Crisis in the Ukraine

It's not that. We, as journalists, should realize that THE ARMY does not equal THE ENTIRE MILITARY.

Even still, "cutting the military to pre-WWII levels" is an incredibly manipulative statement, because they're talking, again, just about THE ARMY, and they're comparing modern-day numbers of ACTIVE-DUTY PERSONNEL to pre-WWII levels of ALL PERSONNEL, to include active-duty, Guard and Reserve.

 

It's almost like you're saying that reporters just repeated a story that was packaged for them by folks pushing an agenda.

 

Not necessarily. I could think of a few more ways to say it, but none of them are any more flattering than yours.

 

As misleading as it is in reporters' stories, the error has been compounded greatly by just about every media organization by making it the headline.

Most only highlight the misleading part: "Pentagon to cut Army to Pre-World War II levels."

But others, including NBC News, screwed the pooch completely: "Pentagon to Slash Military to Pre-World War II levels."

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/military-spending-cuts/pentagon-set-slash-military-pre-world-war-ii-levels-n37086

 

Have many genuine journalists messed up this distinction? Best I can tell, it's primarily non-journalist, conservative pundits and their followers who are pushing Chuck Hagel's purposely deceptive narrative. We used to call these folks neocons until they went into hiding.

 

I settle for that.

 

Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places, but I've not seen one mention in news coverage exactly what the "pre-WWII levels" were, let alone the breakdown of Army components being selectively counted.

To be fair, some news organizations have actually grasped the difference between "the Army" and "the military," so there's that.

 

I guess it's worse than I thought.

 

New York Times headline:

"Pentagon Plans to Shrink Army to Pre-World War II Level"

Wrong.

New York Times lead paragraph:

"Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel plans to shrink the United States Army to its smallest force since before the World War II buildup and eliminate an entire class of Air Force attack jets in a new spending proposal that officials describe as the first Pentagon budget to aggressively push the military off the war footing adopted after the terror attacks of 2001."

Better. It says smallest force SINCE before the World War II buildup. Which means no force after the WWII buildup as been as small (true) but does not state that the proposed level would actually reach the 1940 level.

The glaring omission everyone has been making has been comparison numbers for the military as a whole. I realize the Navy and Air Force are not relevant to the proposed cuts, but IF IF IF IF you are making statements about military levels and WWII, you need to devote one lousy paragraph (or even a simple chart) showing the various strengths of each department in 1940 vs. whatever they will be when the cuts take effect.

 

I was wrong. NBC at least acknowledged the active-duty numbers, even if the headline is completely false:

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/military-spending-cuts/pentagon-set-slash-military-pre-world-war-ii-levels-n37086

"The Army would be reduced to between 440,000 and 450,000 — a 10 percent deeper cut than originally planned and the lowest level since 1940, when it had 267,000 active members."

Also, keep in mind that while the BUDGET CUTS are of a "record amount," they are still cuts to the projected growth of the budget, not the budget itself.

 

The ole "hot" mic catches Lindsey Graham speaking to John Kerry.

"Hey John good job. Let me know what I can do to help you with Boehner,"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/03/13/lindsey_graham_offers_to_help_kerry_deal_with_boehner.html

 

John McCain OpEd in the NYT:

Should Russia’s invasion and looming annexation of Crimea be blamed on President Barack Obama? Of course not, just as it should not be blamed on NATO expansion, the Iraq war or Western interventions to stop mass atrocities in the Balkans and Libya. The blame lies squarely with Vladimir V. Putin, an unreconstructed Russian imperialist and K.G.B. apparatchik.

But in a broader sense, Crimea has exposed the disturbing lack of realism that has characterized our foreign policy under President Obama. It is this worldview, or lack of one, that must change.

For five years, Americans have been told that “the tide of war is receding,” that we can pull back from the world at little cost to our interests and values. This has fed a perception that the United States is weak, and to people like Mr. Putin, weakness is provocative.

That is how Mr. Putin viewed the “reset” policy. United States missile defense plans were scaled back. Allies in Eastern Europe and Georgia were undercut. NATO enlargement was tabled. A new strategic arms reduction treaty required significant cuts by America, but not Russia. Mr. Putin gave little. Mr. Obama promised “more flexibility.”

Mr. Putin also saw a lack of resolve in President Obama’s actions beyond Europe. In Afghanistan and Iraq, military decisions have appeared driven more by a desire to withdraw than to succeed. Defense budgets have been slashed based on hope, not strategy. Iran and China have bullied America’s allies at no discernible cost. Perhaps worst of all, Bashar al-Assad crossed President Obama’s “red line” by using chemical weapons in Syria, and nothing happened to him.

For Mr. Putin, vacillation invites aggression. His world is a brutish, cynical place, where power is worshiped, weakness is despised, and all rivalries are zero-sum. He sees the fall of the Soviet Union as the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” He does not accept that Russia’s neighbors, least of all Ukraine, are independent countries. To him, they are Russia’s “near abroad” and must be brought back under Moscow’s dominion by any means necessary.

nyti.ms/1gq8WaA