Anti-American Media is Not a Military Problem

Via Instapundit comes this link to an Opinion Column in the New York Post by Ralph Peters. Peters is a retired Army officer and the author of “Beyond Baghdad”.
Mr. Peters uses the recent example of bad, or perhaps simply misleading press reports on the US attack in the desert on a "wedding" that resulted in approximately 40 dead Iraqis, some children, to show how we are up against a new kind of attack, one that is off the battlefield. An attack by the media. He states:

The media weren't reporting. They were taking sides. With our enemies. And our enemies won. Because, under media assault, we lost our will to fight on.

He goes on to say that this is how all future wars will be fought.

This is the new reality of combat. Not only in Iraq. But in every broken country, plague pit and terrorist refuge to which our troops will have to go in the future. And we can't change it. So we had better roll up our camouflage sleeves and deal with it.
The implication for tactical combat — war at the bayonet level — is clear: We must direct our doctrine, training, equipment, organization and plans toward winning low-level fights much faster. Before the global media can do what enemy forces cannot do and stop us short. We can still win the big campaigns. But we're apt to lose thereafter, in the dirty end-game fights. We have to speed the kill. (emphasis mine)

He then talks about what in the military is called the enemy’s “decision cycle”. It is understood in the military that for a successful operation, you need to react quicker than the enemy can react, to actually know what the enemy can do, and is likely to do, before he does. This came from fighter pilot tactics, where a pilot, often dogfighting at unbelievable closing or chasing speeds, needed to “know” what the enemy’s next step, or decision, was going to be, and to react to it before the enemy actually does. If you cando this consistently and accurately, the chance of victory in aerial combat is greatly enhanced. In ground combat, if you can understand what choices an enemy has, and react to them faster than the enemy can actually make his decision on what to do, you also have a much-improved chance of victory. And so it is with the media, according to Peters.

To do so, we must develop the capabilities to fight within the "media cycle," before journalists sympathetic to terrorists and murderers can twist the facts and portray us as the villains. Before the combat encounter is politicized globally. Before allied leaders panic. And before such reporting exacerbates bureaucratic rivalries within our own system.

Unfortunately he is not only wrong, but dangerously so.
Before I get into why this is, I need to confirm some of what Peters says. I believe that the media as it is now operating in the WOT is not neutral, but actually working against the US and against western democracies. Why this is so, I will leave up to greater minds, since it is clear that if fascist islam conquers all, the free press will be one of the first western institutions to be killed off, literally. Currently, reporters, when faced with some discrepancies in the first-person accounts, always discount the western description of what happened, and always pass along without critique, the anti-western description. In addition, any news that supports the western stand on what is happening in the WOT is discounted or not reported at all, and any news that undermines the western position in the WOT is reported ad nauseum. So in this, Mr. Peters and I agree wholeheartedly.
But where we differ is in the response to what is actually happening in news reporting worldwide. The media, no matter what they send out to the rest of the world, is not the military’s “enemy”. We have strict requirements for deciding who the enemy is, because once that is decided, it’s okay to kill them with whatever means you have (limited by the Law of Land Warfare). It is not okay to kill the media under any circumstances (unless they are actual armed combatants), even if they are reporting stuff that is likely to look bad, or even end up getting any number of soldier’s killed, or allowing the American public to lose the will to continue the fight. Peters doesn’t say it’s okay to consider them the enemy, but he looks to find a military solution to the problems we are having with the media. There will be some commanders in the field, who, if asked to come up with a solution to fix the “media problem”, will come up with one. That is not in anyone’s interest.
The media slant towards the enemy is a problem that does not require a military solution. Speeding up the kill, as Peters suggests, will only lead to greater and greater inaccuracies in who we kill, leading to more reporting on this type of “collateral damage” that is so damaging to our warfighting efforts. Speed is a combat multiplier, yes, and we go for speed whenever we can. But the speed of the operation must be driven by METT-T (mission, equipment, troops, terrain and time), not by whose camera crew is closest. If we kill faster, but sloppier, we will have worse press, not better.
There will always be wavering partners in the WOT. They will come and go depending upon their own country’s view of what they have to gain, and what they have to lose, in the overall effort. The recent actions by the Spanish government are a great example. They chose to leave the WOT not because of something the US Army did, but because of something al Queda did. Would the Spanish have left the Coalition earlier if the Abu Ghraib story was out? Maybe, but in the end, those partners who are of limited belief are also of limited use. We can use them if they want to be part of our effort, but they will never be the deciding factor in whether victory is ours.
I believe the efforts needed to counter a completely hostile media such as we have today have to come from other than the military. The State Department would be a good place to start, with efforts along the lines of the old VOA. There is room for outright bribes as well, to foreign editors or leaders who can influence public relations. Maybe not in the form of money, but certainly military equipment transfers, when given to friendly governments, is nothing short of a bribe. We do that all the time. In addition, we can more effectively use embedded reporters. That was a brilliant stroke for the war, and it could be one again. Our own forces know well in advance when certain operations will happen, and even those last-minute missions can be well covered by the media if we try to get them to the battlefield. The overall reporting from the embedded reporters was more sympathetic to the military simply because the reporters lost some of that us-vs-them attitude after weeks and months of living and dying with the soldiers. Perhaps that is why the editors don’t want to be so cozy anymore; I’m sure more than one editor felt his reporter had lost his sense of (very left-leaning) balance.
But these are the fronts on which this battle against the media will be won. Not by soldiers quickening the pace of battle, or of decisions, or of killing. That way lies ruin.
We do need a better effort to get out the good news. And war, almost by definition, will always contain bad news. Killing people can always be viewed as bad news. But we need for institutions other than the military to take the lead in this effort. There is no military solution to bad or slanted reporting, save killing the reporter. We have enough other missions to handle in the WOT, and we have enough often divergent tasks without asking the chain of command to decide whether the next report out of our battlespace will be complimentary or detractive, never mind accurate or inaccurate. Leave these battles to other warriors and other battlefields better suited for this effort.

