You may have heard that 72% of U.S. troops in Iraq think that the U.S. should leave the country before the end of the year. Presumably that’s because they can see for themselves that it’s a bit of a sticky wicket over there. On the other hand, they don’t seem to be getting very accurate reports from the outside world, since 90% think that the war is retaliation for Saddam’s role in the 9/11 attacks.
Hmm, I wonder why their information would be so faulty? Wonkette reported recently on an email from a soldier stationed in Iraq, reporting that their site was blocked by the censors at the USMC Network Operations Center in Quantico. Perhaps the military doesn’t want to distract the troops with salacious stories of Washington sexcapades? In a more recent followup (via firedoglake), the same soldier reports on just which sites are blocked, and which our troops are allowed to spend time surfing.
- Wonkette – “Forbidden, this page (http://www.wonkette.com/) is categorized as: Forum/Bulletin Boards, Politics/Opinion.”
- Bill O’Reilly (www.billoreilly.com) – OK
- Air America (www.airamericaradio.com) – “Forbidden, this page (http://www.airamericaradio.com/) is categorized as: Internet Radio/TV, Politics/Opinion.”
- Rush Limbaugh (www.rushlimbaugh.com) – OK
- ABC News “The Note” – OK
- Website of the Al Franken Show (www.alfrankenshow.com) – “Forbidden, this page (http://www.airamericaradio.com/) is categorized as: Internet Radio/TV, Politics/Opinion.”
- G. Gordon Liddy Show (www.liddyshow.us) – OK
Interesting. I wonder if there is any pattern there? I suspect that there is, but somehow I just can’t put my finger on it. Probably just being paranoid.
I really must protest, Dr. Carroll. Surely you can see that asking the troops their opinions of the direction of the war in Iraq is a bit like asking childeren whether or not they should eat their vegetables, or asking your students whether or not they should be testedin your GR class. Asked instead their opinions of the President, soldiers responded quite differently: http://www.militarycity.com/polls/MILITARYPOLL.php.
For some reason, it’s ok for soldiers to believe that the war isn’t going smoothly, but when it comes to other issues, like Al Qaeda’s presence in Iraq, they’re obviously not “getting very accurate reports from the outside world”. To the question of why civilians believe that rapid troop withdrawal was necessary, the most popular answer was that those back home were “unpatriotic”. This is in stark contrast to the nay-sayers’ claims that they are great patriots–do the soldiers’ opinions mean anything here?
As to the filtering of web pages, surely the military has done such things in past wars. The US Military routinely censored soldier’s letters home in World War 1 and 2 (o aquick web search confirmed this).
We all pick and choose those facts which support our arguments, and I suppose that parity is not something to be expected in the blogoshpere, even among the intellectually elite.
What I wonder is, were pro-war democrats like Kevin Drum blocked? Is The New Republic blocked? How about Mickey Kaus? If so, this is a much bigger deal than it would be if it were just anti-war sites being blocked. I could see why the military would want to censor anti-war opinion, however much I disagree with the sentiment.
Ofcourse they should leave Iraq, they should’ve left along time ago. It is truly a shame that anyone still supports your president. Ofcourse they are controlling the contetnt what the soldiers can and cannot read. I would rather that you ask yourself “what the hell are they doing there ?”.
All this leaves a very bad impression (even wrong) of what kind of people are Americans like, to many people living outside US.
Because of political situation some people (like I) are really reconsidering doing graduate studies in the US, but people like Sean are really giving us hope (and a reason to come to US) that there are still some people that from time to time look around themselves and notice what is actually going on.
Are we to assume that those US forces “in country” have not been sufficiently trained and attitudinally adjusted properly, so that would hold views that represent fact rather than truthiness. The question was not whether Al Qaeda is currently involved in Iraq, the question was whether Saddam had been complicitous with Al Qaeda in 9/11. These are two very different concepts, yet it seems some would suggest that it is more than reasonable that our soldiers would see them as identical. If that is the case then our DoD has been very good at shutting down access in Iraq to, no only US based online sites, but also to nearly all the rest of the world.
It is the underlying construct here that is dangerous. Troops who are intentionally made to be devoid of factual knowledge–that Iraq had no part whatsoever in 9/11– are equally likely to disbelieve other truths and realities. In that world, they become a threat to all of us. We bring them home and do not treat them for: DU exposures, PTS disorders, severe brain traumas (concussive explosions wherein shockwaves from blasts still penetrate the protective helmets), high levels of exposure to toxic aerosals and vapors, and literally hundreds of other health related problems. They are led to believe in non-existent realities, and they are supposed to just get along with all the rest of us. Is this going to be a problem?
Obviously they aren’t fighting for truth, justice and the American way, else the truth would not be withheld from them.
Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.
Just wondering, is Juan Cole’s Informed Comment site blocked? He seems to be one of the more informed bloggers on the subject of Iraq.