Deconstruction Of The US Military by Obama Changing Under Trump!

Sharing is Caring!

by Thinker

What happened to HONOR? Actions with integrity and truth don’t have to be reprimanded or threatened. How far does ownership go over a man/woman when they sign to join the military and serve their country? The military firing officers for using social media that promote unity in the United States? So does the military want to fire the president for using Twitter and reading news he can’t find on mainstream? How many men/women are on social media learning what they should be told by their commanding officers and aren’t? How many are questioning the actions of their leaders that aren’t right.

How many soldiers ordered to spend days sending directed energy into the homes and at those who don’t serve a system for enslavement? How many wearing uniforms are attacking the president of the United States because they are following orders? Trump will have to find a way to Make America Great Again by balancing out a military that was knocked off its axis when Obama purged the best of the best! The men who pledged to defend their nation aren’t working for it any more. Deep state Obama/Clinton administration purge of military leaders and officers sweeping the armed forces, with several sources confirming to Infowars that the Army’s “litmus test” asks whether or not they would feel comfortable firing on American citizens.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJIeU46BijM

Flashback 2002 – “NO BAD STORIES”

The 1999 air war over Kosovo re-ignited a feud between the military and the news media that is generally believed to have been a permanent undercurrent of media-military relations since the Vietnam War. The events of 11 September 2001 and the subsequent declaration by President George W. Bush of a “War on Terrorism” temporarily drove the feud underground. But soon the media began, albeit tentatively, to second-guess Pentagon strategy in Afghanistan. Indeed, the general consensus among military people, the press, and academics is that a cooperative working relationship between the press and the military that had been established in World War II collapsed in the 1960s.

The Vietnam War and Its Legacies

Vietnam has been called the “first TV war,” a test of the American public’s tolerance for battle brought into its living rooms. Journalists were allowed practically unrestricted access, accompanying units and freely filing stories, photographs, and film. The idea that reporters opposed to the war used this freedom to publish negative stories that contributed significantly to the final defeat quickly became standard; it was espoused by Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, as well as by the U.S. commander in Vietnam from 1964 to 1968, General William Westmoreland.

See also  Rasmussen is pretty fair. They're the organization that had Trump's approval #s at over 50 percent for much of last year.

ATTEMPTS TO ESTABLISH A WORKING RELATIONSHIP

Warfare is a political act. Political leaders, in democracies at least, must inform the public about foreign policy goals; the military must convince the public that it can achieve those goals at an acceptable cost; and both must do so largely through the press. Press reports of success and progress strengthen and extend public support. The media also familiarize the public with the military and with the complexity of its tasks. In short, the media offers the military a means to tell its story. The press, as we have seen, has its own incentives to report on military affairs, and it needs the military’s cooperation to do so effectively. Therefore, both the media and the military have reasons to work with the other in a symbiotic relationship.

If Panama did little to foster trust between the media and the military, the war in the Persian Gulf lifted matters to a new plateau of acrimony. At the outset of DESERT SHIELD, things looked generally promising. Cheney quickly activated the seventeen-member Media Pool—only to learn that King Fahd of Saudi Arabia refused to grant visas to reporters. Some journalists simply flew to Bahrain and crossed the border into Saudi Arabia illegally—the “unilaterals,” prowling on the margins of the conflict, in constant fear of expulsion by the U.S. military or the Saudi police.29 When CNN began to broadcast from Baghdad, however, Fahd was persuaded to lift his ban.

Embedded Media

The advent of “operations other than war” and journalists’ objections to the pool system revived the concept of “embedded media,” an approach first used in World War II and Vietnam, applied in Haiti in 1994, and expanded for the Bosnia intervention the next year.

See also  Donald Trump: "China has to pay REPARATIONS to the whole World"

Humanitarian Operations

On the surface, the advent of humanitarian operations has removed several sources of tension in media-military relations. Censorship is seldom an issue; operational security is not paramount, and the military is usually unable to deny the press access to the theater even if it wished to. In fact, humanitarian intervention has stood the traditional relationship between the American military and the press on its head. Unlike wartime, national survival is not at stake; the main effort is political, not military. The deployed force is only one of several organizations involved, and its mission is merely to facilitate the work of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and civilian governmental organizations, which have the primary tasks. “In the end, it is the NGOs’ war to win or lose.”48 Therefore, press pools, if deployed, are merely temporary expedients, quickly abandoned. In fact, the media usually arrive before the military does; where in wartime the military briefs reporters on the situation, in peace operations reporters are usually better informed than the soldiers.49

Air Campaigns and the Media

Whatever progress was made during the humanitarian operations of the 1990s was disrupted! Information operations, an outgrowth of “information warfare,” emerge from the idea that instantaneous communications have revolutionized warfare. In future operations in which security risks are high, the military will no doubt insist on control of information; however, “security at the source” (that is, at the level of the individual service member) will necessarily become the rule, because media infrastructures like “joint information bureaus” are already becoming irrelevant. Journalists can file directly from the field, anywhere on the globe, using cell phones, the Internet, and remote-area network data systems transmitting compressed video signals. Satellite, microwave, and fiber-optics systems are becoming miniaturized and increasingly mobile.

It will be impossible in the future to embargo news, as has sometimes been done in the past. An artificial news vacuum would be filled by “on-line correspondents,” nongovernmental organizations, and even the enemy.
www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/navy/art5-w02.htm

747 views

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.