In an article comparing the Bush administration's failure to provide proper body armour for US troops with Newsweek's recent story about the alleged flushing of the Koran that, some say, spurred riots in Afghanistan, DefenseWatch's contributing editor, Michael Woodson attempts to lay blame on both for placing soldiers at risk.
more...
The organization, Soldiers For The Truth (SFTT) was the heart and soul of recently deceased military advocate David Hackworth. Hack never shyed away from controversy and one could always respect his integrity, even while disagreeing with his opinions, because he was a straight talker and pulled no punches. May he rest in peace.
This organization has provided an invaluable resource for those in the military and for those of us in the general public to get a closer look at what's really going on in the front lines and in the halls of the powers that be. I tip my hat to them. That does not mean, however, that I always side with the editorial opinions expressed on the site. This article about Newsweek is one of those exceptions.
In SFTT's magazine, DefenseWatch, Michael Woodson writes:
What does Newsweek magazine's response to its flushing-of-the-Koran story have in common with the Pentagon's response to its armor-shortage-in-Iraq fiasco? Extra lightweight treatment of grave issues centering on leadership failure.
Searching frantically for the newest Abu Ghraib scandal to lay on our troops instead of, for example, going after Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi's location in Iraq, Newsweek has shown indifference to the consequences of its actions in pursuit of a major scoop.
Before I make my comments, let me give you my opinion about the Newsweek fiasco. I believe they made a mistake by relying on a single source who later, as well all know, retracted his/her statements about a Koran being flushed. At the same time, however, since the alleged flushing of this sacred text had already been documented and previously published by other news publications and Human Rights Watch, I believe Newsweek should not have ultimately retracted the story. An apology? Fine. But, a retraction when they could have taken the time to push back with other sources? I disagree.
Now, Woodson claims two things in the above quote. First, that somehow Newsweek ought to out there looking for Al-Zarqawi. (That's the way it's written). Since when is that the press's job? Secondly, that Newsweek published the story in an attempt at a "major scoop". That's false. If so, it would have been on the cover, not buried in an inconsequential article.
The rest, as they say, is more journalism: There was blowback as the Newsweek allegation migrated back to the Muslim world via the BBC and other news outlets, where it prompted extremist Muslims to take to the streets in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Fifteen people died and dozens were injured in the Afghan riots. Is it finished? How many insurgents will Newsweek's story recruit, and how many innocents will they kill? Hopefully, none.
(emphasis mine)
We all know by now that the political circumstances for such rioting in Afghanistan were ripe for this type of explosion of force. We also know that the Pentagon vetted the story and approved it. It wasn't enough to blame Newsweek for those riots and deaths. Apparently, Newsweek is now responsible for terrorist recruitment as well.
The upshot was that either Newsweek had a good source who suddenly found life-threatening pressure all around him when he woke up in the night, or - more likely - the magazine recklessly printed a story without sufficient verification or corroboration beyond vague hearsay: rumor journalism.
"Rumor journalism".
Woodson then goes on to equate the Pentagon's failure to provide the troops with proper armour with Newsweek's story as both being responsible for putting the troops at risk. He decries the fact that no one at Newsweek was disciplined, but he also puts the blame for the lack of armour directly at the feet of Rumsfeld. We all know that that is exactly where it belongs when it comes to disregarding the lives of the troops - squarely on Rumsfeld.
Woodson concludes:
In both incidents of disregard for human life, the U.S. government and the national news magazine have been revealed as mirror images of each other: Entrenched bureaucracies with agendas indifferent to the consequences of their actions, and hostile to any effort to foster accountability for those failures.
We must do better than that.
That's right, Woodson, you must do better than that. That can only happen if you force Rumsfeld to take responsibility not only for the armour scandal, but for the fact that his Pentagon let this story go out to Newsweek. This is all on Rumsfeld's Pentagon. Newsweek went there to seek permission to publish its story and the Pentagon failed to respond appropriately.
You can contact Woodson here:
Michael Woodson is a Contributing Editor of DefenseWatch. He can be reached at singingmountains@yahoo.com. Please send Feedback responses to dwfeedback@yahoo.com