The media and asymmetrical warfare
Glenn Reynolds has a post and links to the media’s role in asymmetrical warfare — namely, how a necesary condition for a victory by guerillas over syanding armies is that the media interprets tactical losses as strategic victories: In Somalia, the Somalis took over 30 casualties for every American killed or wounded. That was done ...
Glenn Reynolds has a post and links to the media's role in asymmetrical warfare -- namely, how a necesary condition for a victory by guerillas over syanding armies is that the media interprets tactical losses as strategic victories:
Glenn Reynolds has a post and links to the media’s role in asymmetrical warfare — namely, how a necesary condition for a victory by guerillas over syanding armies is that the media interprets tactical losses as strategic victories:
In Somalia, the Somalis took over 30 casualties for every American killed or wounded. That was done through the use of superior American training, firepower (on the ground, and in helicopters overhead) and situational awareness (helicopters and more radios.) The battle in Mogadishu is only considered an American defeat because the American government considered 18 dead G.I.’s a defeat, even if over 500 Somali fighters died as well. At the time, the Somalis considered themselves defeated, and feared the return of the Army Rangers the next day to finish off the Somali militia that was terrorizing Mogadishu. The media declared the battle an American defeat, and that’s how it became known. Asymmetric warfare includes having the media in your corner, for that can easily turn a military defeat into a media victory.
That makes Donald Rumsfeld’s comments yesterday about media criticism a bit more understandable:
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Monday that terrorists may be gaining encouragement by some Americans’ criticism of the Bush administration’s actions in Iraq. “We know for a fact … that terrorists studied Somalia and they studied instances where the United States was dealt a blow and tucked in and persuaded themselves they could, in fact, cause us to acquiesce in whatever it is they wanted us to do,” Rumsfeld told reporters as he flew back to Washington after a four-day tour of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Even if Rumsfeld has a point, he’s overreaching — it’s not the place of the Secretary of Defense to insinuate that the media is providing aid and comfort to the enemy.
Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner
More from Foreign Policy

Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.

The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.

Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.

How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.