I share Joe's concern. We at the U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute have experienced the same thing--despite the fact that we operate under a policy of academic freedom and attach a disclaimer to all of our publications stating they do not reflect official positions, unscrupulous journalists (and I won't name names) have portrayed our monographs as "a U.S. Army report," thus causing angry phone calls from the Pentagon to our commandant. And, of course, pain flows downhill. These journalists did significant damage to us.

Steve, well said. When I read a MSM headline and story like the one in the Miami Herald it only reinforces my opinion that many are unable to distinguish between constructive review and criticism with toward an object of improving ourselves, vs. the type of useless and pointed criticism that is meant to further personal agendas, serve and inflame partisan position.

The National Institute for Strategic Studies and the AWC SSI reflect the former, and those of us who rely on their objectivity and commitment to professional education of the military, the Inter-Agency and our civilain leaders greatly appreciate their continued endeavors.

Perhaps I'm being to harsh on the Miami Herald and the MSM - they are after all a product of their environment; why should I expect them to consider the consequences beyond the next day's paper, or the next batch of subscriptions?

Best, Rob

One last thought - perhaps if the Miami Herald had taken the time as SWJ had, to contact Joseph Collins to provide the context absent in their story, rather then interpreting it to suit their bent, their piece might have had a balanced nature we might expect from a profession that is supposed to hold objectivity in high regard.

Or is the pressure to produce worth sacrificing objectivity, and responsibility for?
Best, Rob

I greatly respect the opinions of Steven and Rob, and I agree the media are often too agenda driven or just plain lazy, and that the reporter should have contacted the report's author. However, I cannot reconcile the totality of Steven and Rob's comments and even of the author's comments quoted in this blog with the very first paragraph of the report itself. The report begins with a strong statement of the war having "achieved the status of a major war and a major debacle." Moreover, it's in the present tense, which challenges the author's assertion that the report is about 2002-04, which it is in its analysis of the early decision-making leading to war, but, again, how to reconcile the author's comments above with the very strong and present-tense statements (referencing the status in 2007 as a debacle) that launch the article is beyond me. Otherwise, it's a very useful and important report and the author is to be congratulated.
Greg

I think the words "...achieved the status of a major war and a major debacle..." are the discriminator you elide. Status is, in the sense used there, effectively in the eye of the reader.

I, for example would firmly deny that Iraq is a major war or that it has achieved such status in the eyes of anyone with even slight historical knowledge of war -- though I would acknowledge that anyone with no experience of war willing to ignore history could see it as such.

Same thing is true with achieving the status of a debacle. What constitutes a 'debacle.'

People do indeed see what they wish to see...

I dunno.

I'm not so impressed by the claims of distortion.

It's not easy to see a characterization of one's own work in the press - natually emphasis and choice of words will differ. I'm not surprised that Mr. Collins is uncomfortable with the emphasis of the news article, but that doesn't make it a distortion or irresponsible journalism.

I would have to see better argument and citation than is presented here to buy on to the claims of distortion of context or highly selective use of excerpts.

The distortion is portraying it as an official government document. If someone on the Duke faculty slams the administration the Washington Post doesn't have a headline saying, "Duke University Attacks Bush Administration." But when we wrote scholarly studies with a disclaimer, headlines did say "U.S. Army Attacks Bush Administration." And we heard about it. That's part of Joe's beef.

The war in Iraq reminds us of the role that uncertainty and friction play in both the planning and the execution of military operations.
Uncertainty and friction also apply to writing history and analyses of decisionmaking. At this juncture, there are no final truths about the war in Iraq, only early attempts to create a record. Those who demand complete
and indisputable analysis of the war should remember that in the fall of 2007, some of our best scholars are still arguing over how World
War I started.

That says it all, don't you think?

Point of correction to the editors. The article was in the Miami Herald but it was written by journalists who work for McClatchy. As you can tell from this source, they have a distinct bias when it comes to all things Iraq.

Ken White! Glad to see you in the blog threads!

Aside from Steve's very appropriate comment, if the difference between this headline and lead in:

"Today's Miami Herald carries a story on page 3 titled Pentagon Study: War is `Debacle' by Jonathan Landay and John Walcott.

The war in Iraq has become ''a major debacle'' and the outcome ''is in doubt'' despite improvements in security from the buildup in U.S. forces, according to a highly critical study published Thursday by the Pentagon's premier military educational institute..."

and this from the opening of the study:

"Measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major war and a major debacle. As of fall 2007, this conflict has cost the United States over 3,800 dead and over 28,000 wounded."(emphasis added /kw)

Good link, Charles. Good to see you also. Hope all's well on the left coast... :)

Steven's point is very well taken, i.e., that the article was attributed to the Pentagon or even the NDU when it should've been attributed solely to the author. I agree. Also, I was rather surprised to see "major war", at least without some sort of conceptualization or justification.