"A Slice of the War"

When the Iraq war began in 2003, the Pentagon decision to embed journalists alongside the military to obtain in-depth war coverage received mixed opinions. Some cautioned that such a partnership between the military and the media would distort war coverage and overlook certain parts of the war inaccessible to journalists because of the apparent danger in that particular area. Others voiced that the media's increased involvement in the war would provide unprecedented access to details about the war that physically being there would only provide. In an article by Jim Lehrer, who runs a special news show for students on PBS, he quotes U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield saying, "What we are seeing is not the war in Iraq; what we're seeing are slices of the war in Iraq." He couldn't be more correct. What editors of large papers fail to recognize is that embedded journalists are restricted as much for their safety as for the classified military information they might uncover. Journalism is a tricky occupation because there must be a balance between what is an opinion and what is actually fact and if this balance is tipped too much in one direction, these embedded journalists will suffer the repercussions. While it is no question that the embedding process has "allowed reporters and photographers to get closer to understanding the complexities of war," what they are allowed to share is still censored and freedom of movement is limited among the battlefields of Iraq.

Mahbubani Talks the Talk But Can He Walk the Walk?

The West is currently under a grave misapprehension about their role as leaders of international law. They are suffering from a distorted way of thinking, in which they assume that their military and economic prowess can still bring any country to its knees and automatically convert the most hostile nation to a Western mode of operating. In Kishore Mahbubani’s article, “The Case Against the West,” he examines how very flawed the United States is, this nation of freedom and opportunity wrongly believing that their interventions were for the better and that because of our democratic and economically developed regime, we are automatically exempt from being a fundamental source of the dangers that threat our security and international order. Mahbubani depicts a rather glum opinion of the West, and perhaps with reason. Was it not the West who hypothesized that the “invading U.S. troops would be welcomed with roses thrown at their feet by happy Iraqis,” a reception thrown in their honor, only to be met with armed resistance and hostility? Is it not the West who has consistently draped the United States in a cloak of invincibility and superiority, perhaps with clear, concise proof, but more often than not, an egotistical approach to world leadership? And yet, Mahbubani makes the grand claim that the United States has transformed from “the world’s primary problem solver to...its single biggest liability.” While he has nine pages of material to work with, it is very easy for him to only paint a portrait of all the failures of the United States, but at the same time, he often provides unclear justifications for such accusations. Mahbubani talks the talk but when it comes to getting down to the nit and gritty, such as explaining why he thinks the United States fails to live up to the provisions of international law on human rights, he is unable to walk the walk. My opinion? Sure, the United States is flawed, but no more than other country or person and what it comes down to is that there is always room for improvement.