A Picture Can Win Or Lose A War

[mudwhistle]

Joe Rosenthal

How to win a war without firing a shot (Our lose one)

Above is a prime example of how pictures can win or lose a war. The United States was bleeding money and was almost broke. And along comes this picture from the AP showing a gallant flag-raising that somehow went right to the heart of what it meant to be an American and an American fighting man. Anyone who has read the book "Flags of our Fathers" knows that this one picture helped fund the rest of the war. Little did everyone know that what it depicted was less then honest.

It doesn't matter that the picture didn't tell the true story of what was actually happening. Fact was, at the time the picture was taken, not only wasn't the battle won but three of the flag-raisers would die within a month after the photo was taken before Iwo Jima was secured. There was a lull in fighting and some of the worst fighting was soon to follow.

The flag-raisers were totally unopposed when they scaled the instinct volcano. However, not long after the flag was planted the Japanese realized that somebody dared to place a flag on what they considered sacred ground, so it wasn't long till all hell broke loose again.

This was the arguably the worst battle in U.S. history, and it was the first time we suffered more casualties then the enemy. Over 26,000 Marines were wounded or killed along with 22,000 of the Imperial Japanese Army. On top of this, the flag pictured was a replacement flag. It was not even the original flag that was planted on Mount Suribachi. So it seems that a picture may be worth a thousand words, but many times the wrong words are portrayed.

During WWII journalists were for the most part looking to prop up the war effort. These days journalists know that they'll never get a Pulitzer Prize for being patriotic or appearing to be aligned with the war-mongers in the Pentagon, so pictures like the ones below are the rule of the day. You'll rarely see anything that helps our country win a war if our media can help it.

Let us suppose you wanted to infiltrate our society and do serious damage to the physic of the American people. A foreign operative knows now that the best way to turn the tide of the war is become a journalist. Problem is, our enemies don't even have to use spies or plants because your media is more then willing to do the job for them lately. This has been the case since Korea.

This illustrates how important the media is to winning a war. If the media isn't on the side of the war effort then it's simply a lost cause.

These days they're not really showing an active interest in Afghanistan. 116 of the 101st Airborne Division's troops died in March of 2011 but not one word of it has reached the general public. It's like the war doesn't really exist. Perhaps the media is trying to ignore the war because it doesn't serve their purpose. While Bush was POTUS it was a totally different story.

 

[Toome]

I agree that the news media has a huge impact on public opinion. However, a lot of it also rests on why our leaders tell us it's necessary to go to war. That was the problem with Vietnam. We said we were going there to stop the menacing Red Horde, then it turned out that the Chinese weren't really trying to expand into Southeast Asia and the Soviets had their hands full elsewhere. We said it was to give democracy a chance, then it turned out that the South Vietnamese governments were so corrupt that Kennedy was ready to throw in the towel.

Look, I don't have a problem with the fact that we were in Vietnam. The problem is that the US government needs to just be honest with the American public. I think the American public is sophisticated enough to understand that we're basically dead in the water without oil, so let's not snow them with grandiose explanations about planting seeds of democracy, stopping terrorism, etc. and just tell it like it is. Fact is that if anyone threatens to disrupt the oil trade, we're going to kick their ass. We'll make up reasons to go in and kick their ass. And I don't have a problem with that. I think the American public is more willing to accept that. This applies to all leaders, regardless of political party because they all fall under the exact same misconception that they have to somehow get the folks to rally around some noble cause as the reason for war. And this is where the news media makes its money: pointing out the contradictions and hypocrisy between the official reason for war and what's actually happening on the ground.

And now Obama has joined the club and found himself knee deep in Kimchi because he said he would never support a war unless it was a direct threat to the sovereignty of the United States. Yet here he is trying to tap dance around Libya.

I think the reason the news media doesn't report much on Iraq and Afghanistan, other than the occasional suicide bombing, is because there's no money in it anymore. Not so much from the political angle but because the public is tired of hearing it. Those stories just don't sell anymore.

 

[mudwhistle]

I agree that the news media has a huge impact on public opinion. However, a lot of it also rests on why our leaders tell us it's necessary to go to war. That was the problem with Vietnam. We said we were going there to stop the menacing Red Horde, then it turned out that the Chinese weren't really trying to expand into Southeast Asia and the Soviets had their hands full elsewhere. We said it was to give democracy a chance, then it turned out that the South Vietnamese governments were so corrupt that Kennedy was ready to throw in the towel.

Look, I don't have a problem with the fact that we were in Vietnam. The problem is that the US government needs to just be honest with the American public. I think the American public is sophisticated enough to understand that we're basically dead in the water without oil, so let's not snow them with grandiose explanations about planting seeds of democracy, stopping terrorism, etc. and just tell it like it is. Fact is that if anyone threatens to disrupt the oil trade, we're going to kick their ass. We'll make up reasons to go in and kick their ass. And I don't have a problem with that. I think the American public is more willing to accept that. This applies to all leaders, regardless of political party because they all fall under the exact same misconception that they have to somehow get the folks to rally around some noble cause as the reason for war. And this is where the news media makes its money: pointing out the contradictions and hypocrisy between the official reason for war and what's actually happening on the ground.

