The Blue Voice

Friday, October 27, 2006

Checking out a "milblog"

I just came across a "milblog" (military blog) started by a couple of soldiers that has apparently attracted a fair amount of attention: Tanker Brothers. The two brothers have been deployed in combat in Iraq. One of them is back there now and the other is returning soon. Actually, they're apparently turning over the blogging for now to some relatives and/or friends.

These bloggers are clearly in favor of the Iraq War and the tone is pretty rah-rah. This 10/26/06 post is more of a reflection on military policy toward blogging and opposing military censorship:

Every day people are using these internet formats to reach out to other people, build friendships, online communities, support each other in times of need. I truly believe it would be detrimental to the emotional well being of these people to be forced to endure censorship. I think we need to give credit where credit is due. Their stake in their own security is far greater than ours, of course they aren't going to do anything to endanger themselves or the lives of others. The blogs typically take on a more personal aspect anyway. What Milbogs do is encourage patriotism amongst the country men and women of our brave soldiers, encourage support and educate people to the hardships these soldiers face on a daily basis to ensure our continuing freedom.

Based on the limited polling we've seen on active-duty servicepeople in Iraq, those like the Tanker Brothers who (more-or-less) support the Cheney-Bush policies on the war are a definite minority. I checked out a couple of their posts where they address policy issues in some way.

In a post of 10/24/06 featuring a photo of an Army Cavalry Scout in a combat setting, we see:

These are the guys, along with Tankers, Infantrymen, and MP's, that are kicking in doors and taking out terrorists.

This, Tanker Brothers and Sisters, is the face of the valiant efforts of the United States Military: our Fathers, Sons, Grandsons, Nephews, and Brothers putting their lives on the line, every single day, to provide for the Iraqi people something they have never known: Freedom.

And as I have mentioned before: a Free Iraq promotes a stable Middle East. A stable Middle East ensures security for the entire world.

As a motivational posture or a general tribute or an advertisement for recruits, there's nothing especially notable about this.

But that's also true for its policy implications. Whether the Shi'a-fundamentalist national government, such as it is, is free, or cities in the south like Basra or Amarrah that are dominated by even more strict fundamentalists, is a factual matter very different from how bravely or competently Army scouts are performing their combat tasks. And if they are trying to tell us that Iraq is stable and making the Middle East more stable, then they're operating strictly on a faith-based approach.

I would certainly like to believe that the American intervention would at least wind up increasing Iraq's chances to have a more free and democratic government and that it would become stable and prosperous again. But it's a long way from that right now.

In More Troops Needed? Not So Fast... 10/24/06, they challenge the idea that more troops are needed in Iraq. It begins, though, by complaining about a news article the writer finds "downright insulting":

U.S. Says More GIs May Be Needed in Iraq [AP 10/24/06]

Now, I did a simple search of the text article, and guess what?

3 instances of "Sectarian" referring to violence or killing

3 instances of American or US deaths

The obligatory mention of how many US Servicemen have died in the Iraq War: 2,801

Instances of the word "Terrorist"? ZERO

The article is a straight-forward news account of the press conference this week by Gen. George Casey, top US commander in Iraq, and US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, in which they talked about their promised benchmarks and Casey suggested more US troops might be required.

Just for a reality-check, I searched it as well. I saw mention of two US deaths and a kidnapping of an American soldier. I found three mention of "sectarian", one of them in a quotation from Khalilzad. I also find no use of the word "terrorist". It also refers to militias and death squads. The mention of American deaths is here:

October has been the deadliest month this year for American forces. The military Tuesday announced the deaths of two more U.S. Marines, a sailor and a soldier. Since the start of the war, 2,801 U.S. service members have died in Iraq, according to an Associated Press count.

Then they link an article at the CENTCOM Web site that was "Compiled from Multinational Corps Iraq press releases" about fighting in Iraq: Iraqi Soldiers, Police score multiple victories against terrorists and insurgent forces American Forces Press Service 10/24/06.

CENTCOM once e-mailed The Blue Voice and asked us to put a link to their news page on our blog. We declined to do so. Unlike other military sources like Stars and Stripes, Military Review and Parameters, CENTCOM's site seems more propaganda- than news-oriented. Propaganda doesn't have to be false; the best propaganda isn't false. But it seemed to lean heavily toward only "good news", making its journalistic value more questionable.

