When Hunting "Nixons" Helps The Enemy

Posted By Blackfive

First, get on over to Mudville and read Greyhawk's Two Awards post.  Dan Rather and Co. still have a lot to answer for...and Greyhawk explores why one award means more than the other.

So what is the fixation of some of the MSM to run over troops or people and push phony stories?

Austin Bay nails the essence of events like the Newsweek scandal time and time again...a lot of the Main Stream Media is still trying to get themselves "a Nixon"...Be sure to read his column.

And if you wonder what a combat soldier in Iraq thinks of the scandal, go read Ma Deuce Gunner.  Yeah, they're not really happy with Newsweek.

So, how do you do battle with a media giant?  Blogs are one way.  Love is another.

Mustang 23 (in Iraq)  who has a great "must read" story from Karen of Adopt-A-Platoon.

The bottom line is that there are a lot of people dedicated to making sure that the treatment of our soldiers is not an echo of the Viet Nam era. 

And to make that point a little stronger, here's a letter that Willie (a German citizen and Soldiers' Angel) received from a Marine:

May 7, 2005

Dear Wilhelmine

My name is Alex Sargent and I am a corporal in the United States Marine Corps. Many months ago, while in the hospital recovering from a combat injury, I received your letter. Although my period of healing has been long and the skies have yet to clear up for me, I can say most assuredly that I wouldn’t be the same without the support and appreciation of people like you. You’ve affirmed me that my sacrifice, and even graver sacrifices of some I cared deeply for, have not gone unnoticed. I know your letter was one of gratitude; a thanks for what I did. Your support was invaluable to my healing.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Alexander Sargent

During a sweep of houses during the Battle of Fallujah, Corporal Sargent and two other Marines (his good friends) entered a building that had been searched the day before.  A hidden terrorist killed Sargent's team-mates and severely wounded him.  They were members of the Thundering Third.  While Sargent passed through Germany on his way home to be treated for his wounds, Willie and other angels ensured he had a backpack (complete with clean clothes, quilt, pillow, etc.) with a note of thanks in it.

So, while some of the MSM continues to hunt for Viet Nam scandals and nail their Nixons (no matter if the truth or the troops are in the way), there are a lot of good people out there, a lot of good people around the world and in the MSM, ensuring that does not reflect on the men and women defending us.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2819/2474844

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference When Hunting "Nixons" Helps The Enemy:

» An afternoon check on some interesting blogs from Hyscience
Having walked blindly into writing several long posts over the last couple of days, I'm taking a brief break, and I've grabbed some very good reads from some very good blogs, for checking out at your leisure ... [Read More]

Comments

[Carl]

Let me explain why I believe Bay -- who is normally very good -- screws the pooch on this one.

He's making American abuses at Abu Ghraid the moral equivalent of a Newsweek goof, and that's wrong.

From what we know of the once-classified internal investigation of the Abu Ghraid fiasco and the resulting public courts martial, we can conclude several things:

1. American troops throughout a chain of command that stretched from private to, at least, BGen, not only condoned the routine torture of detainees, some of whom weren't even suspected terrorists or insurgents, but then sought to cover up their crimes.

2. Some of these practices have been documented in other places where we have collected IPWs or others -- such as the detainees at GITMO -- and currently numerous interrogators and guards in all services have been investigated for allegations of brutality against prisoners. Dozens have been convicted or face future proceedings for crimes including murder.

3. These practices have not only lowered U.S. standing in the world, but have been uniquely ineffective, drawing sharp rebukes from the FBI and other professional ranks of interrogators for failing to work.

Now, let's look at what Newsweek did. A reporter was told by a normally reliable source that U.S. guards and interrogators had defiled the Koran to break down GITMO detainees, something a large number of these prisoners have said upon release.

The snippet is published in a very small "bullet point" article and, about two weeks later, conservative firebrands in Afghanistan and Pakistan use the Newsweek piece during riots that eventually claim nearly 20 lives and put U.S. and Pakistani forces at risk of more violence.

Newsweek retracts the piece once other facts emerge and their sources refuse to back up their earlier stipulations.

Newsweek made a mistake, a tragic, stupid and avoidable mistake. The reporters didn't intend for anyone to be hurt, or even anyone in Pakistan to even read the brief story.

Now, let's return to Abu Ghraid, GITMO and other camps, which we can now all admit involved numerous documented, corroborated and publicly discussed incidences of brutality and murder that reached to, at least, the brigade level.