And now Obama has joined the club and found himself knee deep in Kimchi because he said he would never support a war unless it was a direct threat to the sovereignty of the United States. Yet here he is trying to tap dance around Libya.

I think the reason the news media doesn't report much on Iraq and Afghanistan, other than the occasional suicide bombing, is because there's no money in it anymore. Not so much from the political angle but because the public is tired of hearing it. Those stories just don't sell anymore.

The public listens to what you put in front of them. It's up to you to sell the case for it's importance.

Everyone is tired of hearing about war, but the reason they're not hearing it is because of the media. The media is using Libya to get back some of the credibility they've lost since they decided to throw in with Obama. It's not money that drives them because they can always count on Obama giving them a bailout. This is why Fox News gets better ratings then anyone. Because they give us the news we are interested in, not the news the media wants to let us hear. Fox reports just about everything, while the rest of them are basically giving us a sales-pitch on Marxist ideology.

 

[uscitizen]

The flag raising pic did not win any war, at that point us winning the war against Japan was inevitable. It was just going to take more time, materials and lives.
We had the industrial might and determination and Japans defeat was inevitable.

 

[Toome]

The public listens to what you put in front of them. It's up to you to sell the case for it's importance.

Everyone is tired of hearing about war, but the reason they're not hearing it is because of the media. The media is using Libya to get back some of the credibility they've lost since they decided to throw in with Obama. It's not money that drives them because they can always count on Obama giving them a bailout. This is why Fox News gets better ratings then anyone. Because they give us the news we are interested in, not the news the media wants to let us hear. Fox reports just about everything, while the rest of them are basically giving us a sales-pitch on Marxist ideology.

I do not disagree about how the media influences public opinion and political decisions. I would not, however, give the media credit for having so much control that it decides the outcome of wars.

You, of all people, know that the outcome of wars relies on having solid, well-defined military objectives that are carried out by military leaders. Granted, those orders come from political leaders who are mindful of how the media portrays the war. It boils down to leadership. Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, Bush the elder and Bush the junior had it. Clinton was good at giving the appearance of leadership (and he did make some good decisions---give the man credit where credit is due, but he also made some dumb decisions). Carter was the weakest excuse of a leader in history. Even Obama looks like a tough guy next to Carter, but Obama is working hard towards beating Carter as the most wishy-washy president in modern times.

My point is that Obama's actions and decisions alone make the difference whether or not the war is successful. The media would fail at trying to prop up Obama because the American public is not so easily fooled.

 

[uscitizen]

The American publican is VERY easially fooled and very resistant to admitting they were fooled.
The last poll I saw on it siad that 30% of Americans think that Iraq was involved in 911.

 

[mudwhistle]

The flag raising pic did not win any war, at that point us winning the war against Japan was inevitable. It was just going to take more time, materials and lives.
We had the industrial might and determination and Japans defeat was inevitable.

And as anyone who was alive then will tell you, you can't win a war with good intentions.

It takes money and it takes a positive climate to get the folks behind the war effort. You needed both back then because the war was funded by War Bonds, not taxes.

Everyone felt the war was still in doubt, but only in retrospect does it seem it was inevitable.

 

[mudwhistle]

The public listens to what you put in front of them. It's up to you to sell the case for it's importance.

Everyone is tired of hearing about war, but the reason they're not hearing it is because of the media. The media is using Libya to get back some of the credibility they've lost since they decided to throw in with Obama. It's not money that drives them because they can always count on Obama giving them a bailout. This is why Fox News gets better ratings then anyone. Because they give us the news we are interested in, not the news the media wants to let us hear. Fox reports just about everything, while the rest of them are basically giving us a sales-pitch on Marxist ideology.

I do not disagree about how the media influences public opinion and political decisions. I would not, however, give the media credit for having so much control that it decides the outcome of wars.

You, of all people, know that the outcome of wars relies on having solid, well-defined military objectives that are carried out by military leaders. Granted, those orders come from political leaders who are mindful of how the media portrays the war. It boils down to leadership. Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, Bush the elder and Bush the junior had it. Clinton was good at giving the appearance of leadership (and he did make some good decisions---give the man credit where credit is due, but he also made some dumb decisions). Carter was the weakest excuse of a leader in history. Even Obama looks like a tough guy next to Carter, but Obama is working hard towards beating Carter as the most wishy-washy president in modern times.

My point is that Obama's actions and decisions alone make the difference whether or not the war is successful. The media would fail at trying to prop up Obama because the American public is not so easily fooled.

Once again, pictures of Abu Grab helped turn the public against the war. It took a concerted effort on the part of the press to help it along, but it's rare that anyone will say that they liked what we accomplished in Iraq or even consider it to be a success, even though we did pretty much the exact same thing Obama is trying to do in Libya.

