I guess I just don't understand the post-9/11 world.
When I grew up, the Department of Defense protected America from foreign threats. Rightly enough, it monitored those threats too, so it could provide timely protection.
But I admit I don't understand why the Pentagon is spending 20 million dollars of your tax-payer money to monitor news stories for positive or negative "tone" about the war in Iraq.
I mean, it's not like the Defense Department would attack the New York Times for a "negative" story. Right?
The contract calls for
"provid[ing] continuous monitoring and near-real time reporting of Iraqi, pan-Arabic, international, and U.S. media".
Real-time? Ok, I admit Geraldo Riviera (who claims he's a big supporter of the war) opened his mouth and revealed the locations of American troops. But force protection would have come from somebody sticking a sock in Geraldo, not in letting an E-Ring Public Affairs Officer who has never fired a shot in anger hear about it after it's broadcast.
But if this were about force-protection, why would the Pentagon insist the contractor provide reports "including, but not limited to tone (positive, neutral, negative) and scope of media coverage"? That doesn't do anything to protect our troops or our country, it doesn't do anything to prosecute the war. Maybe it helps cover some civilian asses at the Pentagon.
And that's the heart of the matter: any money the Department of Defense spends that doesn't support our troops or protect our country is money the department shouldn't be spending. It's a waste of resources, resources which could instead be spent on our troops or our nation's security.
And with $300 billion already flushed down the Iraqi quagmire, even $20 million makes a difference. $20 million is 40,000 suits of body armor, or 307 Humvees, to protect our troops and perform the mission.
Instead, that money's being spent on figuring out if Katie Couric talked about the latests insurgent bombing in Iraq in a sweet tone of voice?
It doesn't matter whether you're liberal or conservative, whether you're for the war, against the war, or (like me) no longer for the war.
It's a matter of priorities. Any fiscal conservative can tell you that. This isn't the DoD's job, this isn't part of the mission, it's a dangerous intrusion on the civilian press, and it doesn't help fight the war.
Our priority should be winning the war, or admitting that it was ill-conceived and is now unwinnable and getting our troops out as quickly as we can.
Briefing generals and Pentagon civilians about Katie Couric's tone of voice is the sort of navel-gazing silliness that Rear Echelon Mother Fornicators engage in when they know the war's already lost and they want to justify their safe cushy desk jobs.
This Administration spends too much time on civilian CYA ("Heck of a job, Brownie!") and too little effort on getting the job done right. We wouldn't be in this mess in Iraq if Rumsfeld hadn't ignored the generals who told him to commit more men to the fight. But Rummy -- a CEO, not a General -- wanted to look good on TV. And now he's thinking that if he can just control what's on TV, he can pretend Iraq isn't falling to pieces. If these folks really want to win, they need spend less time looking at the TV and more time supporting our troops.
"Monitoring" a civilian free press isn't a job for the military and real soldiers know it. If you support our troops, whether you're for continuing this endless war or for a dignified phased pull-out, call your Congressman, call your Senators, and ask them what the hell monitoring the press has to do with protecting our troops or winning wars.