Media Myth Making
As I write this blog I'm reminded that most people do not keep up with world events unless the main stream media deems them worthy on an individual basis by broadcasting these events on their nightly shows. As such, many events go unreported. There could be A, B, C, D news events at any one time but because the Main Stream Media is the "middleman" they may only report on A and leave the rest out for that evening. As a result, the public is only "influenced" by the event of A, if they watch the MSM at all. Consequently, a few myths have grown over time perpetuated by the MSM since the days of VietNam that have infected public opinion in a way that could prove to undermine Operation WARTS (WAR on Terror States). Let us briefly cover them here:
The Guerrila Warfare Myth. Lets face it, the media has a love affair with marxist rebels and rebellions in general. Guerilla warfare is characterized by small bands of men attacking a target and causing death and mayhem then retreating back into oblivion such as a jungle or wilderness of some sort. They have no staying power in that they do not intend to occupy something for long. Their aim is only to embarras the ruling government. For them chaos is the engine for "change". Their destructive actions they believe "de-legitimizes" the established government. However, never in history has a guerilla force ever defeated a conventional army. The MSM would lead you to believe that even though a government may be imperiled by guerrila warfare that conventional armies are also subject to their whims. This could not be further from the truth! Conventional armies always defeat unconventional armies. Our very own George Washington was the head of a conventional army of his time, that of the Continental Army. Using conventional tactics and strategy and with the help of France, defeated a conventional army in his day. Though some of the tactics may have been revolutionary by in large they were conventional in nature. The VietNam war is another case were the United States defeated the guerilla army of the Viet Cong as well as the conventional army of North VietNam. Never was there a defeat of our forces in the Jungles of VietNam by the VC or the NVA. Some engagements may have appeared as losses but in fact were American victories. While we were militarily engaged in VietNam it never fell to the enemy, a key indicator that we may have lost the war. In the end, Southeast Asia was lost by the politician not by the General.
The Casualty Myth. Many dead soldiers means we lost the war/battle, if you are the MSM that is. Never was there a battle when soldiers did not perish. Some battles are bloodier than others. Some wars are bloodier than others. Just because soldiers die doesn't mean that all is lost. The US Army lost nearly 5000 dead on D-Day alone and yet how would the media act today if we lost 500 in one day in Iraq? The objective of an operation is the sole indicator if the battle has been won or lost. If the objective has not been acheived, then the battle has been lost. But simply counting the dead does not equate to operational success or defeat. In terms of casualties in Iraq, Operation Iraqi Freedom would have to be considered a complete success.
The Quagmire Myth. VietNam was lost to the communist because the United States refused to meet the enemy on their soil in North Vietnam. Instead, we chose to fight the communist on South Vietnamese soil. This strategic decision was a direct result of the Korean War. If you recall, McCarther was fired by President Truman for demanding to carry the Korean war to Beijing. As a result, American Foreign Policy would be defensive in nature for nearly 51 years thereafter until the World Trade Center attack in 2001. Even so, while being defensive in nature, we were victorious militarily where ever we fought. Korea was "easy" to defend because it only had one front. The peninsula was surrounded by water which was 100% in our favor, politically speaking. There could be no outside interference unless the enemy could defeat the US Navy, which of course never happened. VietNam on the other hand was not so easy to defend, politically speaking. She had 3 fronts: North Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Though we defeated the enemy in battle after battle, the communist still had the luxury of deciding when to attack and where. Because we chose not to attack them in an offensive war outside the theatre of South Vietnam, all we could do militarily is kill them as they came at us. As a result of political consideration we had perpetual war until WE decided to come home. The Soviets also experienced this same problem when they invaded Afghanistan in the late '70s. They did not leave Afghanistan because they were militarily defeated but because they would not make the political decision to invade Pakistan and/or Iran which was the base or arsenal of the Moojahadeen in Afghanistan. The quagmire myth does not take into account the ingredient of victory: Offensive Operations.
These myths taken together usally breed confusion on the part of the citizen. Knowing what the myths are you can now move past these false pretenses and anticipate with relative accuracy the next moves by the United States on the War on Terror.
The Guerrila Warfare Myth. Lets face it, the media has a love affair with marxist rebels and rebellions in general. Guerilla warfare is characterized by small bands of men attacking a target and causing death and mayhem then retreating back into oblivion such as a jungle or wilderness of some sort. They have no staying power in that they do not intend to occupy something for long. Their aim is only to embarras the ruling government. For them chaos is the engine for "change". Their destructive actions they believe "de-legitimizes" the established government. However, never in history has a guerilla force ever defeated a conventional army. The MSM would lead you to believe that even though a government may be imperiled by guerrila warfare that conventional armies are also subject to their whims. This could not be further from the truth! Conventional armies always defeat unconventional armies. Our very own George Washington was the head of a conventional army of his time, that of the Continental Army. Using conventional tactics and strategy and with the help of France, defeated a conventional army in his day. Though some of the tactics may have been revolutionary by in large they were conventional in nature. The VietNam war is another case were the United States defeated the guerilla army of the Viet Cong as well as the conventional army of North VietNam. Never was there a defeat of our forces in the Jungles of VietNam by the VC or the NVA. Some engagements may have appeared as losses but in fact were American victories. While we were militarily engaged in VietNam it never fell to the enemy, a key indicator that we may have lost the war. In the end, Southeast Asia was lost by the politician not by the General.
The Casualty Myth. Many dead soldiers means we lost the war/battle, if you are the MSM that is. Never was there a battle when soldiers did not perish. Some battles are bloodier than others. Some wars are bloodier than others. Just because soldiers die doesn't mean that all is lost. The US Army lost nearly 5000 dead on D-Day alone and yet how would the media act today if we lost 500 in one day in Iraq? The objective of an operation is the sole indicator if the battle has been won or lost. If the objective has not been acheived, then the battle has been lost. But simply counting the dead does not equate to operational success or defeat. In terms of casualties in Iraq, Operation Iraqi Freedom would have to be considered a complete success.
The Quagmire Myth. VietNam was lost to the communist because the United States refused to meet the enemy on their soil in North Vietnam. Instead, we chose to fight the communist on South Vietnamese soil. This strategic decision was a direct result of the Korean War. If you recall, McCarther was fired by President Truman for demanding to carry the Korean war to Beijing. As a result, American Foreign Policy would be defensive in nature for nearly 51 years thereafter until the World Trade Center attack in 2001. Even so, while being defensive in nature, we were victorious militarily where ever we fought. Korea was "easy" to defend because it only had one front. The peninsula was surrounded by water which was 100% in our favor, politically speaking. There could be no outside interference unless the enemy could defeat the US Navy, which of course never happened. VietNam on the other hand was not so easy to defend, politically speaking. She had 3 fronts: North Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Though we defeated the enemy in battle after battle, the communist still had the luxury of deciding when to attack and where. Because we chose not to attack them in an offensive war outside the theatre of South Vietnam, all we could do militarily is kill them as they came at us. As a result of political consideration we had perpetual war until WE decided to come home. The Soviets also experienced this same problem when they invaded Afghanistan in the late '70s. They did not leave Afghanistan because they were militarily defeated but because they would not make the political decision to invade Pakistan and/or Iran which was the base or arsenal of the Moojahadeen in Afghanistan. The quagmire myth does not take into account the ingredient of victory: Offensive Operations.
These myths taken together usally breed confusion on the part of the citizen. Knowing what the myths are you can now move past these false pretenses and anticipate with relative accuracy the next moves by the United States on the War on Terror.
posted by Bruce R. McConnell | 8:14 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home