SO WE’RE GOING TO WAR AGAIN, and "it seems barely newsworthy"

[99th_Monkey]

SO WE’RE GOING TO WAR AGAIN, AND ALL ANYONE WANTS TO TALK ABOUT IS THE OPTICS?
BY DAN FROOMKIN @froomkin

President Obama has started describing his new strategy to confront the Islamic State, and despite it being a mishmash of wishful thinking and perpetual militarism, the focus of the Washington elites in the press and elsewhere has been almost entirely on the optics: Is he overcoming the perception that he wasn’t doing enough? What will the political reaction be?

The question we should be asking, as I noted on Friday, is: Why the hell does he think it has any chance of working? Granted Obama isn’t talking about launching another all-out invasion ... but he is apparently planning on re-upping the country for another 3-year hitch in the endless war he used to talk about wrapping up.

~snip~

(Obama's) plan calls for stepped-up airstrikes, inevitably leading to civilian casualties; for the kind of Middle-Eastern diplomatic needle-threading that has consistently eluded him in the past; for a political miracle in Iraq; and, despite all the precedent to the contrary, for American-trained indigenous military forces that actually fight.

It was also understated. As my colleague Glenn Greenwald tweeted:
"How you know you live in an empire: when there's an announcement your govt is about to start a new 3-year war & it seems barely newsworthy."

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/08/going-war-anyone-want-talk-optics/

[gratuitous]

1. If the first boots on the ground in Syria had their feet in them

You damn betcha the popular media and the politicians would think it was newsworthy. Instead, it's just a bunch of peons from flyover land being sent to kill and die for the empire, so none of the millionaire mediaites or politicians care.

[Louisiana1976]

2. Excellent point.

[99th_Monkey]

8. +10 n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. I went to the NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN sites, and they're all leading with Obama's speech

And no mention of 'optics'. Seems pretty 'newsworthy' to me. Fox has Ray Rice as its lead story.

[99th_Monkey]

6. M$M with any credibility are pretty much obliged to cover Obama

Fox? pppf. Of course they are boycotting it, in effect. Who cares?

I think the point was how many people are going to actually be watching it, on the edge of their seats like thy were when the Shrub was invading Iraq. Which I think is a valid point to make.

[1StrongBlackMan]

4. So ...

What is YOUR armchair strategy?

[99th_Monkey]

7. Invest in Solar, Wind & renewables

and start rebuilding this country before it entirely falls apart.

Screw ISIS, it's all a shell game going after fossil fuels that should be obsolete by now.

[1StrongBlackMan]

9. Okay ...

That'll certain tamp down things in the M.E.

[99th_Monkey]

11. Yes. The USA has been "tamping things down" in the ME now, for how long?

How has that been going?

[1StrongBlackMan]

13. No ... the U.S. had been lighting fires and breaking things ...

throughout the M.E., prior to this Administration.

[ZombieHorde]

17. ...and during this administration.

The US was in Iraq for years after Bush left office.

[1StrongBlackMan]

19. And what did this Administration attempt to do about that? eom.

[ZombieHorde]

20. Come up with excuses to stay.

Did you see something else?

[1StrongBlackMan]

21. No ... Not at all ...

[ZombieHorde]

10. I can't speak for the OP,

but my armchair strategy would be to track down and try to stop the funding to naughty groups. Naughty groups would be any group that acts like the US but doesn't obey the US.

[99th_Monkey]

15. That "naughty group" would be Saudi Arabia.

That trail leads to the Prince Bandar Bush's tent.

[ZombieHorde]

16. Do you mean the Saudi government? nt

[99th_Monkey]

18. "Thank God for the Saudis" ~John McCain

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/isis-saudi-arabia-iraq-syria-bandar/373181/

[Scuba]

5. "... the endless war he used to talk about wrapping up." Sigh.

[99th_Monkey]

12. I hear that sigh

I have fond memories of when i thought Obama was going to fundamentally change the way we do foreign policy .. esp. in the ME ... like lighting a candle instead of cursing the Darkness.

[KurtNYC]

14. the MSM wants to talk "optics" (perceptions) because they are using part of the 1980 playbook

When ABC News created the show Nightline in Nov of '79, its primary focus was how many days the hostage had been kept by Tehran. Throughout the show they had a graphic: "America Held Hostage: Day 43" It was 'blame Carter for Khomeini'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightline#The_Iran_Crisis.E2.80.93America_Held_Hostage_.281979.29

I think the current coverage has a lot of that kind of angle, the 'blame Obama for ISIS' thing.

By talking so much about optics the MSM is shaping perceptions and avoid covering timelines, events and facts that might lead to viewers forming different conclusions and opinions about the war and what impact we can realistically have and at what cost.

[woo me with science]

22. kick