New Harvard Study On Iraq

[dhalltoyo]

Is There an “Emboldenment” Effect?​

Evidence from the Insurgency in Iraq​

Radha Iyengar
Jonathan Monten
February 2008​

ABSTRACT​

Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an“emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war. We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent. The results suggest that insurgent groups respond rationally to expected probability of US withdrawal. As such counterinsurgency should consider deterrence and incapacitation rather than simply search and destroy missions.​

Note: The article is too lengthy for a reprint; therefore, I am providing the link so that any interested reader can review the report as time permits. ​

http://people.rwj.harvard.edu/~riyengar/insurgency.pdf​

​

 

[greg334]

Yea, ain't that interesting.

I always said that the press is one of our biggest enemies in this country. They want to see us lose the war.

The last time I checked Harvard wasn't a right wing school.

 

[Robsdad]

"The more I see of the Czar, the Kaiser, and the Mikado, the better I am content with democracy, even if we have to include the American newspaper as one of its assets,"Theodore Roosevelt

 

[greg334]

"The more I see of the Czar, the Kaiser, and the Mikado, the better I am content with democracy, even if we have to include the American newspaper as one of its assets,"Theodore Roosevelt

As much as I am a big fans of TR, and as much as I understand his point and know what the context that quote came from, I have to point out that we are fighting a war within a war. Harvard confirmed one thing that many have been saying all along; if we continue to criticize and be divided our enemies will win. They are not some dumb goat farmer but educated in a lot of things that you would never believe. They may have better access to real news than we ever have and know how to plan around it.

The press wants us to lose, they want to see a change in our government and they want to see restrictions on the citizen reporter. Brain Williams made a speech calling for just that. He made the distinction that the constitution should not cover the citizen when it comes to being a 'one man press' but only organized and qualified people should be able to report the news. This puts them one step above the citizen and negates our right to practice freedom of the press. I think this restriction only leads to true propaganda and a situation that they had in Germany, a collusion of the press to support the government but still appears to be independent on the surface. We do see this collusion here but not with the government.

At the time that TR said it, we had real journalist who did not have to go to school to get a degree to be accepted into an exclusive club to report the news. At that time, we didn't have a journalist creed or oath that is taken that made a journalist a world citizen. At that time, we didn't make a death of a journalist as a hero's death that was put above a soldiers death, on the same subject we didn't afford them better care than our soldiers get when they are injured. We didn't have hero reporters.

The people of that time were very focused that they would not let the country go down in flames but openly criticized the government at times. Under Roosevelt and Taft, there were still a lot of real reforms going on but nothing to compare to the future, the biggest threat to free speech and free press was coming in 1913 by Wilson. Wilson seemed to think we didn't need these freedoms; he wanted to throw out the constitution and put in a more authoritarian government like the British had until the 1960’s. FDR was the same and even Truman had something to do with trying to restrict things when his administration was assaulted by the press for the scandals in his good 'ol boy cabinet.

And a better for our times is this;

"Eight words contain the sum of the present degradation of our political parties: No leaders, no principles; no principles, no parties. - Wilson, 1908

 

[Turtle]

None of this should come as a surprise. The reaction of the American people, the widespread protests, is the very thing that emboldened the North Vietnamese. They were ready to give up, but every time they attacked the protests in America grew larger, to the point where the Tet Offensive was designed and carried out based upon the feeling that it would be enough to break the will of the American people to continue the Viet Nam War. They were right.

As scary as it may sound, a strong argument can be made that war protesters are engaged in treason.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

As much as I want to agree with your treason comment, Turtle, I can't. The First Amendment gives the citizens the right to address their grievances. If that were allowed to be quashed, any president wannabe (or Senate dictator) could silence their critics. Oh... it's already happening. McCain/Feingold and the so-called Fairness Doctrine.

I don't like the protestors any more than the next true American. But a-holes have rights too.

 

[greg334]

I somewhat agree with Turtle but not in the way he is talking about. I mean that when we have citizens who go and talk on foreign soil, they are not afforded the rights that they would have here. For example Jane Fonda should have been arrested and tried for treason when she returned back to the US and executed. No other person is a perfect example of the true meaning of the law. She aided the enemy during war time on their soil, she did not renounce her citizen ship and returned to the US. there was no freedom of speech in North Vietnam. But to this day I am so puzzled by the vets, they don't do a thing about her. Contrast that with William Joyce, who renounce his citizenship and worked for the Axis, he was tried and executed, the damage he did was little in comparison.

