Carlson questioned servicemen's op-ed on Iraq war, but not Pollack's views
SUMMARY: MSNBC's Tucker Carlson questioned the decision by members of the U.S. Army 82nd
Airborne Division to write an op-ed, which asserted that "[t]he claim that we are increasingly
in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a
flawed, American-centered framework." Carlson did not mention that
the op-ed was a response to assessments made in a previous op-ed by Michael
O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack; and when he interviewed Pollack, he did not
challenge Pollack's opinions on whether progress is being made in Iraq.
On the August 20 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, host Tucker Carlson discussed an August 19 New York Times op-ed written by seven members of the U.S. Army 82nd Airborne Division -- which asserted that "[t]he claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework." Carlson, who admitted to being "a little bit uncomfortable" with the servicemen's decision to write the op-ed, stated: "I wonder if weighing in on a political question such as this doesn't squander the awesome moral authority that these guys already have." However, Carlson did not mention that the op-ed responded to assessments made in a previous New York Times op-ed, "A War We Just Might Win," by Brookings Institution scholars Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack. Carlson, who hosted Pollack on the July 30 edition of Tucker, did not challenge his opinions on whether progress is being made in Iraq, in contrast to his treatment of the servicemen's op-ed.
Later on the August 20 program, Carlson said: "I instinctively distrust sentences like this": "A vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force." He added: "These guys may be fighting the war, but they don't have access to the opinions of the vast majority of anybody in Iraq." Retired U.S. Army Col. Jack Jacobs, an MSNBC military analyst, agreed: "Well, that's absolutely correct. They're looking at the world through a straw. They see only what they've seen." But when Carlson interviewed Pollack, who wrote in the op-ed that he and O'Hanlon had just returned from Iraq, where they "spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel," Carlson did not ask him whether he had been able to choose the sites he had visited or the people he had spoken with while there. During a July 30 CNN interview, Pollack said that his trip "was largely organized by the military."
As Media Matters for America noted, in the August 19 op-ed, without explicitly referring to O'Hanlon and Pollack's op-ed, the seven authors from the 82nd Airborne used language echoing the earlier op-ed and challenged its major claims.
During the July 30 edition of the show, Carlson said to Pollack: "[E]verybody knows that Iraq is a disaster, I think, and it's the Bush administration's fault," adding, "But what people, I don't think, have any understanding of is progress at all." He then asked Pollack: "What progress did you see there?" Later, Carlson asserted: "It seems to me, if you're a member of Congress and you're debating whether or not to pull out, or as the situation is now, when to pull out, how quickly to pull out, you ought to be aware of the situation on the ground." Carlson also stated, "I actually decided the war was a disaster by going to Iraq," and said to Pollack: "Speaking of -- I found the place really threatening. Did you feel less threatened than you did when you were there last?"
From the July 30 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:
CARLSON: Ken, thanks for coming on.
POLLACK: My pleasure, Tucker. Good to be here.
CARLSON: So, it's not -- I mean, everybody knows that Iraq is a disaster, I think, and it's the Bush administration's fault -- and you say that in the piece. But what people, I don't think, have any understanding of is progress at all. What progress did you see there?
POLLACK: Well, we saw progress in a number of different areas. Most important of all, we saw it in the security sector. U.S. forces had changed their tactics, they changed their strategy, and they really were actually having progress or having an impact on the Iraqis, creating some degree of security for them, repairing basic services, allowing them to live normal lives.
[...]
CARLSON: Here's the first line of the piece, for those who missed it. "Viewed from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has, over four years, lost essentially all credibility. Yet now, the administration's critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place in Iraq."
It seems to me, if you're a member of Congress and you're debating whether or not to pull out, or as the situation is now, when to pull out, how quickly to pull out, you ought to be aware of the situation on the ground, and yet you say they're not. Why?
POLLACK: Well, again, Iraq is an incredibly complicated place, Tucker. And a lot of the changes that we saw, the developments that we saw, are very, very recent.
[...]