Comments

[chap]

Man, that was fast! You got Instalanched, pal!

Good points. I commented a little, too, over at my place. Maybe what we need is a 45th Civilian Truth Battalion or something...

[Anon421]

I think the military and the Administration is HORRIBLE at PR. Hell, AQ seems to have better PR than us.

Seriously, how about some photos from the ground, guys? Soldiers doing good stuff? Rebuilding efforts? Handing out toys? Bad guys shooting from mosques or from behind women/children?

*SIGH*

Oh and while I usually love R.Peters comments, I agree with you on them. Speed also breeds sloppiness. It's better to do it right than do it fast.

[JosephMendiola]

It is illogical to to categorize a sector of American journalism as "LeftMedia" or "Liberal Media" but NOT believe those under these labels are non-partisan, even if only benign. For me Peters is being logical, pragmatic, and realistic in this instance, as many soldiers will try to be, as based on their level of combat and general military experience - field soldiers in 'kill or be killed", "life or death", "honor or cowardice" combat situations will perceive their personal, survivor-oriented views as being more honest and realistic than anything they read or hear from their families or the regular medias. He is hearing in the news that his President and the duly elected Party in power is "wrong", "deceitful" and "cannot be trusted" - ditto for his country America, and exclusive of his President and his country also being labeled as "arrogant" and "imperialist". The modern American warrior is taught that, amongst other things, he or she is America's representative oversea, ergo what is criticized about America, and the American way of doing things, WILL BE INTERPRETED BY MOST SOLDIERS AS A DIRECT CRITICISM OF THEM PERSONALLY, AS MEN-WOMEN, WARRIORS, SOLDIERS, AMERICANS AND HUMAN BEINGS, NO MATTER THE POLITICIZED WHITEWASH! Iff the American press or related information mediums are to exclaim their non-partisanship in all things, LET THEM PROVE IT, AND PROVE IT WITHOUT THE AMERICAN VOTER OR AMERICAN WARRIOR HAVING TO GUESS AT WHAT IS BEING SAID - TRUTH, RIGHT, AND HONOR CAN TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES NO MATTER THE LEVEL OF SPECUALTIVE OR OBJECTIVE RESISTANCE!

[Analog Roam]

You are wrong. The media needs to be targeted. They are TRAITORS. I'm not suggesting anything too overt, just an accident here and there.

-AR

[Diggs]

Joseph and Analog, I will agree that a lot of what the media is printing, is, or borders on, traitorous. I tried to make the point that I agree with Peters on that part of his article. And it may make soldiers feel as though they aren't being well represented by their own country's media, which I believe is also true. But I can't agree that there is some way we can alter our mission(s), tactical or strategic, to accomodate for this bias.
It is clearly out of line with the military's mission (for the Army, that is to fight and win decisively, America's ground wars).

[Dave]

Agree on Peters' prescription being wrong, and wanted to make a note of some attitudes of his that bug me:

1) Apparently, anything less that overwhelming, immediate use of force in (insert trouble spot here) means we've lost. Especially if the media reports it wrong - there's no possibility, in Ralph Peters' worldview, that, oh, say, the Iraqi civilians have already learned long ago to take Al-Jazeera with a HUGE lump of salt.

2) Anything that goes wrong is, according to Ralph Peters, the direct and immediate fault of Donald Rumsfeld. For reasons beyond my ken, Peters absolutely loathes Rumsfeld, and can find no good in anything he does. And this is a clear bias, apparently grounded in emotion, in just about everything he writes... and apparently Peters has no problem with never checking his biases when he does analysis.