The press wasn't the ones ferreting out and proving these allegations of abuse. It was the military, at the highest levels, that stepped in to investigate and end practices I believe all of us can admit are un-American. The press only found out about it and printed it up.

Bay, I believe, realizes this. If he doesn't, then he is saying the murders and torture of prisoners in our care was somehow the same as what Newsweek did.

If he believes that, then we shouldn't read him any more.

[Soldier's Dad]

Karl,

Every nickel spent by the US Miltary is allocated by the US Congress. The US congress has been ELECTED by the people to fund those activities of the US Government and oversee those activities. Some of the activities of the US Government involve killing people. Some of those activities involve making life less than pleasant for some people.

All General Officer Appointments and Promotions must be confirmed by the US Senate. The idea that
some generals are running around doing things that the US Senate would disapprove of is ridiculous. Presidents get 4 year terms and are limited to 8 years. Senators get 6 year terms and frequently last 30 years.

Who confirms the appointments at Newsweek? Who determines whether the policies of Newsweek are in the best interest of the United States? Who has the power to relieve the editor of Newsweek of command?

It's an important question, because Newsweek has the power to start a Holy War.

[Carl]

"The idea that
some generals are running around doing things that the US Senate would disapprove of is ridiculous."

But that's exactly what happened. There's a BGen who was demoted for violations within her command that fostered abuses at a prison in Baghdad. There are other high-ranking officers who are receiving reprimands for their inability to safeguard detainees under their control.

The Senate CANNOT do this. The legislature can hold hearings, enact laws, cut off dollars to some programs or fund others. Congress has done all of these things in response to failings by the troops in the field.

I say this with great regret. The shame of Abu Ghraid and other camps is that the transgressors have demeaned not only themselves and U.S. foreign policy, but the vast majority of officers and troops who would never harm an IPW.

You make a valid point, however, about Newsweek. The reporters, unlike combatants in the field, do not swear to uphold the constitution of the United States. But they're not charged with doing so.

They exist because the free market says they should. If Newsweek can't justify the price of its subscription, then jobs will be cut. If there is no commercial want for it, then it will go away.

It's a private enterprise, so the leadership of the newsmagazine is beholden only to the subscribers and shareholders who make the business work. You elect them, or fire them, by choosing to buy their product or not.

Of course, there is also a court system that scaffolds any press outlet. Libel law could penalize the magazine commercially, and refusing to give testimony in court could lead to criminal prosecutions.

As for Newsweek's "ability to start a holy war," I would humbly suggest that the divide between religious firebrands and their more secular foes is as old as Islam itself, indeed as old as the formation of nation states out of theocratic regimes, and Newsweek, at best, provided fodder in a longer running battle within Islam itself.

I get the nagging feeling that the same sorts who used Newsweek to fuel riots, would just as soon use their own literature to do the same, and will continue to do so in the future.

Al Qadea managed to ram four jets into a skyscraper, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania cornfield without the help of Newsweek, and will continue to plot future attacks whether Maureen Dowd remains on the NY Times editorial staff, or not.

[Blackfive]

Carl - I think Bay is saying that Newsweek is making the same mistake that Rumsfeld made (ie not understanding technology and it's ability to deliver information quickly). Because of that lack of understanding in their search for a "Nixon" that they believed they could retract with little impact. You can argue against THAT, but I don't see ANYTHING that could cause you to believe that Col Bay equates the two morally. Is it possible that you are you mistaking Greyhawk and Bay?

BTW, no where have I read or heard that everyone in the chain of command condoned torture of inmates at Abu Ghraib.

[Caren]

So, Newsweek fired "the shit heard round the world."

Newsweek handed a total propaganda gun to Al Quada ... based on rumor and falsehood.

The Abu Gharib story was true ... and frankly, I do not see why it was so important to have released the photo's. The story had been broken in print, by the Pentagon months before Newsweek got the photo's. It was not fresh, it was not timely .. breaking it served only to increase ratings, embarass Rumsfeld, and ohyah -- give Al Quada a reason to carry on.

Look -- the media has a right to run a story, and we have the right to read it -- but ... how many Americans do Rather, Mapes and Newsweek feel comfortable killing? For that matter, how bad does the mainstream media want Pat Tillford's family to feel -- that particular story was broken two years ago .. and editors STILL manage to make headlines from it.

Freedom of speech entails something called responsibility.

