Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Neocon US Colonel Calls for Military Attacks on "Partisan Media"

By Jeremy Scahill, Rebel Reports. Posted May 25, 2009.


Col. Ralph Peters pens an outrageous essay, writing that journalists "have positioned themselves as protected-species combatants."

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Nobel Laureate Slams the Bible, Calls It "A Catalogue of Cruelties"
Mario de Queiroz

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
As Foreclosure Nightmares Increase, Will More Homeowners Pay Off Their Bankers in Violence?
Scott Thill

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why the End May Be Coming for Coal
Christine MacDonald

Food:
Despite Censorship By Beef Magnate, Michael Pollan Spreads Message About the Real Price of Cheap Food

Health and Wellness:
New York May Stop Heartless Health Insurers from Dropping Coverage When It Stops Being Profitable
William Ehart

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
Study Claims Even the Most Sophisticated Readers Can Be Manipulated
Melinda Burns

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Michelle and Barack's Marriage Has in Common with 56 Million Other Ones
Annabelle Gurwitch

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Fetus-Shaped Potatoes? Going Undercover Inside the Weird World of Right-Wing Abortion Foes
Ann Neumann

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
Instant Sex: Has the Digital Age Destroyed Relationships or Made Them Better?
Vanessa Richmond

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
With Unemployment at 40 Percent, Afghan Teens Enlist in Army, Police
Lal Aqa Sherin

More stories by Jeremy Scahill

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

In the era of embedded media, independent journalists have become the eyes and ears of the world. Without those un-embedded journalists willing to risk their lives to place themselves on the other side of the barrel of the tank or the gun or under the airstrikes, history would be written almost entirely from the vantage point of powerful militaries, or—at the very least—it would be told from the perspective of the troops doing the shooting, rather than the civilians who always pay the highest price.

In the case of the Iraq invasion and occupation, the journalists who have placed themselves in danger most often are local Iraqi journalists. Some 116 Iraqi journalists and media workers have been killed in the line of duty since March 2003. In all, 189 journalists have been killed in Iraq. At least 16 of these journalists were killed by the US military, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. The network that has most often found itself under US attack is Al Jazeera. As I wrote a few years ago in The Nation:

The United States bombed its offices in Afghanistan in 2001, shelled the Basra hotel where Al Jazeera journalists were the only guests in April 2003, killed Iraq correspondent Tareq Ayoub a few days later in Baghdad and imprisoned several Al Jazeera reporters (including at Guantánamo), some of whom say they were tortured. In addition to the military attacks, the US-backed Iraqi government banned the network from reporting in Iraq.

A new report for a leading neoconservative group which pushes a belligerent “Israel first” agenda of conquest in the Middle East suggests that in future wars the US should make censorship of media official policy and advocates “military attacks on the partisan media.” (H/T MuzzleWatch) The report for JINSA, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, was authored by retired US Army Colonel Ralph Peters. It appears in JINSA’s “flagship publication,” The Journal of International Security Affairs. “Today, the United States and its allies will never face a lone enemy on the battlefield. There will always be a hostile third party in the fight,” Peters writes, calling the media, “The killers without guns:”

Of course, the media have shaped the outcome of conflicts for centuries, from the European wars of religion through Vietnam. More recently, though, the media have determined the outcomes of conflicts. While journalists and editors ultimately failed to defeat the U.S. government in Iraq, video cameras and biased reporting guaranteed that Hezbollah would survive the 2006 war with Israel and, as of this writing, they appear to have saved Hamas from destruction in Gaza.

[…]

Although it seems unthinkable now, future wars may require censorship, news blackouts and, ultimately, military attacks on the partisan media. Perceiving themselves as superior beings, journalists have positioned themselves as protected-species combatants. But freedom of the press stops when its abuse kills our soldiers and strengthens our enemies. Such a view arouses disdain today, but a media establishment that has forgotten any sense of sober patriotism may find that it has become tomorrow’s conventional wisdom.

The point of all this is simple: Win. In warfare, nothing else matters. If you cannot win clean, win dirty. But win. Our victories are ultimately in humanity’s interests, while our failures nourish monsters.

It is, of course, very appropriate that such a despicable battle cry for murdering media workers appears in a JINSA publication. The organization has long boasted an all-star cast of criminal “advisors.” Among them: Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, James Woolsey, John Bolton, Douglas Feith and others. JINSA, along with the Project for a New American Century, was one of the premiere groups in shaping US policy during the Bush years and remains a formidable force with Obama in the White House.