Oh, and I doubt you realize the impact that pic of those Marines raising a flag on some stink-hole in the Pacific had on Americans.

 

[uscitizen]

I was ahead of the curve, I was against the war before it even began.
I was shocked/aghast that the USA would invade a country based on what it might might do.

 

[mudwhistle]

I was ahead of the curve, I was against the war before it even began.
I was shocked/aghast that the USA would invade a country based on what it might might do.

You forget we invaded Iraq for more then that.

We were being targeted by Saddam's air-defense installations, he had proven to be a threat to the region when he invaded Kuwait, he was funding terrorism in Israel to the tune of $25,000 for each terrorist bomber, he was murdering thousands of Kurds, poisoning their wetlands, he had set fire to the oil-fields, etc..

He had proven to be a wild dog and the U.N. was about to let him go back to business as usual in a matter of months. He had tons of yellow-cake they never found till after we invaded.

Nope, he was a serious threat.

But that wasn't good enough.

Obama felt he had to do something and so did Bush.

But for some folks that's not enough.

 

[Toome]

Once again, pictures of Abu Grab helped turn the public against the war. It took a concerted effort on the part of the press to help it along, but it's rare that anyone will say that they liked what we accomplished in Iraq or even consider it to be a success, even though we did pretty much the exact same thing Obama is trying to do in Libya.

Yeah. It's that damn evil news media. If it weren't for those pictures, Iraq would go into the history books as a victory and John McCain would be in the White House today.

Oh, and I doubt you realize the impact that pic of those Marines raising a flag on some stink-hole in the Pacific had on Americans.

Thank goodness you're here to put all of that into perspective for us.

 

[mudwhistle]

Once again, pictures of Abu Grab helped turn the public against the war. It took a concerted effort on the part of the press to help it along, but it's rare that anyone will say that they liked what we accomplished in Iraq or even consider it to be a success, even though we did pretty much the exact same thing Obama is trying to do in Libya.

Yeah. It's that damn evil news media. If it weren't for those pictures, Iraq would go into the history books as a victory and John McCain would be in the White House today.

Oh, and I doubt you realize the impact that pic of those Marines raising a flag on some stink-hole in the Pacific had on Americans.

Thank goodness you're here to put all of that into perspective for us.

A picture is worth a thousand words. Ever hear of that? Pictures are a more effective tool then words, and in some cases military action. A picture and videos of the burning twin towers was enough to shut up Democrats for nearly a year and bring this country together. I saw all of the people flying flags on their homes and cars. It took a very long time for the left to chip away at that support.

When it comes to the media this all boils down to money. The Democrats and their support structure have borrow trillions and have been throwing unheard of amounts of cash at the media. Course it didn't take much to get them to go down this course of lies and deceptions because our media is run by elitist liberals that think exactly like that nut-case in the Oval Office.

I presented this idea because I've been studying the story surrounding Joe Rosenthal's Pulitzer-Prize winning photo. Excuse me if I know more about the subject then you do.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Maybe you should have included the recent "Abu Graib" style pics from that kill team in Afghanistan?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/photos/the-kill-team-photos-20110327/0543781

 

[mudwhistle]

Maybe you should have included the recent "Abu Graib" style pics from that kill team in Afghanistan?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/photos/the-kill-team-photos-20110327/0543781

Glad you brought that up. That was only the latest attempt by journalists to shape a story.

Turns out RollingStone lied about many of the facts associated with the kill teams.

The online edition of the Rolling Stone story contains a section with a video called “Motorcycle Kill,” which includes our soldiers gunning down Taliban who were speeding on a motorcycle toward our guys. These soldiers were also with 5/2 SBCT, far away from the “Kill Team” later accused of the murders. Rolling Stone commits a literary “crime” by deceptively entwining this normal combat video with the Kill Team story. The Taliban on the motorcycle were killed during an intense operation in the Arghandab near Kandahar City. People who have been to the Arghandab realize the extreme danger there. The soviets got beaten horribly in the Arghandab, despite throwing everything including the Soviet kitchen sink into the battle that lasted over a month. Others fared little better. To my knowledge, 5/2 and supporting units were the first ever to take Arghandab, and these two dead Taliban were part of that process.

The killing of the armed Taliban on the motorcycle was legal and within the rules of engagement. Law and ROE are related but separate matters. In any case, the killing was well within both the law and ROE. The Taliban on the back of the motorcycle raised his rifle to fire at our soldiers but the rifle did not fire. I talked at length with several of the Soldiers who were there and they gave me the video. There was nothing to hide. I didn’t even know about the story until they told me. It can be good for soldiers to shoot and share videos because it provides instant replay and lessons learned. When they gave me the video and further explained what happened, I found the combat so normal that I didn’t even bother publishing it, though I should have because that little shooting of the two Taliban was the least of the accomplishments of these soldiers, and it rid the Arghandab of two Taliban.



A Bogus Report By Rolling Stone About Our Troops In Afghanistan Has Me Crying 'Bulls**t' - FoxNews.com