POLLACK: The place has gone from being the worst part of Iraq to, outside of Kurdistan, the best. The Sunni sheikhs, the Sunni tribes, have basically decided they don't want any more part of Al Qaeda and the other Salafi jihadist groups, and they've come to the United States and said, "We want your help getting rid of them." And they have taken on that challenge and done it to a very significant extent, and that's a very recent development.
I sometimes feel like our news cycle, and particularly our political cycle, takes weeks, if not months, to catch up with what's going on --
CARLSON: Well, that's right.
POLLACK: -- in a place that's changing as fast as Iraq.
CARLSON: That is exactly right. I actually decided the war was a disaster by going to Iraq, and at the time, Hillary Clinton was out there saying that all was well. Speaking of -- I found the place really threatening. Did you feel less threatened than you did when you were there last?
POLLACK: In some places, yes; in other places, no.
Additionally, as the blog Think Progress noted in response to Carlson's assertion that he "instinctively distrust[s] sentences" like "A vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force," polling supports the statement in the servicemen's op-ed. Specifically, a February 25-March 5 poll by ABC News, USA Today, the BBC, and ARD German TV found that, in a sample of more than 2,000 people across all 18 provinces of Iraq, 69 percent thought "the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq is making security in our country ... worse." The same poll found that 77 percent of those polled thought the United States "is playing a ... negative role in Iraq right now."
Polling from 2004 assessing Iraqi attitudes toward the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has found similar results. An April 2004 USA Today/CNN/Gallup survey assessing nearly 3,500 Iraqis of every religious and ethnic group found that, when "[a]sked whether they view[ed] the U.S.-led coalition as 'liberators' or 'occupiers,' 71% of all respondents said 'occupiers.' " Further, in a May 20, 2004, article, Reuters reported on a poll from the Iraq Center for Research and Strategic Studies, which found that, based on a sample of 1,600 Iraqis, "nearly nine out of 10 Iraqis see U.S. forces as occupiers rather than liberators or peacekeepers."
From the August 20 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:
CARLSON: A group of U.S. soldiers is weighing in on the politics of Iraq, but these are not retired generals -- not the ones you see on television -- these are active members of the 82nd Airborne Division, fresh from a tour of duty in Iraq.
They wrote an op-ed in yesterday's New York Times and disputed talk that the U.S. is getting that country under control. The group pointed to the fragile alliances American forces have had to form to quell violence there, and an Iraqi army in which thousands are loyal only to their militias. Caught in the crossfire, they say, are the Iraqi people, citizens fearful of the terrorists and insurgents and growing wary of a continued American presence there.
What should we make of an assessment from enlisted servicemen? Well, let's ask MSNBC military analyst retired U.S. Army Colonel Jack Jacobs. Jack, thanks for coming on.
JACOBS: Good evening.
CARLSON: So, what do you make of this?
JACOBS: Well, it's unusual, to say the least.
CARLSON: Yes.
JACOBS: I can't remember a single time when this sort of thing has happened. We've heard a lot, as you suggested, from retired generals and little midget retired colonels like me from time to time castigating the administration and the chain of command for doing what we think shouldn't be done and not doing what they should be done. This is the first time we've heard from serving enlisted men on this subject and, in my experience, I think it's unique.
CARLSON: Well, it just seems to me that -- I'm a little -- I mean, let me just speak for myself. I'm a little bit uncomfortable with it for two reasons. One, there has traditionally been, as you've alluded to, the separation between, you know, active duty military and politics in that the, you know, service members kind of act out the policies of the U.S. government, right or wrong, but they don't comment upon them because you want civilian control of the military and that has always been our tradition. And two, I wonder if weighing in on a political question such as this doesn't squander the awesome moral authority that these guys already have.
JACOBS: I think there is some detriment to the moral authority you're talking about. I think these soldiers think that they were doing a -- performing a public service by making the public aware of what is -- they see as happening at the lowest possible levels, because, of course, we only see a broad brush of the strategy. We don't see very much of what happens tactically.
[...]
CARLSON: Yes. See, I'm not sure what to think. Like most Americans, I instinctively respect people who are currently serving, who are, you know, in a war zone -- absolutely.
