Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
Much worse....the broadcast networks hire retired military officers as "consultants". The networks represented these officers as apolitical military experts.
|
O Rly?
No, before you ask, not "O'Reilly", but "Oh? Really?" I hate that cocksucker anyway.
Back on topic: A few thoughts and questions - to which I'd like firm answers - do spring immediately to mind.
Also, I would like to point out that this thread title is (thinly) based on a single quote. I know fairly intimately what a *tactical* psyops team does. If you'd like to deem your citations as *strategic* psyops, then I think I could honestly concede that point.
That being said:
1) Are any of these "consultants"/"analysts" retired enlisted men? Like, the type who compose a vast majority of the actual military itself? And who historically make up most of those killed in any war?
I reviewed the list of the attendees of the April 18, 2006 meeting you cited. Seems like the lowliest coffee-fetching bitch in the room was likely a Navy Captain, or perhaps a retired GS-15 civilian.
2) Are you mostly upset about Iraq? Hell, I'll even give you the deceitful lie that may or may not be our current conflict in Afghanistan, which has a far, far higher percentage of international forces still in the fight.
Because personally? My biggest problem in this "gigantic ruckus" you beat to death in this thread isn't necessarily the media, or their haphazard retention of so-called "military analysts/consultants". "Apolitical" is the most bullshit word you could use to describe any "analyst" or "consultant" of any stripe who has appeared on TV or written an editorial in my young lifetime.
Dude, every major media outlet has their own fucking agenda. Print, broadcast, or on teh intarwebz, it doesn't matter. Be it Fox News or Air America (RIP), everyone's got their own story to tell, shareholders and boards of directors included.
If you wish to credibly indict the military-industrial complex, why not go after all those senior officers? Again, I point out that not one of those men you named from the April 18, 2006 meeting was enlisted.
And let's face it, an Air Force BGen who's already heavily involved in, say, the Joint Strike Fighter program could easily "retire" and start the very next day at Northrop-Grumman or McDonnell Douglas for more than double his military paycheck, with much better benefits. Personally, that seems like a far, FAR larger moral and ethical violation than going to work for CNN or some shit, regardless of the pay there. Compare the taxpayer dollars spent in either scenario... hmmm...
Perhaps I am just no longer capable of sympathy for "Joe Six Pack" who believes that "TV said it, so it must be true!"
Some of the most moronic people I know still understand that CNN is more liberal/socialist, Fox is more right wing/GOP, et cetera, et cetera. In this day and age, if nobody's spelled those nuances out to you, you're probably never going to be concerned with changing your nation's politics, anyway.
And sadly enough, any media outlet in existence is going to retain military analysts/commentators who fit their own agenda, and nobody who retired below the paygrade of O-6...
maybe O-5. Because in this world, it's all about your class, caste, and education if you want credibility. In the media, at least.
The retired/retiring officers you cited are all just trying to make bigger bucks, as are the ones who hire them. Is it despicable? Hell yes. Is there anything you and I are doing about it?
Well, shit. That's a hell of a question, ain't it?
One last question: is there any "analyst/consultant" currently paid by any media outlet who is currently on active duty? Because I'm genuinely interested in those numbers, since that's pretty much chargeable under the UCMJ.