Sorry It’s Science
This is going to leave a mark.
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war. We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent. The results suggest that insurgent groups respond rationally to expected probability of US withdrawal. As such counterinsurgency should consider deterrence and incapacitation rather than simply search and destroy missions.
Science shows that democrats are bad for the war in Iraq. Given that its science, and therefore true, it seems wise to implement federal regulation censoring voices critical of the war. Its like global warming. If science shows its true, then its okay to infringe on people’s rights.
Let the hell storm begin.
March 13th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
This is a good point. Just because the press can have an adverse effect on certain portions of a war, does not mean that we should reverse course and have a state controlled media. Similarlly, just because science has shown global warming to be an issue does not mean that we have to take governmental action at this time.
In my “idiotic” opinion the only dumb position to take is to either ignore the press can be used in a war, or ignore the data that suggest global warming. In both cases ignoring these concepts is done simply because one doesn’t like the potential political outcome.