And I'm not sure whether the surge is working or not. I honestly don't know and I'm not taking a position on that 'cause I don't have the information, but I do know I instinctively distrust sentences like this. And this is from the op-ed from these seven members of the 82nd Airborne, quote: "A vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force."
Now, when every -- the president uses phrases like that: "The vast majority of Iraqis" want this or don't want that. My first thought is, well, how the hell does he know? And that's my first thought here. These guys may be fighting the war, but they don't have access to the opinions of the vast majority of anybody in Iraq.
JACOBS: Well, that's absolutely correct. They're looking at the world through a straw. They see only what they've seen. They may have been in an area where in fact the surge is not working, or there isn't a surge, or their tactics are not working. There's a lot of fighting among Shia, for example, or between Shia and Sunni that's not controlled by the American military, where the Iraqi army perhaps is not up to snuff. We do know that there are areas in which the surge is working, where our strategies are working, and we hear about that all the time.
We do hear reports, obviously, of places where things are not working well, and that's particularly in areas inside Baghdad. But you raise a significant question: To what extent are we supposed to listen to, or believe, anybody's estimate of what's going on in an environment where almost nobody knows what he's doing or what's going on?
CARLSON: Right.
JACOBS: We do have to take everybody's comments with a grain of salt -- these included.
I am not opposed to the active servicemen writing this piece, they have as much moral authority as anyone there - their personal experiences specifically should be viewed in that context. As should the piece by Pollack, his own experiences.
But this discussion between Tucker and Jacobs is not so misinformative, or even unfair. Tucker is asking reasonable and deliberate questions, and the Colonel is answering based on his experiences and views. Their discussion is going more to the unusualness of a this type of piece being written by active personnel, and they are giving their opinions and analysis on that......the absolute relevance to Pollack's piece in that context isn't the issue.
It's an interesting discussion.
It is furthering a certain agenda. They are following the model about discussing the servicemen's op-ed with respect to if they should have written it and ignoring the content while when discussing the O & P op-ed they discuss the content. Why is everyone so unwilling to discuss the actual content of the servicemen's op-ed. How is their content any less legitimate or more bias then O & P's. Don't you think its a problem that they are trying to frame the story in such differnet ways depending on if its positive or negative views.
Where are they ignoring the content of it? They specifically opine on "A vast majority of Iraqi's feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force".
This is a pretty broad statement don't you think? The vast majority?
No they didn't discuss the content of that sentence he simply pulled out the one quote and said it made him uncomfortable...odd how similar broad statements by O & P did not make him uncomfortable or feel the need to address it. I would say the satement may be broad but research bears out the truth of the statement. Poll after poll backs up that statement. So if the statement is broad but backed up with evidence of its veracity does it matter how broad it is.
What? Discussing that sentence is discussing the content of the piece - which you falsely claimed was ignored - and obviously, it was not.
Both pieces are the author's personal experiences and should be viewed in that context. My point was that was not the thrust of this discussion so the comparison to Pollack's piece is not entirely valid - the focus is the appropriateness of the servicemen's piece at all. Which I have already said I am not in agreement with Tucker about, their writings do not make me uncomfortable as they do to Tucker.
You are free to discount Pollack's piece and embrace the servicemen's all you want too - for one suits your ideology, the other does not.
I view them both in the context they were written, take them both with a grain of salt, and do not feel uncomfortable with either.
No Tommy, discussing the content would have been discussing if their assertion was true or not and why. Discussing content is not "that statement makes me uncomfortable." Second I didn't say if one should be discounted or not I simply said the content of both should be discussed equally. As far as ideology goes you are full of it. I believe in philospohy not ideology. If you want to talk ideology we could discuss your new mission to bash all things MMFA and discount truth in favor of some convoluted spin you come up with for what people "really mean." It seems I am not the one beding over backwords these days to defend ideologues like Rush and co.--thats your mission these days.
If you want to veer off topic just to insult me, fine. What's the point of discussing this then?
Give me a break. You tell me I base things on ideology and then complain because you feel insulted. I know what my purpose in discussing these issues is it is your purpose that I wonder about. Your previous post backs up the point I am making they are not discussing the content the focus of the discussion was the appropriateness of them writing it--read your own words.