Reading Colonel Peters’s sick and twisted essay reminded me of the report that emerged in late 2005 about an alleged Bush administration plot to bomb Al Jazeera’s international headquarters in Qatar, which I covered for The Nation:


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: media, jinsa, media blackout, military strategy

Jeremy Scahill, an independent journalist who reports frequently for the national radio and TV program Democracy Now!, has spent extensive time reporting from Iraq and Yugoslavia. He is currently a Puffin Writing Fellow at The Nation Institute. Scahill is the author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army. His writing and reporting is available at RebelReports.com.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Do civilians still control the military?
Posted by: socrates2 on May 25, 2009 2:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wake up, boys and girls. "In war the first casualty is truth"--and that implies that truth-tellers die...
The times are such that the sociopaths feel it is the most "normal thing" in the world to publicize their intentions and rationalize homicide as the just elimination of the un-patriotic. These individuals have such a distorted, perverted, and paranoid view of the world that they disregard our Jeffersonian traditions; they have no idea who they work for, who pays their wages, and what principles they are supposed to defend.
On the other hand, perhaps a military coup happened long ago and we're just beginning to realize it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Strange to think... Posted by: pelican beak
» RE: Strange to think... Posted by: Jayzer
» Watch Obama's face Posted by: RegK
» Did you read the article Posted by: EncinoM
Yes, journalists are sometimes brave. Why aren't they brave enough to expose 911 as the lie it is.
Posted by: pfgetty on May 25, 2009 3:37 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jeremy, you are part of a crazy profession.
You all are brave enough to stick your heads up in the middle of battle.
But when it comes to exposing the overwhelming evidence that 9/11 is an inside job, NONE of you are brave enough.

I began watching you on Democracy Now. I learned about WMD lies before anyone else I know because of Amy Goodman. I learned about Blackwater, too, and Confessions of an Economic Hitman, and the rest.

And then it suddenly dawned on me...........you had censored all information about the evidence that the official story of 9/11 is a lie.
I can't possibly be that you don't recognize the lies. A little bit of looking and an open mind about the schemes possibly by our leaders, which I know you are aware of, and they are GLARING us in the face!

What IS it, Jeremy? Is it because a lot of support comes from foundations, which are backed by individuals or groups that would be hurt by exposing 9/11?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» How to read the above Posted by: bingahaba
» Fear? Posted by: bingahaba
Sliding Down the Slippery Slope
Posted by: DrBrian on May 25, 2009 4:44 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It started with embedded journalists who live, work and identify with a military unit. It has continued with doctors and psychologists developing and participating in torture and murder programs. Now we have social scientists using their skills to advance military objectives.

When professionals compromise their impartiality, advance military objectives and take instructions from combatants, they violate their professional ethics, disserve the public and make targets or themselves.

While the colonel's diatribe is over the top, it results from overly close relationships between media and military. However, even truly fair and balanced media can become targets; fortunately Blair, in a rare flash of good judgment, was able to dissuade Bush from attacking al Jazeera. But would I have advised the bombing of Radio Mille Collines's tower to reduce the carnage in Rwanda? Yes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The NYtimes died on 9/11 Posted by: weathered
» Not So Fast Posted by: DrBrian
Can You Say TREASON, Red Coats??
Posted by: Purple Girl on May 25, 2009 5:53 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What part of 'Free Press' Eludes these Assholes and the people who still listen to them?
These Decievers keep saying 'Socialist' to deflect away from their Communist/Facist Agenda.
Anyone one yet fianlly realizing these people are NOT AMERICANS? But those who despise and are trying to destroy America? Can you say 'RED COATS'.A clear and unmistakeable phrase which proves our Founders embraced the concepts of Pure socialism "WE the People".
What country do these treasonous SOBs think they are in? Who the Hell do they think they Are- all Powerful Nobles? "What planet are You From" (appropo question posed by Sen McCaskill)- we have had a Free Press since our inception- OVER TWO CENTURIES AGO! There was no (*) stating it was to be revoked during Wars or conflicts!
"they Hate US for our Freedoms" -Perhaps they are accusing US of not affording These self anointed Nobles the Liberties and Priviledges they still think they deserve over "WE the People"
Keep Talking, Keep typing 'anything you say can and WILL be used agaisnt you in a court of Law'

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Can You Say TREASON, Red Coats?? Posted by: dragonlady620
Kill what they dont agree with...
Posted by: bobtr900 on May 25, 2009 6:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...that's the Repuke way of doing things. The Repukes are all very fearful people. They are fearful of the modern and ever changing world. They are all thugs and bullies. Fear is at the bottom of every bullies reason for doing what they do.

