The Secret War

[moderateamericain]

Its been a long time, But I wanted to take the time to post up. I came back from Afghanistan about a month ago, and I was shocked to see there is virtually no coverage of whats going on over there. Does anybody know that its turned into a full blown shooting war? Compared to Iraq, heck you can't even compare it to Iraq. Iraq was a day spa. I encourage anyone who is not tuned in to whats going on over there to get yourself educated quick.

[dre]

Its been a long time, But I wanted to take the time to post up. I came back from Afghanistan about a month ago, and I was shocked to see there is virtually no coverage of whats going on over there. Does anybody know that its turned into a full blown shooting war? Compared to Iraq, heck you can't even compare it to Iraq. Iraq was a day spa. I encourage anyone who is not tuned in to whats going on over there to get yourself educated quick.

Can you provide some more information?

[myata]

Guess you have to know where to look. 'cause our MPs just came back greatly inspired by the progress.

[GostHacked]

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/i37489.html

Looks like one attack per death. The death toll is not that all surprising, it's the amount of attacks to get that death toll.

But I don't know if this is what the OP was talkin about.

[myata]

That's why we absolutely should stop sending trains of cash and putting our lives on the line there. Average humanitarian assistence, training and educating maybe, as long as we can safely get out if need be. Investing massively into another puppet regime that will play us nice pretty tunes up to the second it's kicked out is the worst possible option. It's a complete and utter waste and it won't achieve anything of the kind used for its justification.

[GostHacked]

I also thought this was interesting today.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/18/exclusive-undetermined-number-afghan-military-members-awol-air-force-base/

Ten of 17 Afghan military deserters who walked away from a training program on a U.S. Air Force base in Texas remain at large, sources close to the situation told Fox News on Friday, and seven of the men have been accounted for.

The 17 deserters went AWOL from Lackland Air Force Base, where foreign military officers who are training to become pilots are taught English, according to a "Be-on-the-Lookout" (BOLO) bulletin issued on Wednesday.

Sources said that as of November 2009, one of the deserters was in Canada, one is now a lawful permanent resident in the U.S., one has left the country and another four are in federal custody and in removal proceedings. The other 10 remain unaccounted for.

[moderateamericain]

More information,

Stayed on Base the entire time i was there, in Iraq I was at least able to travel around a bit

The depot was attacked almost every single day.

Every time a Recon unit came back the vehicles had taken some kind of damage.

We were racked in an area where we would have virtually no contact with the native population, in Iraq, there were native Iraqi's all over the place

Enough info for you?

[Moonlight Graham]

More information,

Stayed on Base the entire time i was there, in Iraq I was at least able to travel around a bit

The depot was attacked almost every single day.

Every time a Recon unit came back the vehicles had taken some kind of damage.

We were racked in an area where we would have virtually no contact with the native population, in Iraq, there were native Iraqi's all over the place

Enough info for you?

Interesting info, thanks. From what it sounds the area you were in was pretty crazy. We don't really hear much of the day-to-day goings-on of whats going on over there, as it really isn't "news" until there is a big offensive, a bombing, or a soldier dies etc.

I think any informed person on the war over there knows we aren't winning. Seems like we've been treading water for the majority of the time we've been there, and politically the situation there seems to be deteriorating. Canada's longest war hurray!

Edited July 5, 2010 by Moonlight Graham

[sharkman]

Seeing as to how the media covered Iraq as un-winnable and even had special coverage specials when death milestones were reached, it seems odd to me that they don't seem to be covering Afghanistan with the same intensity. Remember how they would 'imbed' reporters in with actual troops? Are they even doing that at all now?

What's the difference, is winning in Afghanistan a foregone conclusion when it wasn't in Iraq?

[DogOnPorch]

The Hashish Army: Afghanistan 2009

Combat Outpost: Afghanistan 2009

It's worse now...

Much like Viet-Nam, this war will be lost by the West if it doesn't address Afghanistan's version of the Ho Chi Minh Trail (Pakistan's border region) properly. Recruits the Taliban have plenty of. Guns and ammo...they have a good supply. All flow from this region along a huge border that the puny number of Allied troops can't begin to cover to any effective degree. Silly patrols to open roads are just asking for a death by a thousand cuts. Afghanistan's army? Don't make me laugh. Much like the ARVN, they'll fold like a house of cards no matter their fancy equipment if left on their own.

Does our country and others actually have the political will to end this thing? I doubt it.

Edited July 6, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[myata]

Does our country and others actually have the political will to end this thing? I doubt it.

Canada's part in this war is an LPC/CPC joint venture. I do not believe there was ever popular support for it. And comes election time, one of the two will be guaranteed to get back in power. No, like we'll have to endure in it all the way to the bitter end.

