Yesterday CNN, today the New York Times. Rushing to defend the good name of a terrorist killer who saws the heads off bound victims.
An effort by the American military to discredit the terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi by showing video outtakes of him fumbling with a machine gun — suggesting that he lacks real fighting skill — was questioned yesterday by retired and active American military officers.
Because, you know, we wouldn't want to hurt his feelings. The officers quoted in the story actually seem to be arguing that Zarqawi's ineptitude with the gun is not a big deal – which, strictly speaking, is true. The article also quotes J. Michael Waller:
"In Arab and Muslim societies, pride and shame are felt much more profoundly than they are in Western culture," said J. Michael Waller, a professor at the Institute of World Politics, a graduate school in Washington. "To find video like this that can cut him down to size and discredit him is a real way of fighting terrorism." A paper written by Professor Waller advocating the use of ridicule against the insurgents has been circulating at the Pentagon and among military commanders with experience in Iraq recently, according to several military officers.
I rather think that's a good approach. There are indications that the blooper tape is already getting airplay on Arab television. If it helps diminish Zarqawi's reputation, that's a good thing.
UPDATE: Very strong evidence that the Zarqawi video is backfiring on him – badly – from Mohammed at Iraq the Model. Zarqawi's "plumpness" is working against him, too. The additional video released by the US will likely do enormous damage.
Gaius,
Could you please explain your point here?
First off, we have some retired and active military who claim that its no big deal that he can’t operate an American gun. A point you apparently recognize is valid.
Then they inteview people with the other view – who speak of the importance of ridicule etc.
So what is your problem with the story? Fair and balanced, on an issue of contemporary relevance, with no editorializing injected.
But not only do you seem to have some problem with this, you go all loony propagandistic on us, and accuse the NYT of “defending his good name”. How on earth can you read that article and come to such a conclusion?
Are you saying that newspapers should not write stories where grownups disagree on some particular issue? Are you claiming that the retired and active military officers who “defended” the guy, actually have any interest whatsoever in defending him? And why blame the NYT for reporting the views of a spectrum of military officers. Even if you do claim that those officers want to defend the guy, why pin the rap on the messengers?
I really cant imagine what you are driving at here, other than some silly relfexive media-bashing with nothing whatsoever to base it on.
Slanted story 101 – and I’ve written on this before. The headline and the leading paragraphs are slanted all to the point the reporter wants readers to come away. A huge percentage of readers only read the first paragraph, and the reporters and editors know it.
I think you know it too.