Media Should Be Challenging Arguments For War, Not Baying For Blood

[Hissyspit]

Apparently there is a real need for this to be posted here...

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/04/media-challenging-arguments-war-baying-blood/

MEDIA SHOULD BE CHALLENGING ARGUMENTS FOR WAR, NOT BAYING FOR BLOOD

BY DAN FROOMKIN @froomkin YESTERDAY AT 12:50 PM

Washington’s elite media, as usual, is doing its job exactly wrong.

They are baying for war.

Pundits and reporters are seemingly competing for who can be more scornful of President Obama for his insufficiently militaristic response to the brutal Sunni militants who call themselves the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

They are gleefully parsing Obama’s language for weakness, and essentially demanding a major military assault — while failing to ask the tough questions about what if any good it could actually accomplish.

It’s not just that the lessons of the abject failure of the press corps in the run-up to war in Iraq seem to have been forgotten. Watching post-invasion reality in the region should have made it clear to anyone paying any attention at all that America is not omnipotent, and that military action kills not just enemies but innocent civilians, creates refugee crises, can spawn more enemies than it destroys, further destabilizes entire regions, and alters the future in unanticipated and sometimes disastrous ways.

- snip -

In a nation that considers itself peaceful and civilized, the case for military action should be overwhelmingly stronger than the case against. It must face, and survive, aggressive questioning.

- snip -

In the absence of a coherent opposition party or movement, it’s the Fourth Estate’s duty to ask those questions, and demand not just answers, but evidence to back up those answers.

The press corps shouldn’t be asking: Why isn’t Obama sounding tougher? It should be asking: What is he considering, and why the hell does he think it has any chance of working?

I asked a few experts who I respect and trust to propose some of the specific questions that the Obama administration should have to answer. (As I wrote in my inaugural blog post, one of my goals here it to serve as a megaphone for people who a) know what they’re talking about and b) have gotten things right in the past.)

- snip -

Retired Army Col. Douglas Macgregor, now a military scholar and author, summed up his questions in three words: “Purpose? Method? Endstate?”

MORE


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/03/what-to-do-about-isis_n_5760236.htmls

Sam Stein
[e-mail]

The Debate Over What To Do About ISIS Isn't Much Of A Debate

Posted: 09/03/2014 3:49 pm EDT Updated: 09/04/2014 10:59 am EDT

WASHINGTON -- The predominant feature in the debate over what, exactly, the U.S. should do about the threat of the Islamic State is that there really isn't much of a debate.

- snip -

“It seems unlikely that U.S. military action, even if assisted by surrogates on the ground, can ‘kill’ ISIS. At best, we will be able to significantly reduce its capabilities. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but then what?” said Andrew Bacevich, a professor at Boston University who was an outspoken critic of the Iraq war. “If the basic problem is instability — a problem extending far beyond Iraq/Syria, of course — then the big question is what if anything the U.S. and its allies can do to restore stability to the region. That’s where the debate ought to focus. I don’t get much sense of people taking on that issue, perhaps because it is truly a daunting one.”

MORE

[KurtNYC]

1. The GOP seems to believe that if Obama goes in before November it will hurt Dems

It looks like the US, Saudis, Israel and GB want to flip the regime in Syria. There is no up-side for Dem voters if we go in before November.

ISIS is (generously) estimated at 6,000 to 10,000 fighters in Toyota trucks -- notice how no one is saying we should help Assad crush them ? That is because ISIS is going to continue to be pimped as the reason we invade Syria (in November) and "stabilize" the region.

[librechik]

2. I've noticed there is some pushback, but I suspect it's only BMOO

Black Man in Oval Office.

Don't do anything that guy says. You can't trust him. Unlike Bush and Cheney.

All the networks are slaves of the MIC.

[sabrina 1]

3. I would expect no less from the Corporate Media, the propaganda arm of the MIC.

Expect Froomkin too to be thrown under the fleet of buses that have become necessary for what I have been are the 'anti-Americans' who dare to question the War Mongers.

Good article, glad we still have some journalists willing to stick their necks out at the risk of being labeled anti-Americans.

then the big question is what if anything the U.S. and its allies can do to restore stability to the region. That’s where the debate ought to focus. I don’t get much sense of people taking on that issue, perhaps because it is truly a daunting one.”

As for 'killing Isis', we were supposed to 'kill Al Queda' yet 13 years later apparently we failed. Well that is if ISIS as I heard on the Corporate Media yesterday, is just an 'expansion of Al Queda'. Sometimes we get conflicting assessments of the latest 'terror' threats from the Corporate Media, so this one two may change. But going with it, if we failed to 'kill Al Qaeda' after all this time and cost, in lives and money, what is the plan to 'kill' them now?

[n2doc]

4. 2 toons

[grahamhgreen]

5. Primary question: what's the mission. He'll, we all know it's really the oil.

[stevenleser]

6. Media should provide the facts as they exist, not invent ones to support your desired ends.

Iran is on board with the US going after ISIS. Iran who are more deeply suspicious of the US and its foreign policy actions than anyone on DU.

NATO is united behind this. They were not united behind the Iraq war.

[Hissyspit]

7. Well, let them pay for it.

I'm sure Iran loves us doing their dirty work for them.

Always got money for war, never for universal health care.

[stevenleser]

8. That is another issue. Your OP was about media coverage and it was wrongheaded. nt

[Hissyspit]

9. Not, it's not another issue, and no the OP is not wrongheaded.

You are arguing for the fairness bias, which is a false objectivity, whether you know it or not, and seem to be arguing against challenging the status quo and dominant narrative, also forms of bias.

[stevenleser]

10. You argued for media reporting other than the facts, then changed the subject to funding of

whatever it is that is going to happen re: ISIS.

Wrongheaded, and then changing the subject when you were challenged.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. I wouldn't go that far. There are some fairly fanatically anti-US DUers. N.T.

[spanone]

12. war = ratings. that's all our media is concerned about.

can a democracy exist when we have a media that worships money?

the victim is the truth.