Media Should Be Challenging Arguments For War, Not Baying For Blood [View all]

[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