How It Is!

The NYTimes again adopts Journalism’s bias against perceived Conflicts of Interest in this lengthy Commentary about Pentagon association with military analysts. The later Group are hired by News networks for their communal links with military officialdom. The Relationships are as old as Hades, and as financially valuable to the Networks, as they are to the military analysts. Many of this Group would not have their relationship with military contractors, if they did not have a relationship with the Networks; their contribution would be Zero, if they did not possess access to the Pentagon. The NYTimes is trying to criticize the very Contacts which make the military analysts valuable. The fact remains that the Military has attempted to influence Public perceptions about their efforts since the French and Indian War, and American military failures have always been associated with failure to maintain the support of the American Public. Rants against the Pentagon, no matter the degree of sophistication of its influence over Journalists, should not be made; both as a matter of Patriotism and of National Security. Here again We concentrate on the Pentagon’s use of Tactics, rather on the real pressing Need to discuss the Strategic implications of the success of those Tactics.

The real Question which should concern the American Public is whether We should be in Iraq and Afghanistan, not how the Pentagon generates support for those Wars among the American Public. The first Point that American Journalism must highlight is that this Question supercedes the issue of On-Site military successes in Iraq or Afghanistan. Do We belong in Iraq? Do We belong in Afghanistan? Those are the questions to be answered; not the question of are We successful in either Country. The U.S. Military should be more successful in both Countries, but that is an entirely separate Question, and should be regarded in that Context; though not distracting Us from adequate analysis of whether We should be in those Nations in the first place.

American Exit from either Country would have relatively no Military loss for the United States, much as the current Administration would like to justify its earlier policies. Terrorism would have no heightened capacity to conduct warfare on American soil, and the loss of American prestige would not be so massive as to alter Our foreign relations to any great degree with any of the World–even in the Mideast. Whatever Loss is entailed could not justify the expenditure of American lives and American military capacity in these nations. I could even give a detailed Projection analysis of the Gains, as well as Losses, of abandoning both Countries with the expected progression of Civil War in both Countries. I am sure, though, that such analysis would not endear myself with Anyone, and it is still Off-Point as well (the incitement of Civil warfare in both Countries could be utilized to greater advantage to American foreign policy, than is maintenance of defunct Civil administrations seen as basically Quisling governments). It still remains the fault of Journalism itself, that they do not keep the Discussion focused on the Primary Questions to be answered by the American people. lgl