The Rethugs are fear and war mongers. the Rethugs are composed of the Cons(conservatives), Neocons and the Theocons. The Cons fear for their money, the Neocons for their security and the Theocons fear for their religious theology. They are all tightly aligned with the Repub party. It is full of very fearful people. Two recent fMRI university studies seem to point in that direction.

The Theocons include the Catholic Church, my own religion. But they are all really fearful people who will kill if and when they do not get their own way. They are all people who have very meager moral values. To them the sky is always falling, and danger is always about to engulf them. They rule American life and they fear everyone who does not agree with every item in their litany of fears. That's one reason why they get everyone else to do their fighting and dying for them. Just look at Bush and Cheney's service records as well as the service records of a lot of them. They either didn't ever serve or served a minimal time and in total safety, like Rumsfeld and Gonzales.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In bedded journalism
Posted by: grindermonkey on May 25, 2009 6:25 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This idea smacks of compromise. Look at our enemy the Taliban for example. You don't see many journalists there. Maybe, just maybe, we are expecting too much of war.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: In bedded journalism Posted by: Aquinas
Tomorrow, townhall,com: Next Week, the World
Posted by: Lilly on May 25, 2009 6:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, Ralph Peters, a name to remember. And who will take my fifty-cent bet that his article soon shows up on townhall.com? As I hang out there a lot, I will volunteer to keep one & all informed. BTW (from townhall yesterday) Liberty University has shut down its Student Democrats Club as not in keeping with Conservative principles. Although, I wonder how many liberal students would even be at Liberty University, a contradiction in terms.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Freedom of the Press, Not
Posted by: Lilly on May 25, 2009 6:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have already posted this many times but it's such a story. In 1947 as an American girl living in Buenos Aires I witnessed street riots the night that Peron's goons smashed the printing presses of La Prensa, the only newspaper to speak out against him. After that they commandeered downtown trams, threw off the passengers, and helled around town all night waving flaming torches (real fire) and shouting "Peron, Peron, Peron". The tram line ran right in front of our building; my family watched from the balcony. This was a stunning lesson to an American teenager raised on freedom of the press. And that scene has always remained in my mind as antithetical to what happens in our system. But the more we hear from the far Right, the more I'm no longer so sure of that. Peters' article is astonishing. I should say, STILL astonishing. So far. Kind of.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

BITS FOR BOOKWORMERS
Posted by: Lilly on May 25, 2009 7:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you google JINSA you get "Jewish Institute of International Security Affairs", which is the same outfit but doesn't have this article---if you search "Peters" on the JINSA site you get two Peters hits but not the article of above reference. You have to google "Journal of International Security Affairs". Then search "Peters" and you will go to the very article, title "Wishful Thinking and Indecisive Wars" by Ralph Peters, so you can read the whole delightful piece. Take some TUMS with you when you go there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ralph Peters has also been pushing for the partition of Iraq...
Posted by: ExposeTheIsraelLobby on May 25, 2009 7:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
which probably was the Neocon plan all along: Disband the Iraqi army and de-Baathify down to the lower ranks, causing resentment and eventual civil war between the Sunni and Shia, with the ethnic cleansing and defacto Partitioning of Iraq into smaller, weaker states as the ultimate goal.

Watch the following videos on the carving up of Iraq:
youtube.com/watch?v=u4MdyJDnSoI
youtube.com/watch?v=yp_iTR9dI6o


Washington Post Q & A with PBS Frontline director Michael Kirk

QUESTION: In making your film, what were you able to learn about who originated the "deep deBaathification" and the "disband the Iraqi army" decisions? Did you learn what motivated these disastrous decisions?

KIRK: The idea of deBaathification seems to have grown out of the offices of Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith at the Pentagon.


Video: See/hear Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif) say the following at AIPAC:

"The Persian population in Iran is not a majority, it is a plurality. There are many different, diverse and disagreeing populations inside Iran. And an obvious strategy, which I believe is a very good strategy, is to work to separate those populations."