If the appropriateness of them writing it is the focus here, then why the comparison to Pollack's piece at all? I said the thrust of Tucker's discussion is the unusualness of this type of piece, yet you continue to falsely claim that aren't discussing the content at all, which they absolutely did in the vast majority comment. You want to dismiss that conversation, then fine.
They absoluteley did not discuss the content just their uncomfortableness with one sentence but never addressing the validity of the comment or lack thereof nor the remaining points they raised. If you go back to my first post to you I clearly stated why the comparison is valid and that the problem is that the focus is on the appropriatness (as you put it) of the servicemen writing it (which is only a tangential issue at best) and not on the content as was the case for discussions and coverage of the O & P op-ed. That is the basis for the comparison: why are they not receiving equal treatment.
The MISINFORMATION here covers several areas.
Tucker (and other rightwing pundits) give LEGITIMACY to the pro-Bush pro-"We're making progress" story written by two reporters whose "experience" was dictated by the White House (having the military brass line up everything the reporters were to see and hear, and were NOT to see and hear), while these same rightwing pundits consider it ILLEGITIMATE for actual soldiers to comment on THEIR experience, which is actually fighting the war on the ground and interacting with the actual people involved.
It is mindboggling how these rightwingers CLAIM to support the military, but are very quick to throw any veteran and any military hero under the bus, if they dare to contradict this president in any way.
The military, to a rightwinger, has two functions: To fight and die without questioning or thinking, and to provide a backdrop to President Bush's speeches (to give him the FALSE legitimacy of seeming universal military support for his leadership).
It is clear to nearly all Americans by now that George W. Bush is a TERRIBLE "commander in chief", and the military ... when they are able (like generals AFTER they have finally retired), tell the world that the military sees Bush as a president who has made serial bad decisions, does NOT support the troops, and does NOT tell the truth about what's actually happening in war zones.
So, who to believe? Reporters fed with a Pentagon eyedropper, or a group of soldiers who have actually been fighting the war on the ground? To me, there is NO comparison; the TROOPS know, the others are propagandists. To Tucker, there is also no comparison; he believes whatever supports the White House spin.
MISINFORMATION -- lies told with the intent to mislead and fool the American people, and to hide the TRUTH. Tucker does it here, bigtime (and he's far from alone in this practice).
Oh, and Lost, please remind me again how my bashing of MMFA and Rush have to do with this topic? My questioning of your ideological preferences was my own opinion of your comments regarding this specific topic, if I was wrong, I apologize.
Your gratuituous off topic swipe at me is hardly the same thing, but whatever.
Let me get this straight in your world it is not to be responded to when you accuse me of ideological thinking since that is just your opinion. But when I respond in kind by addressing my opinion about your ideological prupose that is a gratuitious swipe. As for being off topic--what do I care if I am off topic. I go off topic all the time.
Lostlogic was not ideological in yesterday's discussion of the Hillary Clinton "surge is working" quote. I found Lostlogic to be an informed person who looked at that topic without falling back on ideology. Just sayin'.
And I have apologized if I mischaracterized her opinions. Whether she accepts it or not is up to her.
Gosh timmy, yer such a fair guy. A swell straight shooter. Just offerin up that genuine apology. Until the next time you intentionally misrepresent what people say so that you can knock over a straw man? You're about as reasonable as Stephen Colbert's character on the Report. Is that the fun of it? Truthiness. You just need to sound right and totally convinced of your own rightness and then comfortably be as ignorant as you want. Gets you a lot of attention too doesn't it? Reminds me of the naughty three year olds at the day care where I used to work. Any attention is good even if you're full of crap. It was ALMOST cute when they did it. Is that the reason for the cutesy name?
I find LL to pretty much always being both analytical and insightful. Never seen a knee jerk reaction from her.
You are free to discount Pollack's piece and embrace the servicemen's all you want too - for one suits your ideology, the other does not.
...
- tommy / Wednesday August 22, 2007 01:20:00 PM ESTThat's where this topic went off course, with your accusation. Just sayin'.
"I wonder if weighing in on a political question such as this doesn't squander the awesome moral authority that these guys already have."