And, Carl -- sure. Al Quada makes up its own propaganda as well. Isn't it just hunky dandy, tho, when our own American Media hands them a doozy on a silver platter?

Oh, and BTW ... is anyone else aware that Al Quada trains its members to scream torture whenever they're captured ... and to make up stories that will incite the folks back home against the enemy (US)?

For documentation on my statements, check out http://cuppapolitics.blogspot.com/2005/05/newsweek-shit-heard-round-world.html

[Beth]

Carl, as Blackfive points out in his comment above, as far as we know, the chain of command was not aware of what was going on.

Just because the BGen and the LtCol (for example) were punished doesn't mean they were condoning what happened. They were punished for (among other smaller things) a lack of leadership and/or inadequate training/supervision of those under them, which created an environment where extensive mistreatment of prisoners was possible. In most cases, military leaders are held responsible for their subordinates' behavior, even if the leaders were unaware of it at the time.

[Blackfive]

Carl Prine was a Marine so I am sure he understands the responsibility issue. Just hadn't read that the chain of command condoned anything.

[Beth]

Oops, sorry. Didn't know about Carl. My apologies to all...

[jordan]

Carl,
A reporter was "told by a normally reliable source" about the Koran being defiled? How do you know that? There is no evidence that such an anonymous source exists, or that an anonymous source backtracked on it once pressed. The only thing we have on that is Isikoff's say so, which is worth about half a cup of coffee. (Yeah, I know. He has a great reputation.)

The media can continue to rather effeminately blame the Pentagon, 1. for not killing the story when given the chance, and 2. for this alleged "source" being a DOD official. They can continue to pursue this line of attack until the source is outed, or proven to be a figment of Isikoff's fevered imagination.

The other bewildering aspect of this is how supposedly smart people can, hook, line and sinker, uncritically accept the word of released criminal terrorists that this happened. Not one shred of skepticism have I heard that perhaps they were lying.

The defensive and nasty tone on the part of the White House Press Corps today questioning Scott McClellan, says it all. Terry Moran asked, with the petulant sarcasm of a 7th grade girl, when the White House spokesman became editor of Newsweek. Then a reporter named Elizabeth hissed "What, you mean we're supposed to write a story that makes the military look great?"
(Transcript-White House Press Office website.)

This is the mentality we are dealing with. Rebellious, over-pampered adolescents whose recklessness could one day get everyone killed because they do not understand the nature of the enemy.
I have never seen such pious sanctimony as I have from the MSM today as they circled their rusty, tired old wagons.
Finally, enough of Abu Graib. Abu Graib's been done, wrapped up, and tied with a pink bow. I don't give a metrosexual's patootie about Abu Graib. It happened, it was blown out of proportion, and now its over. The end.

[Michele San Pietro]

Richard Nixon was guilty and it was right that he had to resign, whereas now we are having to do with scoundrels who make up stories out of whole cloth not in order to improve America, but to destroy it...

[Carl]

Bravo Fife,

The actual defense of the (now) LtCol actually was that her command was ordered by civilian authorities in the prison to "soften up" the detainees for questioning. She believed such conduct was not only lawful, but important to make sure other soldiers in the field weren't killed. She was simply following orders and didn't pay much attention to the details.

It boggles my mind that professional officers would say that. THe officer corps in all of our services have long defended the rights of IPWs, in all our conflicts, and would consider an attack on a prisoner in their care to be an attack on their own dignity as officers.

This has been especially true in the all-volunteer force.

"There is no evidence that such an anonymous source exists, or that an anonymous source backtracked on it once pressed."

We have the mea culpa from Newsweek, themselves. If that's not good enough for you, I don't know what to tell you. If you ask for reporters to name their hidden sources of information, then you might as well ask the free press to disappear and we can simply accept various governmental authorities for their perspective on what happened yesterday.

"(U)ncritically accept the word of released criminal terrorists that this happened."

Actually, the detainees who have made the allegations were released with NO criminal charges nearly three years after they were rounded up in Afghanistan. DoD now believes they were tossed into the mix by mistake, often handed over by Afghani warlords, and were not in Al Qaeda.

Some of these people included human rights workers from the Arab world, and their plight drew protests from our ally in the war, Kuwait, which helped get them released.

Their allegations are part of a pending civil suit against our government. According to the Pentagon, they are not and have never been terrorists (otherwise, they would not have been released).

