- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
We use the generals to explain what is happening on the ground and why.
Even if were true that the generals were "apolitical" and used only after the war had begun, it would still represent a failure on the media's part to provide the public with the whole picture. Since when are just tactics the only relevant discussion during the war? The "conditions on the ground" can speak volumes about the strategic realities as well.
The Iraq war was a perfect example of this. When things started to turn bad in Iraq (pretty much from the beginning), it rapidly became clear that not only were there grave errors in the prosecution of the war, but also in the justifications for the war to begin with.
In the final analysis, in an actual functioning democracy, there is no point before, during or after a war where discussion of any aspects are "irrelevant."