[Carol in California]

Ralph Peters is a diehard McCainiac. He's been on Rumsfeld's case because Rumsfeld has been very efficient. And, the kinds of things Peters wants from the military is much more beaurucratic. In other words, Peters isn't a Bush man; and isn't too concerned with the Kerry/Clinton world's eye view of things. As long as the people who get into power are friends of his. And, then he can boast of his prowess. Pretty Lame.

[Dave]

May I quote you, Carol, in an upcoming post on my blog?

[holdfast]

Ralph Peters is pretty smart, though not always right. He also watches / reads a lot more foreign press than even most well-informed Americans. This colours his viewpoint, because he sees a lot of the outright agitprop that is disseminated in EURabia. Most "mainstream" American press is at least somewhat subtle and restrained; not so the BBC, AFp, Al Jazeera et al. I think his point is that if 90% of the people (not governments)on this planet come to believe that Americans are a bunch of baby-bayoneting psychos, then we'll soon be completely isolated, and totally unable to win the WOT. I'm not sure that he's right, but it sure looks like a possibility.

One has to remember that the American press is trying to demoralize Americans and cause the downfall of Bush, but that they are aware that they cannot go "too far" - they can't look like they really favour the enemy and they have to pretend to care about the welfare of the troops (even as they try to portray them as victims). The foreign media has no such constraints - and is free to lie, spin, demonize whatever. And they do. And they are.

Unfortunately, the military plays their game. To my knowledge, nothing in the US Constitution requires a US General to answer questions from some Al Jazeera scumbag who was probably on Saddam's payroll, and certainly is encouraging the terrorists in Iraq. There's no point play that game, because it's rigged. I want to hear Gen Kimmit respond to one of these questions by saying "Sir, every word of you so-called question was a lie, including and and the. As far as I'm concerned, you're nothing but a shcill for the enemy - now take your question, cram it up your ass sideways and get the hell out of my tent - you can come back when you decide to act like a real journalist."

[dubai1950]

the western media has assumed the role of "toyko rose". however in these early days of the WOT the impact is not only on soldiers but all of us, at home and abroad.

one lucianne poster said it best in the may sweeps of the abu graib crisis..."if you feel rotten, cheer up...that's what the n.y. times wants you to feel...it's their number one objective."

i live and work in the gulf. i have had a business here for 15 years. these news organizations are supplying every arab critic, every islamofacist with one hell of a lot of talking point. and yes, i'm pissed because now it is impacting my business. i'm american...my services suck.

hey thats' life but i seem to remember that we once beat our collective chests, at the appointment of gen. john abuzaid...first arab-american commander. he was poised to win hearts and minds being bi-lingual (arab-english) and an american second generation success story.

well, were's john these days. couldn't he just suit up in commander gear and speak to the iraqi people weekly. couldn't he talk about the promise of the future (like fdr).

guess what, the iraqis really want to hear more from the americans than from their own slime filled media. i've been in iraq over 12 times and this is a fact.

war provides news projected against a dream of a just cause. why not fill in the blanks.

hey john, like start dreaming with the people your forces are now occupying!!!!! they need the dreams more than the high fives from the troops!!!!!

[Duane]

The big error in Diggs' post is the implicit assumption in paragraph 8 or so that the State Department is on the side of America in the WOT. Powell is a good soldier, and Bolton is a warrior, but if you look at ME policies, you get William Burns, Tom Friedman's in-house flack- and that is all anti-Israel, defer to France, surrender to Kofi, and fake the evidence where necessary.

[Louis Wheeler]

Mr. Peters is wrong here. Propaganda and disinformation are often used in war, but we can't fight the propaganda war like a regular war. The proper antidote for falsehood is truth. The proper remedy for false Media are reformed Media; one dedicated to telling us facts, not opinions. One that informs us of its biases rather than pretending to be unbiased.

The War on Terror is an infant. It, like any other war, will have its ups and downs. It will last for decades and most of our institutions, such as the State Department, are unprepared for it. They are still aimed at the last war-- the Cold War. The WOT will upset many institutions in its wake; the Media are just one.

The Media has a leftist bias, but it is wrong to think of it as a monolith. Some people in the Media exaggerate the truth because, to them, it makes a better story. Some exaggerate because it confirms their prejudices. But, there is a danger here: the Media are a brand, and are important only to the extent that they are believed. They can succeed in distorting the truth only if their message is received uncritically. The WOT has cost the Media enormous credibility; people are going around them to get at the news. Soon, if they don't wise up, only fools and fellow travelers will listen to them.