For the umpteenth time, war blogging is an exercise in the unreal. Not the surreal (which I can handle, even enjoy).
It’s because in war, unless you are “there,” there’s no there there. Information is inherently suspect. Even if you trust a reporter, how can you ever be sure that whoever gives him his information is trustworthy?
Opinions on war are one thing (yes, I am pro-war, and I also vote), but trying to analyze suspect data in support of your opinion is a colossal waste of time. No one is likely to be persuaded, as people’s opinions are what they are, and I am in no particular position to offer anything new. I have no security clearance, nor access to any information other than what any other blogger has.
As if the shifting sands of the “Jamil Hussein” saga weren’t enough (and I still don’t know what to conclude), I now see that the top al-Qaida terrorists who were killed a few days ago weren’t killed at all:
The controversial US air strike in southern Somalia missed all three top al-Qaeda members Washington alleges are hiding out in the country, a senior US official said on Thursday.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said eight to 10 “al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists” were killed in Monday’s attack, but gave no details.
“Official”? On “condition of anonymity”?
My, isn’t that helpful in my “analysis”?
Fortunately, I didn’t sound off about this. If I had, what should I have said?
“I’m glad we appear to have maybe killed some bad guys, and if it turns out that we haven’t, I’ll be glad when we do!”
Otherwise, I might have had to issue a pompous “retraction” about things I was never in any position to know. (Sorry, if I can’t take myself seriously enough, but I just can’t. In my defense, I never made it my goal to replace the MSM; only to say what I think.)
Isn’t war blogging great?
I’m reminded of the old lawyer’s expression, “If you don’t have the facts, argue the law, and if you don’t have the law argue the facts.”
I think I’ll just substitute war for both.
“If you don’t have the war, argue the war, and if you don’t have the war, argue the war.”
Sigh.
I wish I found this more emotionally satisfying.
Comments
4 responses to “Why I hate war blogging”
I agree. There is no use trying to report all the details of the days events.
I prefer to analyze the events (that may or may not have occured) and discuss the ramifications of them. I prefer to analyze our strategies, tactics, motivations, leadership, etc. and discuss the reality of it all.
I can’t keep up with the news that fast anyway – but I can keep up with ideologies.
I thought it went:
“If you don’t have the facts, argue the law, if you don’t have the law argue the facts, if you don’t have either just argue.”
I thought it went:
“If you don’t have the facts, argue the law, if you don’t have the law argue the facts, if you don’t have either just argue.”
I mention this becuase “just aruging” seems to be the Democrats basic mode. After all they have neither the facts or the law on their side.
Rob:
They (the Dems) are mostly lawyers, also, so probably have lots of practice at this.