The Tanker Brothers poster clearly approved of the CENTCOM piece while finding the AP news story "downright insulting".

This sounds to me like standard conservative complaining about the allegedly "liberal press". And this one doesn't really make sense. Casey and Kalilzad did have that news confernce and its focus was the performance of the Iraqi government. They mentioned the "sectarian" strife in particular because it becomes more of a problem daily. The Iraqi prime minister was insulted by the press conference, which he evidently was not invited or ordered to attend. I don't see what was insulting about the news reporting, though. Would they have preferred that AP not mention American deaths at all?

The CENTCOM press-release compilation article was specifically about military engagements. I don't see that this tells us anything more than that the poster prefers to read about military engagements than about the political developments. Which is neither good nor bad in itself. Or maybe he just like to see the enemy, whoever it may be, called "terrorists". But the post goes on:

You still have your three mentions of "sectarian", but guess what? You have two mentions of the guys we're actually fighting! Terrorists [bold].

So...who am I to believe? The Associated Press, reporting from the safety of their hotel rooms in the Green Zone? Or the combat journalists that are actually on the ground, keeping track of all the bad guys we're making sure never threaten Iraqi Civilians. ever again?

Say what? It was Gen. Casey, not the AP reporter, who brought up the possible need for more troops. Presumably the press conference took place in the Green Zone, though the article doesn't say. But is the poster not aware that conditions in Iraq are so insecure that most reporters are highly reluctant to go outside the Green Zone because they could easily be killed or kidnapped? And war correspondents tend not to be risk-averse types. The article itself reports on an Iraqi-American soldiers who went to visit relatives in Baghdad and was kidnapped.

And the second article they cite talks about specific tactical engagements, not about countrywide troop levels. (Does "compiled from Multinational Corps Iraq press releases" equal reporting by "combat journalists"?) And yet he somehow concludes that the two articles show a difference between "combat journalists" and the AP reporters on Gen. Casey analysis of countrywide troop levels. Doesn't make any sense to me. Or maybe he means that because the second article uses "terrorists" that this somehow refutes something about "sectarian" fighters? Still doesn't make sense.

He concludes:

Listen: maybe we DO need more Soldiers in Iraq. Maybe we don't. Maybe, just maybe, we have what it takes, and perhaps we need to let Soldiers do what Soldiers do best: fight and win the War in the streets of Baghdad, Ramadi, Fallhujah, and other hotbeds of Terrorist activity.

Maybe we need to let Soldiers do their jobs, and not worry about their efforts being trivialized by a hostile media, a hostile Anti-War movement, and a certain political party rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of having the power to pressure a withdrawal from Iraq before the job is done.

Maybe, just maybe, we need to worry less about "hurting people's feelings" in Iraq, and let US Soldiers fly the Stars and Stripes with pride from their vehicles. Maybe we need to "cut 'em loose" to hunt down and take the fight to the bad guys, to send a clear message: targeting of innocent civilians will not be tolerated, and will be met with the most extreme violence that the power of the United States Military can bring.

The only suggestion of an actual change I see in those paragraphs is to allow US flags to be flown from military vehicles.

The rest just sounds like the standard blowhard white-guy rant. Meanwhile, Bush is saying over and over that he's providing everything our generals say they need for fighting in Iraq. And the generals who report to him have been agreeing with him. What are these tougher measures that the Tanker Brothers suggest be taken? Why should their fellow citizens and fellow soldiers think Victory is around the corner if the only change they can suggest is stop worrying about "hurting people's feelings"?

Besides, Tom Engelhardt quoted something that the AP article didn't pick up from Gen. Casey's press conference (full transcript is here). The General said:

The American people already know what a magnificent job the men and women of their armed forces are doing here, and we continue to be grateful for their continuing support.

But they should also know that the men and women of the armed forces here have never lost a battle in over three years of war. That is a fact unprecedented in military history.

So why does the Tanker Brothers poster think the Army needs to do anything different? I mean, with an unbroken string of wins "unprecedented in military history", what more do they possibly need to do?

posted at 3:48:00 PM by Bruce Miller

| +Save/Share | |