If they weren't Al Qaeda supporters before the war, one can imagine they might be now -- assuming their claims are true, and the finders of fact in the federal judicial system will work that out.

That's why this is so precious:

"Finally, enough of Abu Graib. Abu Graib's been done, wrapped up, and tied with a pink bow. I don't give a metrosexual's patootie about Abu Graib. It happened, it was blown out of proportion, and now its over. The end."

Ahhhh. Perhaps it's "over" in the U.S. -- tell that to the U.S. Senate -- but it's hardly "over" in the Middle East, where some of us still have to work from time to time. If you really believe that all those Mesopotamian metrosexuals are aflutter over U.S. press coverage of the prison scandal, you're wrong. They're disgusted, as I believe the vast majority of Americans are, by the criminal immorality of a bunch of stupid thugs who, unfortunately, came wrapped not in a pink bow but in Army utilities.

The parade of them in their uniforms before the courts martial has been depressing, and I'm afraid the very public outing of their crimes -- and the resulting punishments -- hasn't made much of dent in Iraq.

I hope I'm wrong, ultimately, about that.

I can assure you that in Iraq, even amongst our Shiite allies, Abu Ghraid is a nasty reminder of that foreign policy failure. Perhaps most bracing is that the half-witted commanders of the prison didn't comprehend that their methods might possibly inflame the insurrection and get other Americans killed.

Or is that just Isikoff's burden?

The irony, of course, is that you presume to understand the "enemy." I have been shot at by Al Qaeda once in my life, have documented the rise of the clandestine transnational movement in Africa when the CIA could care less about them, and watched them slowly become absorbed into the larger insurgency in Iraq, where I'm sure a few bullets fired at me came from the rifles of Al Q sympathizers.

I speak the languages, study their tactics, converse with men worldwide tasked with killing them, and even after all that I humbly retreat whenever I'm asked to explain the protean nature of the Jihadist subcultures.

Michael Isikoff probably didn't expect that a Periscope bullet pointed story would become fodder for a nascent religious revolt in Afghanistan or Pakistan. But shouldn't the U.S. have realized that Abu Ghraid and GITMO -- which have done far more damage to our national reputation than Newsweek will ever do -- would be tough sells in the Islamic world?

Not the detention of known terrorists, but the alleged torture of suspects, many of whom we now admit were innocent?

Hell, some of them were illiterate Afghani farmers. They spent years in GITMO because they were rounded up to fill a warlord's quota of suspects.

The tone of your posting is even more surprising. Larded with words such as "metrosexual" and "effeminate," one wonders if you bothered to share these sentiments with the families of the 27 reporters killed in Iraq this year? You know, the ones who were beheaded, burned, tortured, shot and starved, at far greater proportions to their actual ranks than the fallen from the Coalition forces?

By the way, last week I had the chance to interview three of the surviving members of Easy Co., the "Band of Brothers" paratroopers immortalized by Stephen Ambrose and Tom Hanks. While I didn't put it into the story, you can imagine what they thought about the guards in the Abu Ghraid scandal.

Or maybe these men are just effeminate metrosexual kvetching about womanly concerns.

[Willysnout]

I agree that Newsweek is a spineless rag, but it's worthwhile to get the facts right about their error. Their mistake was to not verify the claim that the military was going to acknowledge the desecrations of the Korean in an internal report. The desecrations themselves actually happened, and have been extensively reported -- but mainly outside of the U.S., where the press is free and independent in contrast to our government-controlled media.

Incidentally, Newsweek wasn't the only one to make a mistake. When it reacted to the Newsweek story, the Pentagon denied any knowledge of the defilements. That was a lie. It's all in the links below

--------

Detainee statements about torture, including desecration of the Koran, plus other things. I've briefly described each link below the link.

http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/docs/Gitmo-compositestatementFINAL23july04.pdf

For statements on desecration of the Koran, see pp. 27, 37, 39, 91

http://www.cageprisoners.com/articles.php?id=7127

Interview with U.S. soldier with served at Gitmo. Plenty about torture, nothing about Korans.

http://www.cageprisoners.com/articles.php?id=6862

Interview with detainee who says U.S. troops urinated on the Koran

http://www.cageprisoners.com/articles.php?id=6130

Lawyer for detainees describes degradation. Nothing about the Koran.

http://www.cageprisoners.com/articles.php?id=1611

Detainee talks of torture and desecration of the Koran

http://www.crimesofwar.org/special/afghan/fsone.html

American war crime in Afghanistan. Nothing about Korans. Detainee testimony. The Americans were not prosecuted.

