- Joined
- Jun 10, 2005
- Messages
- 26,586
- Reaction score
- 12,245
- Location
- Highlands Ranch, CO
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
In my opinions IEDs defined the combat environment in Iraq, primarily because it slowed everything down so much for US forces. As well as being a transporter, IEDs define my operations in so many ways. Where I can go, how I get there, when I leave, how fast do I drive, how far apart the trucks are, etc etc.
And if we consider IEDs as part of a wider guerrilla warfare strategy, than it also defined our conflict to win over the locals. They also had to put up with that constant fear and being asked to trust US forces for security while at the same time knowing the US couldnt protect them from everything was very difficult.
Well, of course it was a part of the environment. But it was not the impact on military operations people think. They were a consideration just like any other. We adapted and the mission went on. Stronger trucks and IED detectors were developed. Food and ammo was delivered. It's like a sniper that spends days shooting at patrols. He is a consideration, but patrols go on. In 2003, the threat of gas atack had troops wearing NBC suits all the way to Baghdad, but the mission was not deterred. The only great impact IEDs had was on the civilian populace back home who was led to believe that every blast meant nuclear explosion and defeat. For troops on the ground it was merely a part of the war.
Now as for your 2nd paragraph, you're are talking about something completely different. I don't disagree in the least that drama sells, in fact that in my opinion is what the primary motivator was for many news outlets to talk about the war, along with with the fact that the war was also actual news.
HOWEVER, apdst was arguing the media was anti-war, not that they were drama loving or that they wanted to use the war for profit to sell papers and newstime. No, he said they were anti war and broadcast-ed so much news about IEDs because they had a topic "could blow out of proportion, so as to undermine the American war effort."
Look at it this way. With FOX gloryfying everything about the war to cater to pro-Bush Republican ties and CNN chastizing everything in order to cater to anti-Bush Democrats, it is not a hard leap to accuse the media of being anti-war (all the rest may as well have been CNN disciples). No matter the media's political motives, no troop felt that the media was on his side (except for obnoxious FOX).
See the difference? Perhaps you should take a bit of time out of your self-righteous textual vomit figure out what people are talking about.
And lastly about Justbubba thanking me, I'm glad to see you two still believe in guilt by association.
I guess I deserved that. I am very arrogant.