiarelli explains what ought to be pretty basic to someone who covers this full-time - that in a counterinsurgency fight, the nonkinetic is to the kinetic what three (or more) is to one.
I don't even think Burns understands what "kinetic" means in this context.
More from CNN's Barbara Starr:
General Chiarelli, Barbara Starr from CNN. I wanted to go back to Bob Burns' very first question and your answer. Understanding what you said about economic and political progress being part of winning, nonetheless General Zilmer's comments that it's not the mission of the U.S. military to win kinetically, I'm still confused.
When was that decided? How was that decided? Was that some conclusion that the military came to at some point? Can you shed any light on it? And is it your feeling that the U.S. troops in the field understand that it's not their job at this point to win as troops kinetically against the insurgents?
No, you drooling moron!!!! Chiarelli never said that, and neither did anyone else. What they were saying was that kinetic operations alone would not produce victory. It is still the mission of U.S. forces to close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver. But absent the full-spectrum counterinsurgency operations, the most that can produce is local and temporary success.
Kinetic operations are one leg on a multi-legged stool. Just because a general acknowledges the critical nature of success in the political and economic facets of the insurgency DOES NOT MEAN WE DON'T WANT TO WIN KINETICALLY!!!
How frigging idiotic do you have to be to be a Pentagon reporter????
Splash, out
Jason
Comments:
So they're ignorant for asking a question? Judge a reporter on their actual reporting, not a question they ask to get to that information they report.
You use the word "ignorant" but you yourself are incredibly ignorant of how reporters do their jobs. Reporters frequently ask questions that display a belief/perspective they don't personally agree with, in order to get the most enlightening response. It's standard operating procedure.
A reporter's job isn't to appear as smart as you, or to actually be as smart as you think they need to be -- their job is to make you smarter, by getting the real experts to open up and talk. Did the general's response to her question enlighten you, or enlighten the audience? If he did, then the reporters did their job.
But I suspect you'd find a way to criticize them no matter what.
Post a Comment
You use the word "ignorant" but you yourself are incredibly ignorant of how reporters do their jobs. Reporters frequently ask questions that display a belief/perspective they don't personally agree with, in order to get the most enlightening response. It's standard operating procedure.
A reporter's job isn't to appear as smart as you, or to actually be as smart as you think they need to be -- their job is to make you smarter, by getting the real experts to open up and talk. Did the general's response to her question enlighten you, or enlighten the audience? If he did, then the reporters did their job.
But I suspect you'd find a way to criticize them no matter what.
# posted by 
: 6:59 PM
: 6:59 PM