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/irq-280405-testimony-eng

Detainee reports torture

http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGMDE14310320042004

Amnesty Int'l says violence against Iraqi women has increased

http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/iraq/tagubarpt.html#FRother2.26

Pentagon confirms torture at Abu Ghraib but pretends it wasn't planned that way. Nothing about Korans.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2004/icrc_report_iraq_feb2004.htm

Red Cross report detailing US "series violations of international humanitarian law" in Iraq. Says inmates given Korans at one site, otherwise nothing.

http://hrw.org/reports/2004/afghanistan0304/index.htm

Human Rights Watch details U.S. brutality in Afghanistan. Note: HRW has also been highly critical of Arab governments, including the Saddam regime.

http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/021605.html

Pentagon "investigates" and whitewashes misconduct

http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/012405.html

See how the U.S. Army whitewashes its crimes

http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/FBI.121504.5016_5022.pdf

Detainee beaten by soldier who explains that it's because the solider is a christian and the detainee isn't

http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/122004.html

FBI e-mails with interesting stuff, but no Koran desecration

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050519/us_nm/religion_koran_icrc_dc_2

Red Cross says it complained about Koran desecration at Gitmo in 2002, and it was corrected

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050519/us_nm/religion_koran_icrc_dc_2

Initial Pentagon reaction to Newsweek Koran desecration story; spokesman claims "no credible reports" of desecration

http://au.news.yahoo.com/050518/19/uc2e.html
Afghan detainee says Gitmo guards desecrated Koran, prompting hunger strike

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/17/AR2005051701315.html

Allegations of Koran abuse including by former Gitmo chaplain

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/subcontinent/2005/May/subcontinent_May659.xml§ion=subcontinent&col=

Former prisoner alleges Koran desecration

[jordan]

As usual, you take one comment and turn into something its not. Abu Graib was terrible, and should be punished, as it is. It was a horrible insult to the Islamic world, and was awful. It is the extent of MEDIA COVERAGE of Abu Graib that I am taking issue with, as opposed to its actual occurance. Trying to turn the comment to appear otherwise is not appropriate. With all your experience and expertise in the field, is its coverage in U.S. media proportional to all the other things the military is doing over there?
Of course military officers take particular offense at such terrible things. No one needs a lecture about that. It was truly a reprehensible and heinous event that tarnished them and the country. Global anger about it is truly justified. To say it is overcovered is not the same as slamming journalists who gave their lives covering Iraq, although where that one came from, I don't know. Are you sure you are clear on my comments, as opposed to Michelle Maulkin and Ann Coulter?
And you shouldn't be calling the men who inspired the Band of Brothers metrosexuals and effeminate. They are true heroes, we should be hearing more about them, and very much respect what they did.

[Willysnout]

"No one needs a lecture?" Au contraire, the U.S. should hold war crimes trials over this stuff. Rumsfeld and Bush should be in the dock. It was not a series of isolated incidents, it was the result of torture having been officially made part of U.S. military tactics. Same methods in Cuba, Iraq and Afghanistan, with sexual humiliation being a major component.

The real tragedy here is that the U.S. military has known for a long time that torture doesn't work. There's a classic document from the Marine Corps written in 1943 about how to interrogate Japanese P.O.W.s that counsels respect, good treatment and cultural sensitivity as being the most productive tactics.

If the USMC, which suffered casualties as high as 70% in some units during WW2 and whose prisoners were treated horribly by the Japanese, could conduct itself that way then, there is no excuse for the torture of Iraqi prisoners and, at times, random civilians in this war.

Nor is there any excuse for the desecration of Korans and other calculated cultural and religious sensitivities by our soldiers. It's just stupid, and the military should find and punish whoever send the message to do it. Unfortunately, the U.S. has no effective means of discpline when the orders come from the very top.

Someone in authority should have had the integrity to blow the whistle on this policy, which will not only prove ineffective in this war but will do incalculable damage to the United States and its citizens in the decades to come.

[Michele San Pietro]

It's clear a desecration of the Koran from U.S. soldiers never existed, it is not like American servicemen to do such stupid things, I myself strongly dislike religious terrorism, but I respect every religion as such and it would never come my mind to commit such desecrations...

[Willysnout]

Michele, denying the truth doesn't make it go away.

[Michele San Pietro]

I think you should say this to yourself...