Press review? - not really

There is an interesting story in today’s Christian Science Monitor . It’s about Marines training to go to Iraq as a Civil Affair unit. CAs interact with the citizens to find what their concerns are and pass them on up the chain. (I know that it’s more complex than that but time is of the essence on Monday mornings.) As I read it I alternatively thought that it was a fair look at training, message controlled well, and cliché. Those of you who read military blogs (Those that use neologisms such as “milblogs” on this blog will be swiftly condemned to be hanged, quartered, burned, and drowned. Trial by fire might be offered as an alternative for those deeply convinced of the righteousness of their cause.) will know that war supporters have been advocating for better message control on the part of the armed forces. The term of art is psyops. The idea is to present our actions in Iraq in a more positive light. It also requires troops to be kept “on message” during their contact with the press.

The article is a fair look at training because it describes the operation taking place in a small North Carolina community in what I thought was a clear, detached manner. It’s a single byline but the reporter seems to have been around all the members of the unit. He gives the reader the whole picture.
Message control on the part of the Corps is great. The writer concludes with this quote by a Cpl. "I would have been disappointed if I had spent four years in the Marines without going. I want to do something with all this training I have." Marines know what they want. Contrast that with this story in today’s Washington Post where an army SSgt says, "I don't know who I'm fighting most of the time, I don't know who is setting what IED." While the statement is true, how are you supposed to know who’s planting IEDs or shooting at you, it does give the impression that this SNCO is completely lost. Not exactly something to be chalked under good PR. Some people will undoubtedly blame it on The Post. They are wrong. The blame for this kind of statement is on individuals who don’t think through what they say, but mostly on the institution for not providing them with guidance. Is it the groundpounder’s job to deal with the press? No. But it’s his boss’ job to give him guidance on how to deal with the press correctly.
Finally, let’s talk about the clichés in the CSM. "It's easy to go kick down a door, and marines love that, so this is actually much harder for them." We are not all brainless apes who thrive solely on blowing stuff up. Do we really need to perpetuate this image? All it does is that when Marines like me go to job interview we end up being asked, in a very PC kind of way: Can you think for yourself? And last but not least let us not forget the obligatory paragraph dedicated to women ogling the Marines while lunching.

Cynic's inc.

So many things in the news this week it’s hard to pick what to talk about. Let’s start with the obvious: North Korea. Apparently Dr. Evil has accepted to shut down a nuclear reactor in exchange for energy guaranties. I don’t know about you dear reader but that sounds furiously close to the deal hashed out under Bill “I didn’t inhale” Clinton. Deal, which you may remember, was much maligned by the conservatives as being weak. The way I understand this, but I am not very bright, is that it took the current administration six years to get back to the same point Clinton had arrived at. If you read this, unlikely, and know what makes those two agreements intrinsically different please enlighten me.
If you listened to the President’s news conference this morning you probably noticed that he was in a cheerful mood. He didn’t seem to understand that people might not take the administration at its word when it presents information linking EIDs to Iran. Maybe, just maybe, the American public is remembering something about WMDs in another Middle Eastern country that we used to like but don’t anymore. I know this is crazy talk.
Finally I stumbled upon this blog a few weeks ago. It’s a milblog (Dear Lord can’t you save me from neologisms?) but the author, an army officer, is actually quite handy with his pen. I would even say that the first posting of his that I read is material for a literary journal. The poetic rhythm of his prose and sparseness of language powerfully translated his emotions about the death of a colleague. The blog does have its faults. The man is writing in order to support the war not to bring an impartial picture of it. He does have rants that border on the right-wing nut. Especially when it comes down to the mass media. Sometimes he seems justified, others not so. One of his latest entries falls under the latter part. He complains that media outlets got the ranks of some KIA soldiers wrong. Let me ask this simple question: where do you think the reporters found their information? Being that I know a little bit about reporting, I would say reporters either received a press release from the parent unit with the KIAs info or called the parent unit after being alerted of the deaths. In either case, the information must have come from an admin clerk, hence the problem with accuracy in my book. (Admin: the people who underpaid me last summer and haven’t fixed it yet!) Instead of calmly looking at the facts and realizing that some private fucked up, the blogger goes into another tirade about the mainstream media. Does it make sense to you dear reader? It doesn’t to me but I am just a stupid, enlisted jarhead.