“Although it seems unthinkable now, future wars may require censorship, news blackouts and, ultimately, military attacks on the partisan media”, writes Ralph Peters in The Journal of International Security Affairs.
Since Peters himself is very much a representative of “the partisan media”, I can’t help but wonder how the good colonel himself would fare in such a violent situation. As far as I know, he has never seen a shot fired in anger, unlike the combat correspondents he so despises.
[h/t Josh.]
Actually, Peters is a fan of AMERICA, and because in that essay he argues America can do no wrong, since regardless of methods everything we do is a net-good to the world… well, he has nothing to worry about. Frankly, I’m more disappointed that Peters, who was an intel officer and never served in combat, calls the actual combat veterans in the Obama administration a bunch of “war virgins” because they aren’t sufficiently blood-thirsty.
I mean, hell, even Max Boot has the good sense to see Obama is making some good foreign policy decisions. WTF is wrong with Peters?
p.s. thanks for the shout-out.
Josh, as someone suggested in a comment to your post, Peters has probably just gone war-crazy. A nation can’t be at war for 8 years and not be affected by it. Strangely, it’s the soldiers who remain the sanest.