More on the Blogger Roundtables & Mr. Silverstein

Posted By Grim

Mr. Silverstein has a rebuttal to the earlier piece I wrote on his attack on the Bloggers' Roundtables.  This one is somewhat more measured and careful, so I'll meet him halfway and attempt a measured discussion of the topic.  It is an important topic because, as I mentioned below, it is important for the country that the people understand that the military belongs to all Americans.  It is not opposed, even politically, to any group of Americans; it takes its oath to the Constitution, and our common liberty.

Mr. Silverstein wants you to consider this:

Hence, no matter how participants would like to describe the effort, it’s quite clear that the Pentagon views it as a propaganda program. Just look at the titles of the talks:

• Iraq Training Team Commander Expresses Confidence Iraqis Will Succeed
• Afghan Police Training Mirrors Army Success
• Iraq Rebuilding Progress Should Be Taken in Context, General Says
• Soldiers’ Armor Best in the World, General Says
• Iraq Situation ‘Winnable,’ Multi-National Force Official Says

That’s why it’s hard to agree when Grim at Black Five says that the bloggers aren’t briefed by administration officials, but by career military men who are not “political figures.” The briefers may not be elected, but they do seem to be spinning (unless, of course, Iraq is going great and every major news outlet, including many on the right, is lying to us)....

It all comes down to a simple question, one I’ll let the reader answer on his or her own: are you comfortable with the Pentagon, under any administration, picking its personal media intermediaries in an effort to get its message out?

Well, let's answer that question.  Are you comfortable with the existence of the American Forces Press Service?

I ask that because the titles to which Mr. Silverstein refers are the titles of the AFPS articles generated by what are in fact professional journalists, not by the bloggers or the civilian leadership.  If you look at the Blogger's Roundtable Homepage, you'll see the titles to which Mr. Silverstein refers.  They are followed by a blurb, and then a link that says "Story."  Follow that, and you're taken to the AFPS article, as the AFPS writes up every one of these talks as a news story for its news service.

Now, as far as I know, there's no controversy about the existence of the AFPS.  That is precisely "the Pentagon, under any administration, picking its personal media intermediaries."  They're the ones who generated the headlines and whatever "spin" is in the AFPS articles, not the military officers quoted.

What the Bloggers' Roundtables are most like is like a general visiting the VFW or some other citizen organization for a chat, or to give a talk and take questions.  The AFPS would probably write that up too, and give it a similarly glowing headline, without it generating controversy.  The general might take hard questions or relatively easy ones -- Navy Captain Gilbeau felt my last question to him was a softball, but that's only because he had a good answer to my question about microloans in Iraqi rebuilding.  I gave Col. Bouchard a similarly basic question about his operations, and he -- I think I can say this in fairness to the gentleman -- didn't have an answer. 

We're citizens here, as I said, engaged in citizenship.  If a military officer or NCO wants to talk to us, given that we have a wide readership among current and former military, it's like being able to get thousands of vets into a room for the American Legion.  And if the AFPS writes it up with a pretty headline, that's what the AFPS does.

Mr. Silverstein originally tried to write this up as some sort of sinister conspiracy at DOD to manipulate public opinion or something like that.  In fact, they're just participating in and informing the public debate, as they have always done with bricks-and-mortar citizen organizations.  The full transcripts and audio recordings of these meetings are published online for the world to see and consider, and respond to if they like.  The military is not engaged in politics here:  it's engaging interested citizens, which it has every right -- and indeed a certain duty -- to do.

UPDATE:  Danger Room notes that OSD approved their request to add two progressive milbloggers to the roundtables in under half an hour.  I'm not actually familiar with either of these writers -- although I look forward to talking to them -- but that would tend to undercut the idea that there is some sort of "conservatives only" approval process.  In fact, the quickness of the reply suggests there's not much of an approval process at all, beyond confirming that you're both a blogger and someone who writes about military affairs.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2819/20343682

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More on the Blogger Roundtables & Mr. Silverstein:

» Alert The Media! The Surge Is Working! from Villainous Company
Question for the ages: is a statement like this a searing indictment of supposedly 'unbiased' war reporting, or just evidence of Congressional incompetence? VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and c... [Read More]

Comments

[Cannoneer No4]

Mr. Silverstein originally tried to write this up as some sort of sinister conspiracy at DOD to manipulate public opinion or something like that.