Video: Jane Harman at AIPAC
(1:20 minutes in)


Read Philip Weiss' blog entry about a former Chomsky devotee describe the Israel Lobby: "it's as if The Protocols of the Elders of Zion have come to life."
Tanya Reinhart Reportedly Likened Lobby to 'Protocols of Elders of Zion'

Pro-Palestinian activist Jeffrey Blankfort related the above story to Phil. See Jeff here:
youtube.com/watch?v=CNf2SntA3pk
youtube.com/watch?v=mEKha_SZUJM

Check out 'A War for Israel' by Jeffrey Blankfort
leftcurve.org/LC28WebPages/WarForIsrael.html

JINSA's founding members include Richard Perle and Michael Ledeen, both are featured in the BBC documentary "The War Party", (part 1 of 5)
.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why in the **** IS AL JAZEERA THE VOICE OF THE TALIBAN & EL QUIDAH WITH OUR TROOPS?
Posted by: joeocho88 on May 25, 2009 7:34 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THIS IS THE SAME NETWORK THAT SHOWS AMERICAN HOSTAGES BEING BEHEADED FOR FUN AND PROFIT AND HOSTAGES BEING RAPED AND TORTURED Then being slowly murdered for the amusements of the mullahs AND WHAT IGNORANT FOOL IS LETTING THESE PEOPLE HAVE ACCESS TO OUR MILITARY FORCES SO THEY CAN TELL THE ENEMY FORCES OF OUR TROOPS WHEREABOUTS?

WNY IS THE VOICE OF AN AVOWED ENEMY NEWS MEDIA BEING GIVEN ACCESS TO ANYTHING AMERICAN OR ANY TOP SECRET INFORMATION?

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS STOPS WHERE AMERICAN LIVE BEGIN!

NO WONDER THEY WERE SHOT. THEY WERE RECOGNIZED AS THE ESPIONAGE AGENTS THEY ARE AND THEY WERE DEALT WITH ACCORDINGLY!

I WOULD HAVE ORDERED THE SAME!

WHENEVER LIVES ARE AT STAKE --ESPECIALLY OUR TROOPS --AND AL JEZEERA IS BROADCASTING EVERY MOVE TO THE ENEMY SO THEIR PEOPLE CAN KILL OUR PEOPLE BETTER BECAUSE THEY KNOW HOW MANY THERE ARE AND THEIR ARMAMENTS, ETC. WE HAVE A BIG PROBLEM!

I WOULD LIKE TO EMBED AL JEZEERA AND THEIR LAUGHING CAMERAMEN WHO THOUGHT IT WAS WONDERFUL FUN WHILE PEOPLE WERE TORTURED TO DEATH AS THEY WERE GLEEFULLY FILMING -- I WOULD LIKE TO EMBED EACH ONE OF THOSE AL JESEERA MEDIA PUNKS GLEEFULLY IN SOLID STEEL WITH DESIGNER TANK TREADS ON THEIR SKULLS...

WHO IS ALLOWING THESE PEOPLE TO SPY ON US?
VIETNAM MADE MORE SENSE.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another Loon in Uniform
Posted by: Midway54 on May 25, 2009 7:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This beauty and his bilge brings me to wonder whatever happened to his compatriot, General Boynton? This is the uniformed clown who stood in a church several years ago during services and told the congregation that our God is fighting their God in the Muslim world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You think Obama is calling the shots!!??? Think again...
Posted by: RegK on May 25, 2009 8:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
we were warned 50 years ago to get control of the military-industrial complex and we didn't do it. Now they are running the whole show. It took Obama 100 days to figure this out. Obama may want change, but since he's just a figurehead for the military and corporate interests who really run this country he can forget it, and so can we.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Moral High Ground Is Needed In War.
Posted by: melpol on May 25, 2009 8:47 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wars are fought to protect or expand economic interests. Battle field journalists are there to report on the war but never to interfere with military objectives or safety. The moral high ground is needed by warriors to justify their battle. A journalist that does not supply it is guilty of interfering with the war effort.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think what he wrote seems entirely reasonable
Posted by: login@bugmenot.com on May 25, 2009 10:19 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Partisan" Media that causes death of US Soldiers should be removed at all costs. Hezbolah used Fake reporters and stringers that produced fauxtography that helped those who hate pro western liberty.

I think the reason you liberals are upset about this is that you side with the anti-American and Anti-Israel "journalists".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Col. Peters needs to read his constitution.
Posted by: Quannah on May 25, 2009 10:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a pig.

