Press panics over Iraq

NY Daily ^ | 11/10/03 | Stanley Crouch

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

When I look at the coverage of casualties in Iraq, I am happy that the same kind of media and the same style of journalism were not in place 150 years ago. I say that because I'm not sure the media of today would have allowed President Abraham Lincoln the time he needed to find Gen. Ulysses Grant, who revamped the Union war effort and commenced putting his foot in the backside of the Confederate Army.

The Rebel army won many early battles in the cause of making sure that Southern gallantry, plantation life and refined manners rolled over the backs of Negro slaves like planks on the social and economic bridges that connected the regime.

Lincoln had to look at unprecedented Union casualty lists while he sought a general who could start stacking up Confederate dead until the South got the point. Two years in, he found Grant.

In our moment, President Bush puffed out his chest too soon, and now too much is expected in too short a time. Plus, the stated goal, the purpose, of the war in Iraq changes shape too often for the President to get an understandable message through to the nation.

This is all grist for a press corps that has had nothing messy to talk about in high places since Bill Clinton was literally caught with his pants down in the Oval Office. That was scandalous, but it didn't have the dramatic power of Watergate or the uprising against the war in Vietnam or the Pentagon Papers.

The media have been itching for big trouble at the top, and so now the efforts of a small group of determined terrorists is being described as creating a quagmire. Very small numbers of American military dead are picked over and grimly responded to by television anchors and editorial columnists as though they were many, many times their actual numbers.

This, of course, is not to say that the deaths of our service people are trivial or that they do not constitute tragedies to the families and friends of the deceased. In human terms, they cannot be looked at any other way.

But in terms of warfare, the numbers are, in fact, small - very small. Had we lost them all during the invasion of another country, everyone would be acknowledging how few people on our side had been killed.

Our greatest American skill has almost always been improvising, discovering the solution in motion, looking away from the music paper and following the dictates of our ears when we heard something in our heads that sounded better than what we were looking at on the paper.

That is where we are in Iraq, and the Bush administration would do well to make that clear to the public. We are still searching for a solution while we fight an enemy willing to kill indiscriminately to create the illusion of a bigger battle than the one going on.

The opposition is not actually fighting for dominion over the American troops. It is fighting to enlist the pressure of the Western press. None of that will matter, however, if Bush can find his Ulysses Grant.

[Fee]

May 2004 is when the New Iraqi Army starts to deploy. I predict by mid summer of 2004, US casualties will drop as this force hits the field and do most of the fighting. Couple this with the upward trend in the economy, GWB should win the election. Time is against the Sunni/Saddamite Iraqis and their Democrat/Media complex allies. Keep the faith Freepers!!!

[ken5050]

Great column, from Mr Crouch..surprising, in some ways.....as an aside, we need to consider if our new method, and goal, of a low-casuality war FOR THE ENEMY...is what is causing our problems now...if they haven't taken enough KIA and WIA, they won't think they're beaten..

[dead]

I cannot believe Stanley Crouch wrote this!

[jocon307]

"...we need to consider if our new method, and goal, of a low-casuality war FOR THE ENEMY...is what is causing our problems now...if they haven't taken enough KIA and WIA, they won't think they're beaten.."

That is EXACTLY the problem, I believe. It's fine to avoid killing civilians, it's ridiculous to avoid killing enemy soliders. Yes, yes, I appreciate the fact that they are mostly enlisted men, their deaths are tragedies to their families too, etc. However, I firmly believe that much, if not all, of the problems we are facing in Iraq stem from our not having killed a larger percentage of their forces during the initial invasion. I understand that they ran away/surrendered and I know that you can't kill them then, but still, we DO need to bear this in mind for the next (and I'm fairly sure there will be a next) theatre in the war on (Islamic) terror.

[Reagan Man]

Freedom is not free. Throughout our history, American's have been willing to pay the price to keep our freedom and liberty intact. The world is a better place because of America's steadfast opposition the totalitarian regimes that existed and reared their ugly ranks throughout the 20TH century. Whether its communism, nazism or terrorism, America will do whats necessary to meet the challenges of history.

