OP-CHART: "The State of Iraq: An Update," by Jason Campbell, Michael O'Hanlon and Amy Unikwicz, New York Times, 29 December 2008.ARTICLE: "TV News Winds Down Operations On Iraq War," by Brian Stelter, New York Times, 29 December 2008.
The key in Nov 04-Nov 06-Nov 08 comparison: US troop deaths drop from 137 to 69 to 12.
That decline effectively kills anti-intervention sentiment and protest--along with news coverage.
Casualties--as in, American casualties drives coverage.
In the end, the public cares about our losses a lot more than the rationale or strategic role America attempts to play in any intervention.
| Permalink |
Comments (1)
"In the end, the public cares about our losses a lot more than the rationale or strategic role America attempts to play in any intervention."
Yes, but ...
In this case, what led or at least contributed to the dramatic decrease in our losses? It seems counterintuitive that the 'surge', which pushed our troops further afield in a more scattered manner, during a time of great violence in Iraq and contrary to traditional force protection thinking, would lead to fewer American casualties in Iraq. While I supported the 'surge', I can't say I expected it would lead to fewer casualties.
If the public and media can be at least curious enough to study *why* our losses dropped in Iraq, then perhaps, they will also become more curious about lessons learned related to our rationale and strategic role in present and future interventions. At least GEN Petraeus has said that it's important we get it right in Iraq in order to set a new baseline for future missions.
Posted by Eric Chen | January 3, 2009 8:08 PM