skandalon

True, the Pentagon does have perhaps the single largest public relations apparatus on earth – spending $4.7 billion on P.R. in 2009 alone and employing 27,000 people, a staff nearly as large as the 30,000-person State Department – but is that really enough to ensure positive coverage in a society with armed with a constitutionally-guaranteed free press? […] But is that enough to guarantee a level playing field? Can a general really feel safe that Americans will get the right message when the only tools he has at his disposal are a $5 billion P.R. budget and the near-total acquiescence of all the major media companies, some of whom happen to be the Pentagon’s biggest contractors?

✖ Via The Rolling Stone / Matt Taibi’s blog: “Lara Logan, You Suck” Matt Taibi, July 2, 2010

Matt Taibi is Rolling Stone’s chief political reporter. Lara Logan is CBS News Chief Foreign Correspondent. She has strong opinions about Michael Hastings’ article (published in the Rolling Stone Magazine). She thinks he’s a bad journalist.

Previously on Skandalon: Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal

• Jul 06, 2010 link notes tagged: communication public relation army military press free press McChrystal jurnalism journalist Pentagon media media image representation image

The sacrifice serves to protect the entire community from its own violence; it prompts the entire community to choose victims outside itself. The elements of dissension scattered throughout the community are drawn to the person of the sacrificial victim and eliminated, at least temporarily, by its sacrifice.

✖ Via Violence and the sacred by Rene Girard, tr. Patrick Gregory, Continuum International Publishing Group, [1972]2005 p. 8

Original French text:

C’est la communauté entière que le sacrifice protège de sa propre violence, c’est la communauté entière qu’il détourne vers des victimes qui lui sont extérieures. Le sacrifice polarise sur la victime des germes de dissension partout répandus et il les dissipe en leur proposant un assouvissement partiel. (éd. Bernard Grasset, coll. Hschette Littérature / Pluriel, Paris, [1972]1998, p. 18

Consider this for example. It doesn’t really matter (for what’s at stake here) if it’s true or not. What matter is that some people find it necessary to see McChrystal resignation as a sacrifice and are representing that belief by their talkings and writings:

Respected conservative Toby Harden of the UK Telegraph notes: “the way Obama fired McChrystal was choreographed to humiliate the general and bolster the President’s credentials as a macho man. So much for ‘no drama Obama.’ The manner of the firing came dangerously close to putting political theatre and image-burnishing above the conduct of a war.” Mortified, dishonored, ruined? I think not. General McChrystal may no longer be commanding the troops in Afghanistan, but his act of valor may very well have won the war here at home. Army General Stanley McChrystal may have taken a bullet, but crawling through the trenches on his belly the wounded patriot managed to set off a warning flare alerting America it is presently under presidential siege. (American Thinker: “McChrystal’s sacrifice?” by Jeannie DeAngelis, June 24th, 2010)

Previously on Skandalon : Rene Girard, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal

• Jul 05, 2010 link notes tagged: communication sacrifice violence victim community sacred immunitas communitas Esposito protection order war McChrystal United-States news representation anxiety Girard

In June, Afghanistan officially outpaced Vietnam as the longest war in American history – and Obama has quietly begun to back away from the deadline he set for withdrawing U.S. troops in July of next year. The president finds himself stuck in something even more insane than a quagmire: a quagmire he knowingly walked into, even though it’s precisely the kind of gigantic, mind-numbing, multigenerational nation-building project he explicitly said he didn’t want.

✖ Via Rolling Stone: “The Runaway General” by Michael Hastings, June 25th, 2010

“The horror….the horror”

A well-worth reading article by 30 years old journalist Michael Hastings. For me, it’s less about taking side (either for the Obama administration of for McChrystal strategy and ideas) than about the complex difficulties surrounding any large scale war operations. It’s somehow reminescent of McNamara’ account of what he called “The Fog of War” in Errol Morris’ documentary of the same name (2003). Anybody who ever saw Coppola’s Apocalypse Now will likely remember the extensive use of smoke and fog and the effect it has on the rendition of the story.

Newsweek as an short interview with Michael Hastings explaining how the Rolling Stone’s piece was written.

• Jun 28, 2010 link notes tagged: Afghanistan Apocalypse United-States art communication confusion destruction fog history horror journalism war McChrystal