Mike Lask’s Selected Rants And Other Ravings
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
THE WAR IN IRAQ: 'Losing the war' headline can only help the enemy
Well, at least they printed part of it (mine’s at the bottom):
http://www.freep.com/voices/letters/ewar25e_20050125.htm
It would be nice if they at least indicated the edits.
Here is the original story that set me off:
http://www.freep.com/news/nw/iraq22e_20050122.htm
What I actually wrote in response:
I come in from shoveling the 12 inches of snow that the media tells me is only six, pick up my Free Press and there right at the top I am greeted with the ridiculously simplistic headline that the U.S. is in danger of losing the war in Iraq! Well, I suppose it's always true in every war, that there is a danger of losing. However I couldn't escape noticing the annoying link between the headline and the key premise that we will lose because the "insurgents" will simply survive "until the will of the occupying power is sapped." Gee, do you think histrionic headlines like yours might have anything to do with sapping our will?
You report on the war as if one has never been fought before. You cite the increasing casualties and combat action as evidence that we are losing. History (which didn't start yesterday) actually teaches a quite different lesson. The last year of our own Civil War saw far more casualties and constant combat action than the previous years, all in the prelude to ultimate Northern victory. During the Second World War, similarly, the greatest number of U.S. combat casualties occurred in the final months of the war (Hurtgen Forrest, Battle of the Bulge, etc.). In fact, the Battle of Okinawa, easily one of the most bloody engagements ever fought by the U.S. military, started less than four months before the surrender of the Japanese. Russian combat casualties (let alone civilian!) were far greater than any other participant in both world wars. Yet Russia was a far more powerful and victorious nation at the end of World War II than at any other time in history. Conversely, in Vietnam, a war which most would argue we lost, or at least gave up, US combat casualties actually dropped precipitously from 1969 on. All the while the casualties of both the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong were both grievous and relatively constant in their extreme numbers. Nonetheless they persevered, they prevailed. Which really is one of the important lesson of war, that is, the side that perseveres usually wins.
If President Lincoln had believed the headlines of many of the newspapers during his tenure, we would be at least two nations today, maybe only one of them free. At least back then, the papers had the decency of stating who they supported. No feigned absence of bias. A little more analysis and historical perspective and less, dare I say, politics, at least on the front page, as you endeavor to report on the war, would not only be helpful and more honest, it might actually help us persevere. Imagine the Free Press actually on the side of Victory and Freedom. If you are going to take a side, it would be nice if it was ours.
Michael Lask
Huntington Woods
http://www.freep.com/voices/letters/ewar25e_20050125.htm
It would be nice if they at least indicated the edits.
Here is the original story that set me off:
http://www.freep.com/news/nw/iraq22e_20050122.htm
What I actually wrote in response:
I come in from shoveling the 12 inches of snow that the media tells me is only six, pick up my Free Press and there right at the top I am greeted with the ridiculously simplistic headline that the U.S. is in danger of losing the war in Iraq! Well, I suppose it's always true in every war, that there is a danger of losing. However I couldn't escape noticing the annoying link between the headline and the key premise that we will lose because the "insurgents" will simply survive "until the will of the occupying power is sapped." Gee, do you think histrionic headlines like yours might have anything to do with sapping our will?
You report on the war as if one has never been fought before. You cite the increasing casualties and combat action as evidence that we are losing. History (which didn't start yesterday) actually teaches a quite different lesson. The last year of our own Civil War saw far more casualties and constant combat action than the previous years, all in the prelude to ultimate Northern victory. During the Second World War, similarly, the greatest number of U.S. combat casualties occurred in the final months of the war (Hurtgen Forrest, Battle of the Bulge, etc.). In fact, the Battle of Okinawa, easily one of the most bloody engagements ever fought by the U.S. military, started less than four months before the surrender of the Japanese. Russian combat casualties (let alone civilian!) were far greater than any other participant in both world wars. Yet Russia was a far more powerful and victorious nation at the end of World War II than at any other time in history. Conversely, in Vietnam, a war which most would argue we lost, or at least gave up, US combat casualties actually dropped precipitously from 1969 on. All the while the casualties of both the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong were both grievous and relatively constant in their extreme numbers. Nonetheless they persevered, they prevailed. Which really is one of the important lesson of war, that is, the side that perseveres usually wins.
If President Lincoln had believed the headlines of many of the newspapers during his tenure, we would be at least two nations today, maybe only one of them free. At least back then, the papers had the decency of stating who they supported. No feigned absence of bias. A little more analysis and historical perspective and less, dare I say, politics, at least on the front page, as you endeavor to report on the war, would not only be helpful and more honest, it might actually help us persevere. Imagine the Free Press actually on the side of Victory and Freedom. If you are going to take a side, it would be nice if it was ours.
Michael Lask
Huntington Woods
Archives
December 2004 January 2005 February 2005
