« Islam's Intimidation Campaign | Main | NYC Nanny-Staters Go After Restaurants Again »
September 27, 2006
The MSM's Formula for Defeat
It's not only the New York Times that leaks strategic details to the public. Through Military Magazine, Thomas Sowell has leaked the MSM's strategy for losing our wars:
The media seem to have come up with a formula that would make any war in history unwinnable and unbearable: They simply emphasize the enemy's victories and our losses. Losses suffered by the enemy are not news, no matter how large, how persistent, or how clearly they indicate the enemy's declining strength.
Casualties in Iraq have been extremely low compared to other wars we have fought. But in other wars, the media didn't hype each death for maximum demoralizing effect. Death number 2,000 was a much-anticipated event, squeezed by the media for the last drop of demoralizing effect. For perspective, consider that it took 2 years for 2,000 American soldiers to die in Iraq. During the Civil War, the Confederacy lost 5,000 in a single day, the same number of Marines that died taking a single island in the Pacific during WWII. Yet the Secretary of Defense is grilled by PBS's Jill Lehrer about the staggering loss of 10 Americans killed in a day.
The greatest victories in American history would have been perceived by the public as defeats, if the fifth-column propagandists who control the media now had been around to distort them. Focus like a microscope on American casualties, no matter how light, ignore what our forces accomplished in the course of incurring those casualties, and presto! Defeat is snatched from the jaws of victory.
Moonbats bleat that we need to win Muslims' hearts and minds. But our own hearts and minds are vastly more important — which is why our own media is by far the most effective branch of the global jihad against Western Civilization.
On a tip from Wiggins.
Posted by Van Helsing at September 27, 2006 8:54 AM
Comments
I...hate...the...MSM...
Posted by: Sam Houston at September 27, 2006 11:33 AM
Battle of Antietam, 1862: One day
2,000 Union Dead
2,000 Confederate Dead
Battle of Iwo Jima, Feb-March (about 5 weeks)
1945: Over 6,000 Marine Dead
Vietnam 1968 (Whole Year): Over 14,000 Dead
Posted by: phil at September 28, 2006 12:29 AM
I wonder why, when mentioning U.S. war casualties, especially Civil War casualties, people rarely, if ever, mention Gettysburg. There were over 51,000 soldiers killed or wounded in a three day period, nearly 8,000 confirmed dead. Picket's Charge alone ended with over 1700 dead, and that's just a single charge that ended the battle.
Imagine all the dead bodies just lying in heaps, rotting, forgotten. Imagine the logistics of identifying, burying, etc.
As much as we all hate to see a U.S. soldier die, we really need to keep things in perspective.
Posted by: NugeGayWhalesForJesus at September 28, 2006 10:20 AM
I think you left a "0" out of Antietem. It was the deadliest single day in US history.
But putting things into perspective, our military is more mechanized today--fewer troops needed to deliver the same amount of force.
Nevertheless, we have seen more Americans killed in the first three and a half years in Iraq than in the first three and a half years in Vietnam.
And the number of severely wounded--lost limbs, lost faces--is something like five-to-nine time higher than even Vietnam.
Don't blame the media. They only report on the war. Blame the politicians who won't let the generals fight it. Remember, Bush hired a pollster to write his Iraq strategy and ignored the advice of his generals. He wanted a war he could sell to the American people, not one he could win.
Posted by: Ronald Reagan at September 28, 2006 11:03 AM
Junior, as the media clearly understands, we can't win the war unless the people buy into it.
Posted by: Van Helsing at September 28, 2006 4:22 PM
