Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 01/30/06 12:06 pm:
ET

From a military POV, I have to say that PR is for politicians. Efficacy is what military personnel need to look at.

True that is as t should be ;but reality is almost always different. Even in WWII politics played a role ;from making sure De Gaulle was the first to enter Paris.... to the agreement that the Soviets would capture Berlin.

In this war perception plays even a greater role as most of the press (international and domestic) have sided with the enemy .That is why this which is apparently isolated cases has made the news cycle...and watch them play it for all it's worth.

Saddam's sons used to 'detain' and rape wives all the time. Barely a peep was mentioned in the press . I recognize the hypocracy ;but that is the reality we live in .

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 01/30/06 4:06 pm:
Tom,

If there is one thing that Goebels taught us, it is that propaganda is properly as much of a military weapon as a rifle or a grenade. Sometimes wars are won on politics. And if there is any mistake Bush has made vis-a-vis the war, it is the fact that he didn't take the propaganda advantages when he had them. He should have been trumpeting the WMD/Syria connection for all its worth. He should be playing up every single success in Iraq, no matter how minor.

FDR did it best of all. After Pearl Harbor he made as many of the survivors into military heros as possible. He gave medals for every single naval rating and officer who did anything heroic, and did it as publicly as possible. Then he gave medals for doing the right thing during the attack, again as publicly as possible. And then, when he ran out of people who did the right thing, he started giving medals to anyone who didn't do the WRONG thing. It was all a propagada play to boost the morale of the people and the military and to get the people behind him in the war. FDR was a master at that sort of PR. (As was Churchill, I might add. His "V for Victory" campaign did the same thing in the UK.)

But it still irks the military history buff in me to acknowledge that PR is a military issue. Military matters should be the concern of the military, and politicians should be the PR people. But that's just me.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 01/31/06 5:50 am:
I might also add that the V for victory was also code to rally the people of Europe . The BBC would play the opening bars of Beethoven's Fifth when they broadcast to continental Europe . The opening bars to the symphony was also morse code for the letter 'V'.

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 01/31/06 9:26 am:
>>>In the US a spouse cannot be compelled to testify against their spouse.<<<

That is true in CRIMINAL cases. But we are not talking about arresting and jailing people for a crime, we are talking about fighting a war. There is nothing that precludes forcing a wife to give information on her husband if he is an enemy combatant.

You are making the mistake that many in our country make: you are trying to apply criminal standards to a military situation. Criminal law and military conduct are very different.

You are also assuming that the wives aren't supporting the husbands and are innocent bystanders in all of this. That is usually not the case. The wives are often very supportive of their husbands and are, in fact, their confidants and silent advisors. They are not exactly innocent.

Elliot