Okay, Tucky...I wonder if you would say the same thing if 7 Servicemen posed for a photo-op with President Numbnuts and gushed about how well the war was going? Would they lose their "awesome moral authority" by shoving their heads up the President's butt?
I guess "supporting the troops" only applies if they say what the GOP wants them to say.
What is this "awesome moral authority" anyway?
From the way I am reading it, the guys from the 82nd are in a much better position to say what is going on in Iraq than these other guys. And, I don't view it as a political thing for them, I view it as they are giving their honest opinion of what's going on, and I also don't see it as they want to 'pull out' and come home. I think that most of our servicemen and women would rather stay there and get done what they think needs to be done for sure.
I know I sound like a broken record but notice how they discuss the O & P op-ed content and ask what they observed but the discussion around the servicemen's op-ed is only about why they did it and should they have done it. I would guess that if you are accussing the servicemen of only seeing through a straw I would think a trip organized and run by the military limiting access the way the O & P trip was would make their view from an even smaller straw. I also think a careful reading of the servicemen's op-ed will show that they do address the areas that people are discussing as showing progress and where the tactics are allegedly working but they also point out what many in the military are (including Petraeus) that the strategy won't win political resolution. The servicemen basically say we are looking at success from the wrong framewrok it is not about whether or not our military can go into any area and provide security that has never really been in doubt we have an excellant military...they just aren't the correct tool for nation building or refereeing a civil war.
LOSTLOGIC,
Wow!!!!!!! Excellent post. There is no effective rebuttal to your insight. With your permission I would like to use your ideas in discussions with the right wingers I know in my community (I would cite my source of course). I would also like to add that you effectively mopped the floor with Tommy. You are one smart cookie.
Jacobs is correct.
These guys are giving their views which are comparable to looking through a straw and seeing only their own reality.
The OP/Ed piece by Pollack & O'Hanlon is more like looking through a pinhole and viewing a picture being painted by the administration and the brass.
I'll stick with the grunts.
carlson said in the beginning "these are not retired generals " that wrote the op ed like retired generals shouldnt be taken seriously as they are not on the ground in iraq but then he brought on a retired officer to discuss it
I think you have hit upon one of the Flying Monkey Liars' favorite tactics...changing the rules to suit the current situation. These guys simply have no integrity...it's all about promoting the party line, facts be damned. The best example of this tactic is their 180 degree flip flop on the usefulness of the Electoral College after Bush ended up losing the popular vote in 2000.
Does that include Tommy?
All the disinformation that comes out of the mouth of this chickenhawk puts Trucker Carlson almost on O'Reilly's, Coulter's or Limbaugh's level. Nonetheless these people call themselves patriots. What a joke.
This is all typical of the "old shoot the messenger" attitude. The boots on the ground who are doing "God's" work are marginalized and dissmissed. They either don't see the whole picture or are politically naive. Meanwhile, the serious and thoughtful people keep on keeping on. Read as: keep digging the hole deeper.
footsore
So, anytime that someone that used to be in the military has a negative comment about the situation in Iraq, the talking heads blow them off because they are no longer in the military and can't possibly know what the current situation is. And now that people that are on the ground, decide to enter the debate, we can't trust what they say because since they are on the ground they are incapable of seeing the big picture and have lost all moral authority for even sharing their views. Tuckers shifting viewpoints wear me out. He is among the worst there is.
Righties believe what they want to about Iraq, forget about the truth. Their "logic", statistics, quotations, telling anecdotes, and what they include and what they leave out are fixed around the policy that they embrace. It's so convenient that no sacrifice is required of them to have their precious opinions.
"The Sunni sheikhs, the Sunni tribes, have basically decided they don't want any more part of Al Qaeda"
Hey, psssst, most violence in Iraq has been caused by US bombs and the civil war that was triggered when Saddam was removed from power, not by Al-Qaeda. There was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq until Bush invaded it and toppled Saddam. Nothing more interesting for terrorists than a country in chaos.
How come that whenever the US starts a war on something that something starts doing very good? Think about it. The wars on drugs, poverty, terrorism.... it seems drugs, poverty and terrorism have never been more popular. Why don't they start a war on equality, fraternity and freedom?