Donald Rumsfeld made an important speech yesterday, worth reading in full, but here's a snip. (H/T Mal):
The Future of Iraq (Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies)
...Consider this: You couldn’t tell the full story of Iwo Jima simply by listing the nearly 26,000 Americans that were casualties in a brief 40 days at Iwo Jima; or you couldn’t explain the importance of Grant’s push into Virginia just by noting the savagery of the battles. And they were savage. So too, in Iraq, it is appropriate to note not only how many Americans have been killed -- and may God bless them and their families -- but what they died for -- or more accurately, what they lived for.
So I suggest -- and I take for granted the good intentions of the people in the media -- I suggest that we ask: how will history judge -- if it does -- the reporting some decades from now when Iraq’s path is settled?...
That's very gentlemanly of him, I'm sure. But I'm not sure that what he takes for granted is really true, is it? Many in the media, believing that American "Imperialism" must be curbed and not rewarded (I include many in the American media here, of course), really do wish ill for our efforts. It's just the cold truth.
Our country is waging a battle unlike any other in history. We are waging it in a media age that’s unlike any war that war fighters have ever known. Think of it. This is the first war of the 21st Century. It’s the first war to be conducted with talk radio, and 24-hour news, and bloggers, and emails, and digital cameras, and Sony video cams, and all of these things that bring so much information near instantaneously to people. And in this new century, we all need to make adjustments -- government and the media alike. And change is hard -- let there be no doubt.
The "and bloggers" part? See you don't know this, but when he said that, he scratched his nose, which is our secret signal that he was talking about Solomonia.com. Yeah, it's true.
Hey, it's about time you got some recognition.