Every attempt by any Republican administration or elements therof, including DoD, to positively influence the American domestic target audience is going to be painted as a sinister conspiracy, by the same people who have much to gain from aiding and abetting the enemy's strategic comunications campaign.

Strategically, insurgent campaigns have shifted from military campaigns supported by information operations to strategic communications campaigns supported by guerrilla and terrorist operations. -- T.X. Hammes

The military must stay in its own lane. -- Grim, on another thread on this topic

Nobody in the government is going to do much to oppose the enemy's strategic communications campaign. Half of their political masters profit from the enemy's unchallenged, unopposed, unmitigated 24/7/365 barrage.

The Regulars are checked. Irregulars must step up, or America loses this iteration of the war, and we can send our children and younger siblings back out in 2017 to finish the job that didn't get finished in 1991 or 2008.

May as well be hung for a sheep as a goat. If we are going to be accused of sinister conspiracies anyway, public affairs aren't the people to be dealing with. Counter propaganda is a PSYOP mission.

[Grim]

I'm not sure that this is an effort by a "Republican administration" to "positively influence" the debate. I think it's an effort by the US military to inject facts into the debate.

My sense about it has been, and remains, that the military is here trying to answer what I've called "questions of fact." Those answers may have an effect on the resolution of the "questions of politics," as such questions (hopefully!) will be influenced by the situation on the ground.

That fact, however, doesn't make this an improper military incursion into the political realm. Rather, it would be irresponsible for the military not to provide the citizenry with the benefit of its understanding of the facts around its operations.

[Cannoneer No4]

I don't think the general population distinguishes between Army General Officers and civilian political appointees in the Department of Defense of a Republican Commander-in-Chief. I think we lost that strategic communications battle back when the Soviets were still around. Most of our countrymen just think of them as "Pentagon spokesmen."

And any inconvenient facts will be ignored, misrepresented, and politicized by the gored oxen.

[Grimmy]

There is nothing honest or honorable about those on the left that are making accusations such as listed above.

They work for the best interests of our enemy. They do so knowingly, willingly and overtly. Their only interest is in assisting those who stand against the US, no matter the reason, no matter the cause.

[Synova]

I believe it was on BigLizards blog, but I remember reading about the effect on Soviet (Russian?) morale as soldiers returned from Afghanistan. The government could control the media but couldn't control what returning soldiers told their friends and family.

We don't have a government controlled media. In fact the one we have seems to think that if they aren't opposing the government (at least this administration) that they aren't being honest.

If you think about that it means that there is only one acceptable thing to report from Iraq and it's not success.

But if the media is controlled by government or not, the media can not stop the reports of returning soldiers. That part remains the same.

[liyak]

Politics is always,bent the wrong way!Look at our land,full of crimes through drugs,alchohol and weapons,etc.

[Basil Riverdale]

A citizen's opinion of our military will be colored by his notions of who and what the military really is. The narrative from the Left reads as follows: The military is a politically partisan branch of the vast right-wing, military-industrial complex, in the service of an economic system that requires constant threats and acts of war to keep the engines of capitalism fueled. Such a person will be predisposed to believe nothing General Patreus has to say. Harry Reid has already said as much. Such a belief implies that military commanders will sacrifice the lives of their men in pursuit of a political agenda.

Experience with or actual service in the military informs the citizen of precisely the opposite. Patreus must use empirical data to assess the success or failure of his mission precisely because the lives of his troops are on the line. The well being of the men under his command is his first priority. To assume otherwise is to display ignorance of military culture.

The mainstream media doesn't get it because they neither trust nor understand the military. They tend always to fall back on the preconceived narrative. What might fix this is more embedded reporters. Sadly, Michael Yon is one of the few doing the job. Only familiarity with military culture can alter the perception.

[MICHAEL in MI]

GRIM - My take is simple: the leftists do not like the facts coming out about the war effort, because it goes against their political agenda, so they have to find a way to smear and discredit the messenger so people disregard the facts as "propaganda".

That's pretty much it. They can write whatever articles and use however many words and analysis they want. I don't care. The fact is that they don't like the fact that we are succeeding and progressing in Iraq. Period.

You are much too kind to Mr. Silverstein. But I understand those of you in the military unfortunately have to compromise like this in order to attempt to get the Left to understand things.

