They would definitely learn more about military grub, troop moral, and the military apparatus from being there however. Those are things worth reporting on (the last two at least), and I am all about keeping reporters in those places. I simply doubt the reliability of the “bigger issues” from these same reporters.

And what we’ve been getting since day one is how Bush doesn’t communicate well enough… how he doesn’t make us all want to be on his side… how he doesn’t take responsibility for public opinion.

Well, that’s propaganda, isn’t it? Propaganda doesn’t have to be a lie, it can be the truth that supports the cause or whatever. So propaganda is out… reporters aren’t supposed to pass on that information.

Maybe we’d all be better off if reporters all had to investigate things on their own, travel, interview people, and just ignore the official press releases. We’d probably get more accurate information and we’d get it with a delay of weeks… time to get it right… and enough time not to push the events being reported on. Maybe it would make reporters more like reporters and less like players.

As for the Intel stuff… yes. I used to do some work in the IC, and it is just appalling. (One analyst once told me he never read al-Jazeera because it’s an “enemy broadcast.” Which is great and all until you realize that al-Jazeera informs what several hundred million people in strategic areas think and feel about the U.S. and her actions abroad.)

I hope that explains why I’m conflicted on this.

It does, and thanks. My only quibble, if you can call it that, is that the LWJ article simply reported what they in fact were told. I guess you would prefer that they had thrown in some of the skepticism you mention? Makes sense, I suppose.

But we need to be damned sure we’re getting good intel, which I am certain we are not from NWFP, and we need to be damned certain what we do won’t make matters worse… which, so far, they have.

Yeah, the lack of reliable intel is always going to be a problem. I’m reading Quil Lawrence’s book about the Kurds right now, and it is appalling how anemic our intel has been in the ME (and pretty much everywhere else outside of the USSR, Europe and maybe China). For example, during the mid 90′s when the Kurds were attempting to help overthrow Saddam, the Iraqi and Iranian intelligence knew all about it and were ready for everything before it happened, but we were well behind the ball … AND THE KURDS WERE ACTIVELY INFORMING US! I expect that we still have major deficiencies in this area.

So that’s where my “umm, wtf” is coming from. It just doesn’t fit. Which doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, just that I’m deeply skeptical (and that Chechen claim is especially annoying).

As for Wana, covert action is a bit different, but unless we’ve gained official-but-classified permission to enter sovereign Pakistani territory to conduct military actions, we are de facto declaring war on Pakistan. I don’t think they’ll strike back or officially declare war or whatever, but our non-covert covert wars haven’t exactly worked out well for us.

I wouldn’t call them in the same category, just a different one. All covert action is illegal, to be sure—just as all spies are, technically, criminals. And I don’t deny that they all serve very good purposes. And I would vastly prefer small hit teams operating in Pakistan than us lobbing predators across the border (individuals are far more accurate and discriminating). But we need to be damned sure we’re getting good intel, which I am certain we are not from NWFP, and we need to be damned certain what we do won’t make matters worse… which, so far, they have.

I hope that explains why I’m conflicted on this.

It almost seems like there is a lot more information to which you are privy, and yet which is not presented here, that is fueling your critique.

And with regard to Wana, are you opposed to just overt military action, or are covert ops acceptable against the bad guys? I only ask because I’m sure that we have the ways and means of unofficially sneaking into anywhere in the world. If Pakistan is not going to deal with the “lawless” areas within its borders on its own, and the bad guys are going to (naturally) hang out there, where does the moral/ethical dilemma arise? To be sure, I can understand how lobbing missiles could present such a dilemma (based on the uncertain intelligence, accuracy, etc. as you presented above), but do covert, up-close-and-personal missions fall into the same category?