Memo to John Stewart – host of the Comedy Channel’s Daily Show: If you need new material, check out the media generals on CNN.
Since at least 2003, CNN has been dueling with Faux to see which network can have the most generals with the most inane, mind-numbing praises of the President and “the troops.” They call it “fair and balanced” reporting. The weekly CNN program, “This Week at War,” still plays from the neocon chorus book. On this week’s “This Week at War,” (!) host John Roberts interviewed 3 different retired generals – all of whom apparently are on the CNN payroll. Oh great you say! 3 generals – 3 different perspectives? Balanced, no?
Not a chance. You’d have better odds with “three blind mice” than with the CNN “hireling” generals for “This Week at War.” The program’s three regulars are Brigadier General James Spider Marx, U.S. Army, Major General Don Shepard, U.S. Air Force and Brigadier General David Grange, U.S. Army — all retired. (I’d put ’em all in the “brig” for commentary unworthy of their fruit salad.)
In case you missed the “Three Stooges” in action this week, and lest you think I’m making this up, here’s the transcript.
The comedy begins with host John Roberts solemnly noting, “Troubling new developments in Iraq, with six helicopters downed in the past three weeks. Is it new technology or new tactics?” Then too, Roberts wonders rhetorically if the new Pentagon inspector general’s report on prewar intelligence will “erase whatever support {is} left for keeping troops in Iraq?”
The first softball question for the “retired” wise ones is served up to “Spider Marx,” who has long struck me as “outrageous.”
ROBERTS: “You’re the intelligence guy. Talk about this inspector general’s report from the Pentagon, which says that the Intel looked like it was shaped to match the policy rather than the other way around.
How outrageous is that?
BRIGADIER GENERAL JAMES SPIDER MARX, U.S. ARMY (RET.): Well, frankly, it is outrageous.
Now, the thing you have to realize about intelligence is it is fundamentally the competition of ideas. What concerns me about this is this came from the office of the director of policy, not intelligence.
So, certainly, that office can have its opinions and it can draw its own conclusions. So you want to have the competition of ideas, but you have to fundamentally fuse and blend together the different forms of intelligence and you’ve got to come up with the solution and, from that solution, you then derive — intelligence drives operations.
It drives operations. It leads you to conclusions. It is a little bit outrageous.
Huh? Hey “Spider,” read that extended quote again yourself and see if you can make any sense of it. So are the allegations really outrageous, or just “a little bit outrageous?” And since when is intel “fundamentally” about the competition of ideas?
Is that like, well, the Israeli intel liaison has his set of “well supported” ideas, and the Egyptian liaison has his “ideas,” then there’s the Ambassador’s ideas, and then there’s this little gem we got from a “well supported” expatriate who thinks “regime change” and installing a pro-American government will be easy?
Whatever happened to facts — those “stubborn things?” Or has intel gone post-modern? Pat Lang where are ye when we need ye?
In any case, the controversy at hand now is hardly about having another “team B” in operation. But the really “outrageous” part was how Douglas Feith’s “Office of Special Plans” cherry-picked intel and then cynically “sexed it up” and shaped it to fit a pre-canned ideology to “justify” an early invasion of Iraq. The policy cooked the intel. And everybody inside then – knew it.
THAT was the outrageous part. Nothing new – but our General Groucho Marx is either clueless or being deliberately “amphlibious” in “ducking” what the real controversy is. He must be still drinking the OSP koolaid himself.
Ok, back to the interview, Roberts next wants to know what the increased casualties from helicopter crashes means.
ROBERTS:…”It’s beginning to look a little bit like Afghanistan there with the helos going down, as it was when the Russians were in Afghanistan. Is this new weapons, new tactics?
MAJOR GENERAL DON SHEPARD, U.S. AIR FORCE (RET.): We don’t know yet, John. But I would say be very careful about drawing conclusions too quickly.
The thing about these helicopters are they were different types of helicopters. They were operating in different areas. We need to find out what shot them down, if, indeed, they were shot down or whether it was missiles or light weapons or anti-aircraft fire.
All of those are very important and then look at your tactics. Were you flying at the same time, same altitude? You decide what to change, but don’t be too quick to say this is new weapons and some new thing going on.
Sounds like a stall tactic to me. Just too many variables to know for sure, so let’s call a spade anything but….
ROBERTS: What do you think, General Grange, and what does it all mean? As we were pointing out here, that the Russians began to lose their stomach in Afghanistan when all their helicopters started being shot down.
BRIGADIER GENERAL DAVID GRANGE, U.S. ARMY (RET.): Well, the helicopter losses had something to do with it, but it was other factors, as well.
Actually, this is a very small number of helicopters to be lost in the war that’s gone on this long, especially if you compare it to something like Vietnam.