But I hope you all are not naive enough to think the Left will ever see things other than how they want to see them. Just look at President Bush's "New Tone" nonsense. Nice idealistic way of going about things, but the Left sees compromise and niceness by their opponents the same way al Qaeda and our enemies see compromise by the West: as a form of weakness to be exploited even more.

Personally, I have been frustrated by the military's (in my opinion) weak stance with regards to the (in my opinion) treasonous media efforts to undermine the war with enemy propaganda, shoddy biased reporting and outright lies. However, I had a military friend of mine explain to me that the military really does not have a choice, they have to go easy on the media in order to try to get them to report the facts. Personally, I'd like to hear everyone in the military come out and give the media a big "F YOU! F OFF!" and just disregard them and go through other channels to get out the facts. Unfortunately, I know that is not reality as the blogs do not have a large enough readership to be considered mainstream, getting out to the majority of the public.

But the reality is that to the Left, this is all about politics and nothing more. They don't care about anything positive, they don't care about successes, they don't care about progress, they don't care about the men and women of the military, they don't care about the Iraqis. They care ONLY for political power in America. Period. That's it. So *everything* they say and do is for the furthering of that goal.

That is the prism through which we all need to see the Left.

Though I applaud you in your efforts, however I do hope you do not believe the Left is ever going to come around.

[madconductor]

Well, I thought Silverstein was going to be a bit more persuasive about the cheap shot he's throwing at the milboggers. But he is doing exactly what he is accusing the milbloggers of doing - raising a question he already has his own opinionated answer for.

When he broadbrushes the DOD PR program, he lists the four (well, now there's only three) components as though the entire program was a joke to begin with. It certainly suggests that Silverstein is quite content to be informed by the al-Qaeda web sites rather than the talking points of our own military. Nevertheless, Silverstein seems to only take umbrage on point four, the program Mr. Healey runs, as somehow having an some intrinsic bias to cover the White House administration.

"Unlike with the bloggers, there is apparently no public disclosure of the other groups working with the Pentagon’s spin operation. Hence, no matter how participants would like to describe the effort, it’s quite clear that the Pentagon views it as a propaganda program." - a Silverstein opinionated fact.

Silverstein's disgruntling whine is not an effort to counter what the Roundtables are saying - but simply an effort to discredit the Roundtable itself - thereby throwing mud on the wall and hoping something sticks. Dumocrats use the same techniques to frame the notion "We have Lost!" over and over again. And they have been somewhat successful, according to recent polls.

What Silverstein seems to really be complaining about the loudest is his exclusion to the roundtable. I vote we let the man in and wait for the first baited question that will focus more on some political point rather than facts on the ground. The bloggers and readers themselves will then give him a fine welcome.

Silverstein will probably never be able to understand that he himself represents the very reason many of us readers (and bloggers) have turned to the milblogs for information. His own self served opinions on what he thinks is going on have never served the blogging world view, especially the milblogs and their readers (like me). Our interest in getting reliable information - what's working, what isn't, and why - from the Roundtables is not "spun" by some opinionated jerk that - as Synova puts it - ... means that there is only one acceptable thing to report from Iraq and it's not success." We are more interested in "unspinning" the Antique Media and getting a more realistic picture of the operations. We can make and draw our own conclusions - thank you - without some discrediting whiner trying to knock on the door just to let people know he's here. And as for your specious summary question, Silverstein, it deserves no consideration since you obviously have your own previously proclaimed opinionated answer.

As for me, I'll read the Roundtable discussions as part of any reasonable strategy of getting information. I'll also probably come across things you write, Silverstein. Though you seem to be more interested in discrediting your own country's effort at informing the public than you are of writing something factual.

[Grim]

"You are much too kind to Mr. Silverstein. But I understand those of you in the military unfortunately have to compromise like this in order to attempt to get the Left to understand things."

Well, I believe that important and sensitive issues deserve to be treated with a certain seriousness of mind. The question of the military's stature, of its alliance with all Americans, is a matter of the utmost importance. I don't want heated rhetoric to get in the way of understanding. He stood down his rhetoric a bit, and I'm prepared to do the same; hopefully we can come to a common understanding on this issue, so that the public won't be left with the impression that the military is conspiring against them instead of simply trying to inform them of what it is doing in their name.