[ken5050]

OTOH..one could make the point that Iraq is the exception..because the poor Iraqi schnooks in the front lines couldn't wait to surrender..the hard-core terrorists were hiding amid civilians...remember the first Gulf war...the pics of thousands of Iraqis surrendering..even tio reporters...all valid..but I've also seen estimated that the month long bombing campaign before the war may have killed 100,000+ of the iraqi troops out in the desert......

[BluH2o]

Since November 10 is the Marine Corps birthday, I will use America's finest for a comparison in casuality rates. More Marines lost their lives in the first hour on Iwo Jima (H-hour plus 1)than the military's combined losses in Desert Storm and Iraq to this point in the war. Before Iwo Jima was finally declared secure, three weeks after the initial attack, a total of 6,821 Marines & Navy personnel would die on this remote Pacific island 650 miles from Japan. Fortunetly America didn't have to deal with an extremely biased liberal media during WWII.

[rllngrk33]

we need to consider if our new method, and goal, of a low-casuality war FOR THE ENEMY...is what is causing our problems now...if they haven't taken enough KIA and WIA, they won't think they're beaten..

In other words, "It's not our soldier's job to die for our country, but to make the other poor SOB die for his country!"

George S. Patton

[joyful1]

ALARM ALARM ALARM

TODAY, RIGHT NOW! PUTIN & IRAN ARE MEETING & SHAKING HANDS!!

Folks! Iran's announcement to cut nucleaur plan is a smokescreen!

Watch out for Iran & Putin!

http://www.irna.ir/

Somebody! make a thread ASAP

[EternalVigilance]

This is a great sentence, and very true:

Our greatest American skill has almost always been improvising, discovering the solution in motion, looking away from the music paper and following the dictates of our ears when we heard something in our heads that sounded better than what we were looking at on the paper.

[jocon307]

Yes, you certainly make some valid points. I reckon that in such a completely corrupt system there are very few true bravehearts in the army or anywhere. And your Iraqi casualty number is interesting, I have seen no estimates whatever, other than maybe very small numbers mentioned in connection with recent incidents, 3 Iraqis killed, and like that.

I wondered if that Chinook chopper wasn't targeted specifically because those on board were going on leave. I wondered this when I saw some reporting telling of how one was going home to get married, one to see his new born child, etc. I thought how tailored made for the press these sad tales are, and I then wondered if that vehicle might not have been targeted for just that reason. Maybe that says more about me than anyone else. I don't know.

I feel very bad about the people we are losing over there, but I am also very disgusted at the undemining tone of the press in reporting things. A little cheerleading for our side wouldn't be the worst thing they could do, a little encouragement of the American people to keep a stiff upper lip and all that. I'm afraid the Oprah-ization of our culture may end up getting us all killed. I know in my heart that Oprah wouldn't want that. Maybe she could do a show to support the troops, or something. Maybe she has, for all I know. Some call it Oprah-ization, but it's really Feminization, and I fear its effects on us very much.

[aculeus]

Stanley Crouch needs more exposure. He's pro-cop, anti-rap and anti-PC.

This column doesn't surprise me.

[nicmarlo]

We are still searching for a solution while we fight an enemy willing to kill indiscriminately to create the illusion of a bigger battle than the one going on.

ping.

[PISANO]

It's fine to avoid killing civilians

Actually IMHO civilian deaths should be the LAST consideration given to a specific bombing and/or military attack. Sounds cruel, yes it is! TODAY with civilian casualties being THE MOST important consideration, the DEATHS of our TROOPS INCREASE because of it.

Consider the number of AMERICAN deaths that would have occured if we USED todays reluctance to kill civilians, in WWII against JAPAN?!!

[Principled]

The opposition is not actually fighting for dominion over the American troops. It is fighting to enlist the pressure of the Western press.

IMO this from the article bears repeating:

The opposition is not actually fighting for dominion over the American troops. It is fighting to enlist the pressure of the Western press.

[Budge]

pong.

[Billthedrill]

Actually, the newspapers were all over Lincoln the entire time, and their boy McClellan ended up the candidate in 1864. But we'll see more of this as we get closer to next November - it's the only issue the "regime-change" Democrats have left now that the economy is improving and they screwed up on the intelligence committee manipulation.

[MeekOneGOP]