"Although it seems unthinkable now, future wars may require censorship, news blackouts and, ultimately, military attacks on the partisan media. Perceiving themselves as superior beings, journalists have positioned themselves as protected-species combatants."

Future wars? They did these very things in Iraq already... and they are continuing.

The protections offered to the media can be found in the Constitution, which the Crazy Colonel SWORE TO UPHOLD, but I guess he forgot that part.

Journalists are the only professionals who are given Constitutional protections. The Founders did that for a reason... to protect us from tyrannical assholes like Col. Peters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I got enough of this manipulated media Posted by: Ianni_Stragopulis
Liam on the Left says:
Posted by: Liam on May 25, 2009 12:49 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is what your "all volunteer professional army" gets you...right wing nuts with no "citizen soldiers" telling them (like we did during Vietnam-"You're full of bullshit Lifer!") The Liberals wanted to get rid of the draft and they got the single thing the founding fathers feared the most - A professional army! Now that ya got yourselves into a corner what are you going to do about it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

perhaps the pen is in fact mightier than the sword?!
Posted by: undrgrndgirl on May 25, 2009 12:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's simple.
Posted by: Starfall Deception on May 25, 2009 12:58 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When you remove the only unbiased source of information from the war, the military has total information control. When the military is the only source of news, civillians become ignorant. And when the public is ignorant, they are that much easier to control.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I got enough of this manipulated media
Posted by: Ianni_Stragopulis on May 25, 2009 1:07 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, Extreme left wing media. Olberman? is a nut, a shithead and paranoid that looks like he got Rabies with a foaming mouth
Fox News as you know fights back and you call them extreme right wing media. By the time you wake up guys, you'll find out that your country is gone for ever. United we stand? Ye maybe in a Stalag or Gulag! what a joke!
The biggest whore in this world is the politics and you have the worst history on this subject

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» FOX fights BACK?? Posted by: hardwroc
» RE:Enjoyed most of your post exept Posted by: outsideagitator
» RE: FOX fights BACK?? Posted by: Dak
Traitor!
Posted by: troy on May 25, 2009 1:26 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Col. Peters has, I doubt, ever worked an honest day in his life. He serves corporate interests and the power elite while collecting a fine salary from US tax-payers. He is by any rational definition a traitor to the US Constitution and the American people.
The notion of winning an illegal war at any costs and eliminating free speech (actually punishing free speech) is antithema to our Constitution and values. Why is he not on trial for treason?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

wolvedrive
Posted by: doalive on May 25, 2009 2:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ya lets start that with broadcast media that seeks to brainwash and indoctranate,no comments or feedback allowed ? why is that? is the pen mightier and more long live/d than the murdourous sword , take heart and leave maybe a little soul till the spineless are buried and suffocated under their own lack of free un-co-ercied thought, the feed back pile PS not sponsored by the rotten core

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: wolvedrive Posted by: doalive
Put not your trust in generals
Posted by: hilaryuk on May 25, 2009 3:06 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I thought this piece was interesting, but I thought the most telling insight into the military mind in extremis came in the quote "If you cannot win clean, win dirty. But win. Our victories are ultimately in humanity’s interests, while our failures nourish monsters."

There in a nutshell you have the arrogant conviction that America invariably serves humanity's interests, the implicit belief that therefore any number of deaths of non-Americans are justified in pursuit of America winning, and the mind numbing failure to recognise that means shape ends. It may sometimes be necessary to use evil means against near absolute evil if that evil is coupled with near absolute power, but even then the noble end is polluted by the the road to achievement.

But the amorphous struggle against global terrorism undertaken by the US is primarily a battle of ideas. Using military methods that make your opponent look more noble or heroic or principled rather undermines the whole enterprise. Winning in the military sense is not possible and too much reliance thereon is self defeating. Killing/silencing the messenger won't always help either as witnessed by Gaza. OK, the American mainstream media could ignore it, but that minority of Americans who truly wanted to see what was happening could go on the internet. In other countries rather more than a minority take an interest in these things. Thus the Middle East street was well aware of what was happening.

