[Update at end]
By now most Blog readers probably know that CNN has been touting a propaganda film of Iraqi insurgents attacking American forces with sniper fire. Confederate Yankee points out that the only battle field in which the terrorists have any hope of winning is in the information war and that they skillfully use CNN and other media outlets to facilitate their strategy:
Terrorist Public Relations: This is CNN
This leaves them in a situation with very reduced options, among them being the employment of snipers. The use of snipers is the only tactic they use that can:
readily be filmed, and;
does not cause significant civilian casualties as a result (which is bad for propaganda purposes).The three other methods used by Iraqi insurgents—IEDs, suicide bombings, and mortar attacks—do not meet these criteria.
....
This leaves the filming of sniper attacks as the only real viable option for insurgents wishing to film an attack that won't also inflame the Iraqi population against them. They can selectively target Americans when they shoot video of sniper attacks for propaganda purposes. They even go out of their way to make this point in the CNN story.
Lori Byrd wonders whether or not the CNN executives are promulgating terrorist propaganda because they are naive or because they are venal:
Here is the deal -- the terrorists we face may be living in caves and using the bushes for bathrooms, but they have satellite phones and video equipment and they not only understand enough technology to be able to use them, but they understand enough about our media to know how to manipulate them to their advantage. You would think that some of the executives and journalists at places like CNN, would understand that at least as well as a bunch of guys living (almost literally) in the stone ages. I happen to believe they do understand it and yet allow themselves to be used, in many instances willingly, to assist the terrorists in spreading their anti-American message. The only thing I have some confusion over is whether they do so because they share a similar hatred for America, or if they just can't resist the big story. I really hope it is the latter.
I am afraid that Lorie is going to be disappointed, though not surprised, by my response to her post. CNN, in fact all our MSM outlets, know quite well the value and power of propaganda images. This is precisely why they repeatedly aired images from abu Graib (with MSM spokesmen explaining that only the images could convey the significance of the atrocities) while refusing to air such videos as the Nick Berg beheading (which another spokesman explained would only inflame the passions of the viewers.) This is also why the Media have been loathe to report on the heroism of American soldiers in Iraq. Coincidentally, there is an interesting contrast available ion theaters today. I have not yet seen the movie, but the New York Times reviews FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS today. The film attempts to tell three stories, the horrors of the battle of Iwo Jima, the struggles of the men who survived, and the use by the government of the episode to mobilize support for the war effort. Here is the key point in the review, A Ghastly Conflagration, a Tormented Aftermath:
What do we want from war films? Entertainment, mostly, a few hours’ escape to other lands and times, as well as something excitingly different, something reassuringly familiar. If “Flags of Our Fathers” feels so unlike most war movies and sounds so contrary to the usual political rhetoric, it is not because it affirms that war is hell, which it does with unblinking, graphic brutality. It’s because Mr. Eastwood insists, with a moral certitude that is all too rare in our movies, that we extract an unspeakable cost when we ask men to kill other men. There is never any doubt in the film that the country needed to fight this war, that it was necessary; it is the horror at such necessity that defines “Flags of Our Fathers,” not exultation. [Emphasis mine-SW]
Most of us know that "war is hell" though we have been insulated from the reality of war by the relative peace of the last 30 years and the quiet professional heroism of our men and women in the armed forces. However, wars have never been primarily about the outcome on the battle field; wars are won and lost when the will of one side has been broken. The reviewer of Flags of Our Fathers knows this, as does CNN. They know that it requires extraordinary will to wage and win a war. It requires the sacrifice of some of our best young men and women. We can only ask for such a sacrifice if our cause is worth while. The film reviewer, with some slight revisionism, suggests that the need to fight and win World War II was never in doubt. This ignores the fact that our entry was delayed for several crucial years because of the opposition to the war from those who supported Nazi Germany, but we will let that pass; after all, after Pearl Harbor, those who opposed the war had the grace to be silent.
As I pointed out yesterday, 70% of Americans believe we are in the early stages of a Long War with Islamic fascism; the MSM, including CNN, are in the 30% who believe we are attacking Islam for no good reason, that our offensive acts in Iraq are immoral and unjustifiable. To them, we are the enemy. They may, and often do, invent wonderful rationalizations for why they are truly patriotic to oppose the war but this approaches sophistry. A moral and ethical opposition to the war would require announcing one's reasons for such opposition and endeavoring to convince the country that the war is an error and the course needs to be changed. An overtly anti-war individual like Ned Lamont may be wrong, but at least, he was at one time honest in his opposition. When a media outlet allows itself, because of its opposition to its nation's policies during a time of war , to become an agent of the enemy's propaganda, it has crossed a line that it will someday regret. America does not feel threatened enough to take such behavior seriously, but if our enemies are successful in causing us the great harm they so fervently desire to inflict upon us, CNN will have to deal with the passions that they have helped ignite.
I debated including that last line in this post. After all, it could sound like a threat and I do not at all mean it in that way. I believe that freedom of speech is as close to an absolute right as we have, yet I also recognize that certain freedoms have been traditionally curtailed temporarily during times of crisis. The MSM have too often allowed their anti-War and anti-Bush positions to lead them to support the enemy, even if they are unaware of or in denial of such support. This makes a future attack more likely and if, and when, we are successfully attacked again, it is also likely that the body politic will over-react in ways which damage the MSM. This should not be construed as a threat but as a predictable outcome of their choices. I will not dispute those who say this has a similar structure to the threats we receive daily from the enemy (abandon Israel and leave Iraq or suffer the consequences; if you insult the Prophet whatever happens to you will be your fault, etc) but I would suggest that I am not supporting beheading CNN reporters, but that it would not be a surprise to see them investigated and limitations put on them if we are attacked again.
Update: Greyhawk pretty much ends the argument:
And that newly bolded text is where I admit a failing - never in my wildest imagination did I anticipate the evening news - or one of the named desired participants - mentioning the enemy's propaganda plan while gleefully participating in it.
I'm afraid to ask if they can sink lower.
This should shock and alarm everyone; that it doesn't is quite distressing.
Recent Comments