[eyeball]

Its been a long time, But I wanted to take the time to post up. I came back from Afghanistan about a month ago, and I was shocked to see there is virtually no coverage of whats going on over there. Does anybody know that its turned into a full blown shooting war? Compared to Iraq, heck you can't even compare it to Iraq. Iraq was a day spa. I encourage anyone who is not tuned in to whats going on over there to get yourself educated quick.

I could have told you 8 years ago that it would only get worse over there. In fact I did, well maybe not you personally but...

See you in another 8 years. Perhaps by then even more people will be up to speed on what's going or more to the point, not going on over there.

[sharkman]

Uh, so would anyone care to hazard a guess as to why the North American media is not covering this war with even half the intensity it did with Iraq?

[bush_cheney2004]

Uh, so would anyone care to hazard a guess as to why the North American media is not covering this war with even half the intensity it did with Iraq?

Because Iraq has a happy ending?

[Moonlight Graham]

Because Iraq has a happy ending?

Check again in 20 years.

[bush_cheney2004]

Check again in 20 years.

OK...better check Northern Ireland too.

[myata]

OK...better check Northern Ireland too.

Close enough. Ireland was a colonial conquest of some 400 years back while Afghanistan is a modern day colonization by proxy. We only have to wait comparable time to see its benefits blossoming through (the mess it created; and continues to create). Like in Northern Ireland, 400 years of civil strife on.

[Guest American Woman]

Sharkman, on 06 July 2010 - 10:49 AM, said: Uh, so would anyone care to hazard a guess as to why the North American media is not covering this war with even half the intensity it did with Iraq?

Because Iraq has a happy ending?

I don't think so. I think it's because Iraq was a US/UK war, as opposed to a war backed by NATO or the UN, so it must be pointed out to the world how terrible it is. All the deaths, unrest, etc., are much worse since NATO and the UN didn't pass a resolution "legalizing" the war. Afghanistan, on the other hand, had the approval of much of the world, so people don't want to read about what they supported; it's much easier/more preferable to read and criticize when they can absolve themselves of any guilt/responsibility; especially when it's a great opportunity to criticize the U.S. while making themselves feel 'holier than thou' for not getting involved/officially involved.

[dre]

I don't think so. I think it's because Iraq was a US/UK war, as opposed to a war backed by NATO or the UN, so it must be pointed out to the world how terrible it is. All the deaths, unrest, etc., are much worse since NATO and the UN didn't pass a resolution "legalizing" the war. Afghanistan, on the other hand, had the approval of much of the world, so people don't want to read about what they supported; it's much easier/more preferable to read and criticize when they can absolve themselves of any guilt/responsibility; especially when it's a great opportunity to criticize the U.S. while making themselves feel 'holier than thou' for not getting involved/officially involved.

The media lost interest in Iraq too eventually.

This has been going on for 9 years without much change in the situation over there. People are bored of it, and the media cant sell ad space during Afghanistan segments for as much as they would like.

it's much easier/more preferable to read and criticize when they can absolve themselves of any guilt/responsibility; especially when it's a great opportunity to criticize the U.S. while making themselves feel 'holier than thou' for not getting involved/officially involved.

Youre trying to scare up a conspiracy that isnt there.

Content on media networks is determined by marketing teams, and ratings. War only generates good ratings when theres heavy levels of violence, and Afghanistan never reached those levels except during the invasion which WAS heavily covered. And once the level of violence in Iraq slowed down a bit coverage dropped off there as well.

[M.Dancer]

Content on media networks is determined by marketing teams, and ratings.

That of course is the kind of nonsense you expect to hear from someone outside of media. Content is always driven by fiorst and foremost, current news and secondly by viewer or reader interest.

War only generates good ratings when theres heavy levels of violence, and Afghanistan never reached those levels except during the invasion which WAS heavily covered. And once the level of violence in Iraq slowed down a bit coverage dropped off there as well.

If hat was true, then your premise in false. The violence in Afghanistan is in fact far worse now than in the invasion when in 2001-02 there were only 81 coalition troops killed while in 2009-10 there have been 857....

Secondly, while in the US AFghansitan may have been the second fiddle to Iraq, in Canada it has always been a top news story.

And thirdly, you assumption that coverage has dropped because of ratings is also incorrect.

http://www.google.ca/search?rlz=1T4GGIH_enCA264CA264&q=iraq&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=nws:1&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn

What has dropped is your attention span.

[dre]

That of course is the kind of nonsense you expect to hear from someone outside of media. Content is always driven by fiorst and foremost, current news and secondly by viewer or reader interest.

If hat was true, then your premise in false. The violence in Afghanistan is in fact far worse now than in the invasion when in 2001-02 there were only 81 coalition troops killed while in 2009-10 there have been 857....

Secondly, while in the US AFghansitan may have been the second fiddle to Iraq, in Canada it has always been a top news story.

