The press war between the military and the White House
There is a real battle going on in the press over Bush's intention to surge troops to Iraq.
Yesterday morning in the top story in the WaPo, the Joint Chiefs let it be very publicly known that they were against the idea of a surge. One of their main complaints is that it would hasten the breaking of the force.
By midafternooon, the White House had responded, by making public that Bush has asked Robert Gates about expanding the Army. (Meaningless to the idea of an immediate surge, but politically, it undermines the "broken army" argument.)
Today, in the NYTimes, Abizaid gets himself a flattering article, countering, in the reporter's analysis not his words, that his objections rest on a broader regional argument, that a surge would undermine the greater war on terror.
We live in a very different political/media world than they did, even in Vietnam, but I would say this very public press driven argument is unprecedented. Occasionally in the past, you might see an ex-general speak for the military, like Colin Powell did this weekend, but an open argument in the press with active generals going on the record against a president's plan?
It's not "a general's revolt" in the traditional sense, but instead, we are seeing a totally new "media war" for the opinion for the American people.
(Perhaps this is happening because of the gap between Rumsfeld and Gates. This time represents the only space where the uniformed military can speak without a Secretary drowning them out.)
Yesterday morning in the top story in the WaPo, the Joint Chiefs let it be very publicly known that they were against the idea of a surge. One of their main complaints is that it would hasten the breaking of the force.
By midafternooon, the White House had responded, by making public that Bush has asked Robert Gates about expanding the Army. (Meaningless to the idea of an immediate surge, but politically, it undermines the "broken army" argument.)
Today, in the NYTimes, Abizaid gets himself a flattering article, countering, in the reporter's analysis not his words, that his objections rest on a broader regional argument, that a surge would undermine the greater war on terror.
We live in a very different political/media world than they did, even in Vietnam, but I would say this very public press driven argument is unprecedented. Occasionally in the past, you might see an ex-general speak for the military, like Colin Powell did this weekend, but an open argument in the press with active generals going on the record against a president's plan?
It's not "a general's revolt" in the traditional sense, but instead, we are seeing a totally new "media war" for the opinion for the American people.
(Perhaps this is happening because of the gap between Rumsfeld and Gates. This time represents the only space where the uniformed military can speak without a Secretary drowning them out.)
posted by mikevotes at
9:03 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home