Should the U.S. Military Use Troops as Propaganda Bloggers?
Image by slagheap via Flickr
I’m not sure this is the right way to try and win what is proving a very difficult war in Afghanistain:
Every time an American bomb kills civilians in Afghanistan, the U.S. loses another battle in the information war to the Taliban. And despite more accurate weapons, more careful targeting, and speedier responses to the press, the Pentagon can’t seem to figure out how to stop the setbacks in this decisive struggle for influence. A former top military official believes he may have the answer, however: let troops blog in combat, so they can ward off the accusations of atrocities as they fight.
Silly idea. Anyone who has spent even a minimal amount of time in the political blogosphere knows that bias taints even the most seemingly benign events. Why would anyone trust a US military blogger’s versions of events when the stated goal is to defray criticism of the US military. And isn’t the target of this blog offensive the Afghani people themselves? How many are surfing the net in order to shape an opinion of the conflict raging outside their doorstep? This is not the new model of journalism that the world needs (nor does it need the Taliban’s, for that matter).
This has been a rather disappointing day in the image war on terror, with President Obama reversing course and announcing that he won’t release that trove of images showing detainee abuse at the hands of US military personnel because it will be damaging to the image of US military personnel.
Likewise, wouldn’t a truth commission have the effect of tarnishing the image of the government officials who authorized torture? For that matter, don’t criminal trials routinely tarnish the image of the accused? Why are we continuing to lean on image and propaganda considerations when it comes to these very serious matters? Yes, civilian deaths happen in wartime, and they’ve been occurring at a disturbing rate of late in Afghanistan. The way to fix this problem is not to have some fast-typing, laptop toting soldier give us a dubious version of what really happened.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
“military personnel because it will be damaging to the image of US military personnel.”
Not what the president said, cheap shot David:
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f280coe6LMQ)
I’ve given this some thought today and if I was in the president’s position I’m not sure I would have done differently. What would you have done if you had a reasonable belief that releasing these photos would put our troops in further jeopardy.
You should really read Kaboom if you haven’t.
It’s a soldier’s blog from 2007-2008 until it was shut down because he badmouthed his superiors. It sure as hell gave me a much more in depth view of Iraq than what I was getting from the media. In general, I have found milblogs to be much more informative than anything from CNN or Fox.
http://kaboomwarjournalarchive.blogspot.com/
David,
It would be one thing to blog the truth as it happened, quite another to do what we would inevitably try and get away with. I can’t help but feel some disappointment with President Obama’s change of heart about releasing images of detainee abuse. I guess maybe Dick Cheney’s comments have gotten to him or at least made him second-guess himself. Transparency my ass.
I guess I am a little naive. It’s not necessarily a bad quality. I’d rather be naive and disappointed from time to time than cynical and jaded all of the time.
Sandy
It might be a little cynical to think that soldier bloggers would primarily be covering up stories or slanting them so it looks more favorable to us. I think it would be interesting to read first-hand accounts of what’s going on. If they’re not entirely honest, at least we’ll be getting more than some of the one-sided stories being publicized.
Brian,
What fun would it be if we agreed about everything? Actually, I read an interesting opinion that claimed by not releasing the photos, Obama might be preserving the likelihood of getting a fair trial for those who authorized the torture procedures.
I still think that burying the photos doesn’t much protect our troops. True, torturing detainees does put our troops at risk, but we did it, and now the question is, how do we move forward. I tend to err on the side of openness. Call me crazy.
I agree regarding openness too, my point being is there is a valid argument for not releasing the photos at this time, and claiming he’s attempting to “protect the image” of our troops I just don’t think is fair. My point being is the president is not just responsible to us on the issue, as commander in chief he has to consider the needs of our armed service people too.
In response to another comment. See in context »David, yes, this brings up the question of who is the actual audience for the tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars the military spends on its “IO” or information operations. Especially in Afghanistan where the illiteracy rate is very very high. And if you’re prone to read a military blogger, you’re probably already supporting whatever it is we’re doing in Afghanistan.
As for the pictures–I agree, let them see light.
sskelton,
I have read Kaboom. Pretty compelling stuff. The question is really about the government having official bloggers to disseminate propaganda. That seems very different to me.