The other thing is, the first amendment does not afford the protection of the press with unnamed sources, that is an interpretation. It also does not put the press above the citizen, the intent of the founding fathers was not to have the institution we see today or even 100 years ago but to allow each citizen the right to report the news as they see it. Eliminating the British sanctioned Town Crier where the news was selected. Until we declared our independence, we lived under that system.

 

[Robsdad]

As scary as it may sound, a strong argument can be made that war protesters are engaged in treason.

Mr. Turtle ( I use the term Mr. very loosely in this case)

I voice my opinion and now, I am a traitor. You my friend would make a good president much like the one we have. Anyone that wants to complain about something or not agree with his way of doing things should not have a voice. Well Turtle I don't care much for GW and care less about your opinion of me. We have had the opportunity to go back and forth a few times and I do understand that you have a lot of schooling and computer skills. I only have good old common sense. And my common sense leads me to believe you are full of shi*.
Now you go on and have yourself fine day.

 

[greg334]

I wouldn't take that personal, it does not matter really when you think about it. You are free to say what you want, but like I pointed out, when you do it on foreign soil, it is a different matter.

 

[Packmule]

Hawkman,
I'll have to agree with you on your post, but I too agree with Turtle in what he stated to bitter reality. The sobering truth is that some of the same people that protested against the Vietnam conflict, to stop the fighting and bring our troops home, were among the first to turn their backs on our troops and treat them like criminals once they got home.
The media was not as involved in prior wars and conflicts and the American public stood behind and supported our troops and the government and most of all the "Cause". Results- We were successful and accomplished our mission. Yes the price we paid was high but is the price we pay for FREEDOM. Those troops on their return were not scorned and treated like second class citizens. They were received as HEROS!!! And rightfully so!
And As our troops should have been returning from Nam and the Middle East. These people are going to defend their Country and Families, and to HELP extend the freedoms that we have and take for granted, to those who have never dreamed of having. It is hard to transform a fighting dog into a family pet over night, but it can be done.
Listen to the Media and their take of what is happening in Iraq, then talk to our Service men and Women on their return and hear what they say is really going on. It's like reading two different books.
I have many friends who have sons and daughters returning for second tours because they WANT TO!! As one told me "There is much left to do, Our mission is Not complete"!

God bless our Troops and their Families.

 

[Turtle]

As scary as it may sound, a strong argument can be made that war protesters are engaged in treason.

Mr. Turtle ( I use the term Mr. very loosely in this case)

I voice my opinion and now, I am a traitor.

Did you not bother to actually read, and comprehend, what you just quoted? I didn't state that war protesters, or those who voice their opinion, you included, are traitors. I merely said that a strong argument could be made for it, based on how it emboldens the enemy in the current and historical perspective, and in any case, if the argument is made, it's a scary thought, for the very reason you're pissed off about it.

Free speech is paramount, and the thought that free speech could be considered treason is a scary thought. Just the same, widespread protests against the war has been proven to embolden the enemy and make them more determined. What's the answer? I dunno.

Would you loudly protest, as is your right, knowing that doing so will, absolutely, cost a soldier his life? Protesting is a right, even a duty in my opinion, but what happens if that right and duty is directly responsible for the loss of lives? I don't know what the answer is. It's scary.

<The rest of your post has been snipped due to it being nothing more than a lame, personal attack. Shame on you.>

 

[Robsdad]

When it comes to blame, it really goes over your head Turtle. It is beyond the right wing to admit to anything the elephant does wrong. GW and the investigating group got this wrong. Your party was on watch. Therefore it is your responsibility. Face it. The rest of us have. If our troops had the opportunity to say what they believe without consequences, you and a lot of others would hear that this is a civil war. We are backing the government that will not be in power once we leave the country. So in part. We are financing both sides of the so called government. We have our troops in the middle of a civil war. Like it or not even your right wingers on the hill have finally figured it out. The so called surge. What a joke, it is not working either. The only hope I have left is we can get our troops out of harms way without them being ambushed. Maybe at that time the rest of that God forsaken area will realize we are not there to protect their azz anymore and will start to fiend for themselves.
I am not on the streets protesting. But for sure I am letting you and everyone on this site know where I stand. If speaking my piece makes you uncomfortable or makes me look like a traitor to you. Then close you eyes like you have to the rest of the problems this administration has left for someone to clean up.
While you are at it, close you eyes and vote for McCain and get a four year extension to the GW plan.
Shame on you and the rest of the right wing that fails or is to dumb to see this ain't working.
I only have good old common sense. And my common sense leads me to believe you are full of shi*.
Now you go on and have yourself fine day.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Hawkman,
I'll have to agree with you on your post, but I too agree with Turtle in what he stated to bitter reality. The sobering truth is that some of the same people that protested against the Vietnam conflict, to stop the fighting and bring our troops home, were among the first to turn their backs on our troops and treat them like criminals once they got home.