And thirdly, you assumption that coverage has dropped because of ratings is also incorrect.

http://www.google.ca/search?rlz=1T4GGIH_enCA264CA264&q=iraq&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=nws:1&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn

What has dropped is your attention span.

That of course is the kind of nonsense you expect to hear from someone outside of media. Content is always driven by fiorst and foremost, current news and secondly by viewer or reader interest.

No sorry youre just wrong, which is why a lot of relevant stories barely get mentioned in todays media. Content is determined entirely based on how much profit that content can generate for shareholders in the form of ad revenue. Iraq was more sensational, and therefore a better marketing tool.

http://www.google.ca/search?rlz=1T4GGIH_enCA264CA264&q=iraq&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=nws:1&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn

That link has no relevance.

If hat was true, then your premise in false. The violence in Afghanistan is in fact far worse now than in the invasion when in 2001-02 there were only 81 coalition troops killed while in 2009-10 there have been 857....

People werent bored of it yet. Obviously an invasion by Nato troops is going to get lots of coverage.

What has dropped is your attention span.

Thats actually pretty much what I said in the first place. People got bored of it. War only sells ad space if its new, or if theres sensational levels of violence.

Edited July 7, 2010 by dre

[Guest American Woman]

Youre trying to scare up a conspiracy that isnt there.

Everything isn't a "conspiracy" and everything that people see differently than you do isn't 'not there.'

Content on media networks is determined by marketing teams, and ratings.

That actually supports my thoughts. An "illegal war" by the US/UK would certainly appeal to the world at large more than a war that they supported. Much better to read about the death and destruction at the hands of 'the evil US/UK' who shouldn't have done what they did than it is to read about a war they supported.

War only generates good ratings when theres heavy levels of violence, and Afghanistan never reached those levels except during the invasion which WAS heavily covered.

It also generates good ratings when it involves powerful nations acting against the UN/NATO; nations that the rest of the world loves to hate.

[M.Dancer]

No sorry youre just wrong, which is why a lot of relevant stories barely get mentioned in todays media. Content is determined entirely based on how much profit that content can generate for shareholders in the form of ad revenue. Iraq was more sensational, and therefore a better marketing tool.

Given that all the major news outlets tend to follow the same stories, your hypothesis makes no sense. What you think is a relevant story may not be sghared by the producers and editors...shareholders have no say in the editorial process.

That link has no relevance.

You said that:

And once the level of violence in Iraq slowed down a bit coverage dropped off there as well.

It would seem that 32,000 current news items about Iraq has no relevance to you because it does not support your assumption

Thats actually pretty much what I said in the first place. People got bored of it. War only sells ad space if its new, or if theres sensational levels of violence.

While you may be bored of it, Iraq and Afghanistan still dominate the international news cycle, much to the dismay of your claims, which appraently are biased due to your short attention span.

[M.Dancer]

In order to properly understand why Dre's comments regarding ratings and ad revenues vis a vis war are so out in left field, television network's news hours often lose money covering stories like Iraq or Afghanistan...the costs involved in having a news team, reporters, producers, technicians, satellite equipment, translators, minders..etc etc, is often greater than the ad revenue the news hour generates.

Even events where the dangers of war, sand and mishap are gone can be more expensive than the ad revenue generated...consider the winter Olympics, NBC lost $200 million with their coverage.

[sharkman]

I don't think so. I think it's because Iraq was a US/UK war, as opposed to a war backed by NATO or the UN, so it must be pointed out to the world how terrible it is. All the deaths, unrest, etc., are much worse since NATO and the UN didn't pass a resolution "legalizing" the war. Afghanistan, on the other hand, had the approval of much of the world, so people don't want to read about what they supported; it's much easier/more preferable to read and criticize when they can absolve themselves of any guilt/responsibility; especially when it's a great opportunity to criticize the U.S. while making themselves feel 'holier than thou' for not getting involved/officially involved.

Well you probably have a point there. I can remember hearing that the BBC and others like it were pretty negative about Iraq. But in considering the US media, focusing now on Bush's second term, they were VERY critical of everything about it, and condemned the surge, which was what won the day. Even now, with Iraq becoming an obvious success, you don't see the US media saying that Bush was right. You see Biden claiming success in Iraq for Obama, and the US media doesn't call him on it.

I see an actual trend where the US media is covering anything to do with Obama (generally speaking, of course) in very favorable terms. Now it seems that Afghanistan is not going very well, and hasn't been for some time and to such an extent that the US general in charge there beaks off about it. But Obama gets a pass for it(lack of success in Afghan.), and his administration is allowed, by the US media, to take credit for the success in Iraq. So to me the reason we don't hear about the Afghanistan war with as much intensity and negativity as we did Iraq is because of who is in the white house.

Perhaps Bush was right about Afghanistan too, staying away I mean.