Quote:
Originally posted by Skunk:
So are we to simply trust General Franks that everything is proceeding to plan then? Personally, I have a hard time coming over to this concept of blindly trusting the statements of individuals with vested interest in a given issue.
I also do not see a problem with journalists offering opinions. There are many CNN journalists who are also offering alternative opinions on the war - no-one is screaming at them that they are not qualified, are they?
|
They are not giving the opinions to the Iraqi government run propaganda network during a war. There is a difference.
The problem comes with the propaganda value gained by Saddam from Arnett's interview. If Arnett is publicly saying to the Iraqis that the war has failed, if he is a respected Western voice saying that Saddam is telling his people the truth, then he is helping Saddam get his message out. When Iraqis hear that Saddam is winning are they likely to lay down their weapons or rise up against him?
No one is saying you have to believe anything from CENTCOM. As you mention, there are alternative opinions given frequently and by various sources internationally. Iraqis only hear one message though... the message that Saddam wants them to hear, and Peter Arnett helped spread that message. By doing so, Arnett didn't help the Iraqi people, and may actually have hurt them.