Which supports my claim that they are a-holes.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Shame shame, Robsdad. You really should stop drinking Hillary's kool-aid; lest you find yourself in Jonestown.

Regardless of what you believe, we have to show strength, and willingness to not back down, in order to gain true respect from the Arab world. If successful, an Iraqi democracy would bloom and spread like creeping charlie to neighboring nations... ie, Iran and Syria. I believe the hopes of the Iraq war is that this and future generations of Arabs will embrace the 21st century instead of living in the 12th.

Notice we had a lot of progress toward that objective until Carter decided not to back the Shah, thus allowing the Khomeni revolution to envelope the whole Middle East.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Shame shame, Robsdad. You really should stop drinking Hillary's kool-aid; lest you find yourself in Jonestown.

Regardless of what you believe, we have to show strength, and willingness to not back down, in order to gain true respect from the Arab world. If successful, an Iraqi democracy would bloom and spread like creeping charlie to neighboring nations... ie, Iran and Syria. I believe the hopes of the Iraq war is that this and future generations of Arabs will embrace the 21st century instead of living in the 12th.

Notice we had a lot of progress toward that objective until Carter decided not to back the Shah, thus allowing the Khomeni revolution to envelope the whole Middle East.

Hawk..IMO thats a dream...once we leave there will be a civil war and the tribes will divide up the land...and nothing will have changed except no Saddam. Those folks have been fighting for over 2,000 years we've done nothing except to piss in the desert sand that will dry and blow away with the wind....

 

[greg334]

Hawk..IMO thats a dream...once we leave there will be a civil war and the tribes will divide up the land...and nothing will have changed except no Saddam. Those folks have been fighting for over 2,000 years we've done nothing except to piss in the desert sand that will dry and blow away with the wind....

Actually they have been fighting themselves for something like 1200 years, not 2000.

Well they, the Iraqis know that we have to stay there to allow them build their country. many of the people who are ignorant of the situation don't even get the culture, let alone what is going on there. Many of the troops (this is coming from one of them) don't see the bigger picture, they see only a part that they work in and that's it so they may speak for one area, not the entire operation. If we pull out in the next few years, we will look weak and we will have to be on guard here to protect ourselves.

But many of you miss something else... many think that the dems once they get the WH, there will be this big push to get out. I think once that person gets into office, they will sit down with the real smart people who look after the country and they will continue the policies that Clinton put in place.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

No I don't get the weak??? Its not a retreat but a sign that the Iraqis have to do more to defend thier own country from invaders....We leave on a position of strength....with our quick strike forces we can monitor from outside and IF they do need support we go in and do what the forces do best...blow the crap outta them!!! Now thats strength.

 

[greg334]

Leaving while a fight is going on is weakness, that is how they see it.

We invaded, yes, we gave them a new government, yes but we failed in being strong while we are there, we failed to close the borders or shut down the cities. We failed to show strength and continue to show strength.

The amazing thing is that they now estimate that the oil profits to Iraq are going to be something around $60B a year. Some Iraqis I know don't understand why we don't' take the oil if we are there, it is their culture to take the oil. It shows that we didn't go into the place for oil because we don't buy a lot of oil from them, the output of the oil was nothing under the oil for food program.... but didn't anyone ever think we invaded Iraq to stop the UN from screwing over the people of Iraq?

 

[Packmule]

Greg,

That was EXCELLENT!!!!
And right on the money in my opinion.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Greg said..."but didn't anyone ever think we invaded Iraq to stop the UN from screwing over the people of Iraq?"

And I thought it was to oust a dictator with WMD and rout terrorists and establish a democratic type government????