So it could be some more sophisticated weapons, tactics, but it’s probably focused on helicopters because, one, it’s a sensational attack if they’re successful and, number two, they can’t stand the fact that U.S. forces rule the skies, that U.S. forces have a three- dimensional warfare capability. They can find with helicopters, kill them with helicopters, and move troops rapidly around the battlefield.
Let’s see now. We’ve really only lost just a few helicopters, compared to what we lost in Vietnam. Does that sound familiar? They were saying that about the human casualty count too – until last November. Besides, it’s all just symbolic. We still rule the skies, and “da enemy” hates that so he gets lucky with an isolated “sensational” attack. But it’s all really meaningless.
Would “General” Grange dare to present such whitewash before a panel of his peers who had studied Afghanistan and what happened to the Soviets there?
Roberts next wants to survey their “expert” opinions of General Petraeus, the “next General Grant” who takes over command of US forces in Iraq this week: (mis-spellings in transcript)
ROBERTS: Spider, is he going to be able to get the job done and is he the last chance?
MARX: This isn’t about Dave Piraeus. This is about trying to make a difference on the ground, making sure the soldiers and Marines on the ground, all the service members have what they need.
Certainly you can’t have an army or a service of lambs being led by a lion exclusively, but you prefer to have that. You prefer to have a great guy in charge.
So Dave Petraeus is the right guy. He’s studied it, he’s fought in it. He knows what he’s talking about. We’ve got to give him the opportunity. But let’s not call it a surge.
Come again? What is Marx smoking? So this isn’t about Petraeus — oh, but he “is the right guy” to be the lion leading the lambs – but not exclusively…. And, oh by the way, let’s toss in that Faux Snow talking point and say, “let’s not call it a surge.” What utter babbling. (which you’ll find on the CNN transcripts every time Marx appears…. He could turn “Marx” into a four-letter-word.)
Ok, next:
ROBERTS: General Shepard, you sent me an article earlier this week pointing that General Petraeus has surrounded himself with Ph.D.s, very bright people who also have a wealth of combat experience. What sort of advantage do you think that might give him in the field?
SHEPARD: Well, it’s taking smart people that have been there and you’re looking for ideas.
Dave Petraeus is the right guy at the right time over there. He has been there. He has studied it. He’s helped train the Iraqi military. This is a guy that knows what he’s doing, but he is on the hot seat. He will be held responsible for what happens over there and he’s got smart guys helping him to think through the thing, because this is not just a military problem, it’s a complex diplomatic political problem, as well.
Did we just hear an echo? And by the way, Dick Cheney has a Ph.D. too — in my field, political science. Are we comforted? Douglas Feith also surrounded himself with Ph.D.’s at the Office of Special Plans – freshly minted from neocon farms. If you want a more serious take on the new General’s alleged brain trust, see here.
Next:
ROBERTS: General Grange, I wanted to throw this at you. It’s a report that came out on Friday from the Council on Foreign Relations, a fellow named Steve Simon, writing about the Iraq war, making the case that the U.S. should pull troops out by 2008, saying that “The crisis has now moved beyond the capacity of Washington to control on its own. The United States lacks the military resources and the domestic and international political support to master the situation.”
He’s suggesting that the situation in Iraq may be irretrievable, regardless of how this troop increase goes, that the U.S. has got to think about getting out as soon as possible.
Oooooh, serious, tough question. (And here’s the CFR report, for the curious.) But golly, CNN has hired me to give good news about the Iraq action, so let’s banish this seldom heard discouraging word from CNN, as vaguely as possible:
GRANGE: I’m sure that’s a course of action on the table. I always believe that there’s a way to accomplish a mission. I don’t think it’s hopeless. I think it’s very tough.
The international community has already lost their will. It’s a good chance that the United States of America will lose — we’ll lose our will, as well, and when that happens, no matter what you do, you will not be successful.
I hear another echo…. Spider Marx said almost the same thing on the same show a few weeks ago…. that the US will win, but only if the American people don’t lose their nerve, their “will.” (And those of us who protest against the surge, etc. are “in league with the enemy.”)
This is utter nonsense. It repeats the stale and nasty myth that we “lost” in Vietnam because the American people stopped supporting the war — not because the strategy was deeply flawed, especially from the day we arrogantly assassinated Diem in ’63.
Ah, but Roberts, mindful that he is inteviewing Generals paid by the same corporation who pays him, must play along and close politely:
ROBERTS: Well, there’s a lot of people who have a lot of faith in David Petraeus and a lot of people hoping that he can make a difference on the ground.
I believe the transcript here should have been spelled, “Feith” – as in “Feith-based” wishful thinking