Fri 16 Feb 2007
Seven billion dollars in cash got misplaced in Iraq because of the “fog of war.” Either 30,000 or 650,000 Iraqis died in consequence of the U. S. occupation; the number’s not knowable because of the fog of war. Amid the fog of war, U. S. pilots are caught on tape strafing a squad of British soldiers. The fog of war keeps military authorities from noticing atrocities committed by the growing criminal element in our armed forces.
Where does this metaphor come from, and why are we suddenly hearing it so often? You won’t find it in the works of Stephen Crane or Rudyard Kipling. Eisenhower didn’t use it, and neither does Colin Powell. It came up recently when filmmaker Errol Morris made it the title of his 2003 documentary about failed warmaker Robert MacNamara, but it’s not a new concept.
The idea of a fog of war goes back at least to a Prussian general whose troops got beaten repeatedly by Napoleon’s forces, right up until the French conqueror’s fortunes were reversed at Waterloo. This Prussian,the esteemed Carl von Clausewitz, wrote a book in 1832 on the philosophy of war that is regaining popularity among “scholarly” militarists.
As a chronic loser of military engagements, Clausewitz seems to have anticipated Murphy’s Law, which says that what can go wrong will go wrong. The fog of war is an extension of this doctrine. Amid the smoke, the flying balls of lead, the flashing blades, the blood, the screams, and the dead bodies, there will be confusion, and military tactics will sometimes go awry. Can’t be helped. Oh, well.
I think the reason you haven’t heard much about the fog of war until recently is that is looks a lot like an excuse for malfeasance. Today, with military malfeasance at a level unseen since the 18th Century, excuses are needed, and the fog of war seems to get the point across. Never mind that Clausewitz was referring literally to gunsmoke, of which there was plenty from the firearms of his day and which has been largely removed from the modern field of combat.
So when you hear a general or government official or an agent of the commercial media use the term “fog of war,” don’t lose sight of the true meaning of this picturesque metaphor: incompetence, failure, and defeat.
April 8th, 2007 at 9:44 am
The fog of war is also used for distracting and diverting attentin from matters of vital interests to issues merely trivial.
One would expect media activists to ask the major US channels draw adequate attention to matters that are of vital priority and concern for the protection and well-being of American lives. But many are found silent on most occasions. Some are observed busy to attract attention on irrelevant and insignificant issues.
Media activist should encourage even wider access to channels like Al Jazeera that provides objective coverage of critical foreign policy and security issues, while many US media organs tiptoe around issues in fear of not to over step their boundaries. The following examples serve as a litmus test:
According to Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Columbia University professor and Nobel laureate, so many soldiers are being injured that the costs of caring for them over their lifetimes is likely to be $350 billion, or up to twice that, depending on how long the war lasts. The high cost is the result of huge advances in military medicine that have greatly reduced the chances that a soldier injured in Iraq will die. As a result, the ratio of injuries to deaths 16:1 by his estimate is higher than in any other war in U.S. history.
The White House budget director, Rob Portman has asked, in the new budget, basically for another $365 billion over the next few fiscal years. This comes on the $433 billion that ’s already been spent, a total of nearly $800 billion.
And what a lot of people are asking: Is this good money going after bad given the current situation in Iraq? Senator Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said the other day: It ’s doubly shameful because we’re trying to restore places like New Orleans and the Gulf Coast here in this country. That’s been held up, and this money’s being wasted in Iraq.
Media outlets ought to probe the cakewalk crowd who promised a casual march to victory in Iraq. Media activists should campaign for accountability of the likes of Ken Adelmen who misled the American media by claiming “measured by any cost-benefit analysis, such an operation would constitute the greatest victory in America’s war on terrorism.”
The Self-pronounced champions of accuracy, fairness and honesty in media should think hard why they remain indifferent and unwilling towards Americans getting a pluralistic picture on ground. Those who call for restricting plurality of opinion deny the option of diversity and deprive the US audience to judge the facts for themselves.
All Americans have a right to alternate opinion. More so, when owing to movement restrictions on US media in Iraq, security risks and language barriers for American expatriates and diplomats there is limited interaction to gather facts. This is for a country spending $8 billion a month to win hearts and minds in Iraq. The self-pronounced champions of accuracy, fairness and honesty in media should think hard why they remain indifferent and unwilling towards Americans getting a pluralistic picture on ground.
Those who call for restricting plurality of opinion deny the option of diversity and deprive the US audience to judge the facts for themselves. It is the absence of and NOT presence of accountable media that is injurious to American interest.