Just to be clear, I am not currently "in the military." Some of the B5 bloggers are; others are vets; I think Laughing Wolf is a pure civilian if I understand correctly. I enlisted in the Marine Corps back in the early 1990s, but was medical'd out well before the end of my term of service. My involvement in the current war has been as a contractor, not as a servicemember, as I found I was medically ineligible to return to service following 9/11. I tried, of course, and there was a time when I thought we'd cleared up the paperwork and it was going to work out -- but when I went down to MEPS, hoping to be en route to Marine Corps OCS, they turned me down again. So, you do what you can; I couldn't be in uniform, but I could do contract work, so I did that instead.

The honor that goes with the service belongs to others. I'm just trying to help fellow citizens understand what's going on in Iraq and elsewhere, and to learn how to think about military history, military science, COIN and other warfighting theory, and so forth. I think an informed citizenry that can approach these issues critically would be of great benefit to our country; but our public education includes little even in the way of military history, and does not approach the other topics at all. As a result, a large percentage of our citizens -- even those engaged in politics -- have no idea how to evaluate the information they get (from the media or elsewhere) about the wars and conflicts in which our nation is sometimes involved.

That's my interest in blogging about the war, and in these Roundtables. I think they're a very useful step in that direction.

[Soldier's Mom]

Here is the link to Alpha Company, 1/18 Command Section:

http://www.1-18in.2bct.1id.army.mil/alpha.htm

It shows the Commander and First Sergeant. You can use their names and go to AKO to get their e-mails.

[Basil Riverdale]

Grim, I need to set you straight on one point; I'm a civilian. I have never served, though I am somewhat familiar with military culture.

However, I do understand something of political culture having spent most of my life in or around Washington. First, the democratic leaders in congress do not believe as their constituents do. You are correct in your assertion that the leadership believes in power and nothing else. All of their issues from minimim wage, to global warming, to "social justice", et. al. are merely cynical attempts to manipulate the electorate. Judging by the poor approval ratings for congress and the disaffection of people like Cindy Sheehan, I think the rank and file is starting to question the authenticity of its leadership. I think Sanders and Kucinich are the only real dyed-in-wool social utopians, and they are rather marginal characters. What the far left really wants will never come about because it's a fantasy fit only for children, an example of adolescent thinking that never matured.

Nevertheless, I think the press can be reached. The embedded reporting at the beginning of the war tended to be generally positive. Why? Because the reality overwhelmed the preconceived narrative. Our men in uniform are not brutes and murderers. There has never been a more professional and humane army in history. But a journalist needs to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our guys in the field before the reality can be realized. Once the reality becomes internalized, you get a convert. Put Silverstein in Michael Yon's boots for a month, and he'll start singing a different tune. The truth has teeth. Reality bites.

[Grim]

I'm not sure you aren't confusing me and Grimmy; I don't think I said anything quite like 'the Democratic leadership is interested in power and nothing more.'

I think some of the press can be reached. In fact, I'm hoping that we can come to an accomodation with Mr. Silverstein -- as I said above, I appreciate his dialing back his own rhetoric, and want to respond in kind. I'd like to resolve this matter amicably, because I want to make sure that the readers of Harpers' aren't left with the idea that the military is conspiring against them.

It's just doing what it's always done with bricks-and-mortar citizen organizations. The AFPS headlines read more or less the same now as they always have. The transcripts and the audio are published, so it's not like you don't know what's been discussed or have to take our word for what the contents of the discussions were. Everyone can listen in, and is free to comment.

[RonF]

"Progressive milblogger", eh?

Tell me; do you consider their viewpoints and their desired outcomes as progress?

If not, then why refer to them as "progressive"? Why support their rhetoric?

[Grim]

Ron:

As awful as the abortion debate is, at least for a time there was a truce where each side was allowed to describe itself on its own terms: "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice." That truce has collapsed, so that the sides now refer to their opponents as "Anti-Choice" or "Pro-Abortion."

While that change probably means that each side of the debate is showing a more complete fidelity to its beliefs, I can't say that the change has improved either the quality of the debate or the situation of the country.

"Progressive" describes a specific political program, not a commitment to progress. I'll let them call themselves what they like, and debate the program with them. In return, I'd like to be called what I'd prefer ("a gentleman of the old fashion"), and will be glad to engage them in a debate on my own preferred reforms if they'd like one.