The military mind can be a dangerous thing. If you are high ranking you may well be completed attuned to what is an unusually restricting ethical framework - free and wide ranging philosophical thinking is not particularly useful in the war machine. If you are of a fanatical disposition, you may well end up a little mad. Western style democracies once understood that democracy cannot exist when the military is not subordinate to the state.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Col. Ralph Peters is worse than an idiot
Posted by: Garvagh on May 25, 2009 4:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great piece! The US is squandering trillions of dollars on unnecessary armaments and wars in the Middle East and Central Asia. The collective insanity of the American people to accept this situation owes more than a little to the Colonel Peters types in the military (and civilian structure overseeing the military).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I knew Peters briefly...
Posted by: drone on May 25, 2009 4:10 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in the 80s when he had just made major. He was a flatulent prima donna then and apparently the years have been even less kind.

This is his schtick. In his head, he's still fighting the Cold War, and writing horribly bad fiction. The good news is that he was so into his celebrity that even the Army made damned sure he never made flag rank.

The worst part of it is that he always thought he was the smartest person in the room, and rarely was that ever the case.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obvious progression
Posted by: james108 on May 25, 2009 5:16 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's the way we work.

Israel targets scientists. We kill civilians.

When people started resisting the democrat/republican war on terror (I know, Democrats played good cop, but look at the votes. They've controlled Congress and the country for years now), the US military grade Anthrax went to media and some democratic members of Congress that weren't on board.

It's been messed up for a while, but as soon as that US military grade Anthrax, by strain and makeup, which even the FBI tracked to a US military base, started hitting the "liberal media" watchdogs and Congress, they fell right on board.

When it comes to military, the democratic and republican run US takes the most obvious, ruthless strategy, no matter how horrible we all think it is. It's just a matter of what can be properly positioned. I am not a monster by recognizing the obvious, am I?

The old saying holds true. When you ignore the violation of others, it eventually becomes you, your family or descendents. There is no violation of basic human rights that does not spread.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

well..
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on May 25, 2009 5:32 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"win clean or win dirty.. just win"

That controverts international as well as american law, and frankly this man should be at the very least asked to retire with what little honor he has, or perhaps just courtmartial him for conduct unbecoming.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Conscious or not? Posted by: james108
Dear Colonel Peters
Posted by: Jayzer on May 25, 2009 7:02 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dear Colonel Peters,

In your haste to declare that journalists who convey information that you would rather the public not hear be summarily executed, have you ever considered the possibility that anything that you wish could come back to you?

If you really think it too much bother to refute stories that you deem to be false, inflammatory and a threat to our troops and would prefer to resort to murder, then why should ANYONE obey you or your ilk?

As a matter of fact, if your calls to keep the empire sheltered from the consequences of its crime become any louder, then I will get just as loud and call out: TURN THE GUNS AROUND! ARREST THE WAR CRIMINALS AND IF THEY DON'T COME QUIETLY----FRAG THEM!

I sincerely hope that others will join me in that call because I suspect that there are other protofascists like you who just may take up your call, so I suspect that I will need some allies, too.

May you have many unpleasant nightmares, now that we're onto you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Since the military serves at the direction of Obama
Posted by: Daito on May 26, 2009 8:59 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
shouldn't this guy be called a war mongering progressive democrat? Obama certainly could fire him, demote him, or just transfer the guy to Venus but he has not. Congrats libs. You got the guy you wanted.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PETERS STATES THE OBVIOUS
Posted by: reelman on May 26, 2009 8:59 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The liberals (secular socialists) are 90% of the network media...they vote that way, they talk that way, they defend liberalism, they attack conservatism and people of faith...
They are who they are...to deny reality is a liberal trademark...its a requirement for entry into lib-land...the place where we must work hard to become a large Cuba...liberals are so pathetic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: PETERS STATES THE OBVIOUS Posted by: Squarehead
Perfect Excuse for Fascism
Posted by: halg on May 31, 2009 8:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
future wars may require censorship, news blackouts and, ultimately, military attacks on the partisan media.

Add to that the blindness of many posters here who seriously believe the media is controlled by the left. Oh, if only that were so. Truly leftist journalists would expose these rackets for just what they are: rackets. And the public would be outraged, bringing unbearable pressure to stop every one of these wars.

No, the media are owned and operated by the autocratic wealthy class. Do not be deceived by seeming overtures of "fairness" or balance in reporting. That is only done to comfort those who think they are leftist but do not read Chomsky, Zinn, or anything critical of the U.S. They are just as blind as their right-wing counterparts.

Remember, there is only so far reporters and journalists in the commercial media can go in criticizing the corporations partaking in war before their commercial advertisers become uncomfortable with the implications for their own enterprises. And PBS has become dangerously commercial as well, so take what they (don't) say with a grain of salt.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement