Zach's+Page

= ** Mission Impossible: **** Kandahar ** =



The Kandahar Plan is a US military operation that will take place in Kandahar, Afghanistan, which is said to be the birth place of the Taliban. The plan, which was composed by the US, is to install a large number of troops in the city in order to quell the large amount of Taliban activity. The plan is the easy part; the hard part is getting the citizens of Kandahar on board with the operation. In a recent meeting in Washington, President Obama and President Karzai of Afghanistan spoke about the recent developments on the plan, but the Afghani president left saying that US must do a better job of convincing the city's citizens that this operation will be beneficial to them. This should prove difficult for the US, and its hopes to launch this vital operation.

** ** Example 1: CNN **
 * Mainstream Media Coverage

media type="youtube" key="wIGB_-HQMqo" height="385" width="640"

- Focuses on Karzai's perspective of the situation - Karzai wants to get the point across that this is Afghanistan and that the Afghani's are in charge - Karzai has told the citizens of Kandahar that they essentially have the control over whether the plan is carried out or not - Does not consult with the leaders of America - e.g. McChrystal or Obama - Addresses the issues of civilian casualties which is the primary concern of the civilians in Kandahar - Remains essentially neutral, despite the fact that CNN only gives us the Afghani view of this US operation
 * Keep in mind that General McChrystal (Commander of US Forces in Afghanistan) says that the Afghani citizens to not have the right to "veto" the operation ([|Source] )

**
 * Citizen Media Coverage **
 * Example 1: Huffington Post

[|Huffington Post Article on Kandahar] //Written by Tom Engelhardt//

Some key phrases to take away from this article:

“On stage, it would be farce. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, it’s bound to play out as tragedy.”

“It was a stunning turnaround: a president almost without power in his own country had somehow tamed the commander-in-chief of the globe’s lone superpower.”

“The major U.S. summer ‘operation’ -- it’s no longer being labeled an ‘offensive’ -- in the Kandahar region already shows signs of ‘faltering’ and its unpopularity is rising among an increasingly resistant local population.”

“In addition, civilian deaths from U.S. and NATO actions are distinctly on the rise and widely unsettling to Afghans. Meanwhile, military and police forces being trained in U.S./NATO mentoring programs considered crucial to Obama’s war plans are proving remarkably hapless.”

“McClatchy News, for example, recently reported that the new Afghan National Civil Order Police (ANCOP), a specially trained elite force brought into the Marja area and ‘touted as the country's best and brightest’ is, according to ‘U.S. military strategists[,] plagued by the same problems as Afghanistan's conventional police, who are widely considered corrupt, ineffective and inept.’ Drug use and desertions in ANCOP have been rife.”

“Now, however, we have a crew in Washington who seem to have no vision, great or small, when it comes to American foreign or imperial policy, and who seem, in fact, to lack any sense of strategy at all.”

- Clearly opinionated - Thinks President Obama's and General McChrystal's plan for Kandahar is a recipe for disaster - Gives examples from General McChrystal, President Karzai, and President Obama - Picks out only the bad aspects of this whole plan - Mentions how corrupt and weak all the government officials and enforcement officers are in Kandahar - Relates the conflict in Afghanistan to what happened in the Vietnam War - States that the US is all alone on this one, and without a plan that could be successful
 * Says that we don't have an "adequate partner" just like in the Vietnam War
 * Here Engelhardt is referring to Pakistan as a partner, but is claiming that Pakistan will not be supportive enough just like our Vietnam allies in the Vietnam War


 * Mainstream Media Coverage **
 * Example 2: Fox News Article

** [|Fox News Article on Kandahar] //From Associated Press//

Some key phrases to take away from this article:

“The American-led effort to gain control of southern Afghanistan is off to a slow start…”

“But the slow pace of progress makes it less likely Obama can meet these tight deadlines, and it's not clear if he can buy more time: He has struggled to persuade Congress to commit troops based on the current schedule.”

“Two senior Pentagon officials who visited Marjah in recent weeks said the Marines who provide the backbone of security in the district are not getting enough tips from the villagers or spending enough time with local leaders.” “People are hanging back, afraid to throw their lot with the government even if they hate the Taliban, military officials said, and the opportunity to win their trust is fading.”

- Pay attention to title of the article - Very similar to the Huffington Post article above - The way we are going about this whole operation is a waste of time - Too much corruption from the army and law enforcement - Army and law enforcement won't be effective against the Taliban - Refers to this operation as the US "gaining control" in the Kandahar region - Typical Fox News bias on President Obama's efforts in Afghanistan
 * This operation is meant to stabilize a certain region of Afghanistan to make if a safe and peaceful place for its residents to live without the fear of the Taliban


 * Citizen Media Coverage **
 * Example 2: Politico Article

** [|Politico Article on Kandahar] //Written by Michael O'Hanlon//

- Sums up some very good points - Very positive view on the operation and its progress, but also addresses that there is some work to be done - Provides some new information about the military training provided by NATO to the Afghani soldiers - Unbiased (politically) journalism that provides valuable information - Although this is an opinion-based article, it is also very informative - Does not complain about the problem of corruption but does acknowledge the fact that it is there - But talks about how we can fix the problem and the efforts currently being made to fix this problem therefore remaining relatively neutral and positive towards the current situation in Kandahar
 * Consists of basic training
 * Once training is complete, there is an apprenticeship program where the Afghani soldiers shadow the NATO troops on the battlefield


 * Comparative Analysis **

With the increase of terrorist threats in our country, such as the recent threats of the Christmas Day “Under-wear Bomber” and the failed attempt in Times Square, Americans all around the country have started to take a closer look at the conflict going on in the Middle East. Our government has stated that America’s next push will be to the region of Kandahar, Afghanistan, which is the supposed birthplace of the Taliban. In order for Americans to get the most recent news on the operation in Kandahar, they have to tune into the news. However, there is one problem that my fellow countrymen and I face: which news distributor, either citizen or mainstream, is going to give it to us straight, and allow us to draw our own conclusion from the information that we receive? Luckily, I have done some research, and I have come to my own conclusion about which one we can trust to give us sufficient information. If you take a look at my first examples of citizen and mainstream media, you will notice how conflicting they are. The first one is from CNN, and although it is good reporting because of the valuable information and its attempt at objectivity, it is information only from one side of the involved countries in this conflict. When compared to the Huffington Post article posted by Tom Engelhardt, which is the epitome of biased and negative media, the CNN report seems golden. Mr. Engelhardt essentially picked out every single flaw he could possibly see with President Obama’s plan and revealed it. He is trying to manipulate his reader into believing that this is a recipe for disaster by stating it as a preconceived fact, and is merely speculating. Personally, I suggest that we stay away from this type of reporting, and do our best to search for some objective media. In this case, mainstream media wins. If you were to scroll down, you would see quite the opposite. Take a look at the Fox News article next. It is quite similar to the Huffington Post article, but a little less extreme. The word usage in this article is clearly trying to get its reader to dislike the presented plan, and to say that this plan is not going to work. It is this kind of journalism that tries to influence the reader, and not giving the reader a chance to make his or her own conclusion. Below it, however, is a very good piece of journalism. This article, from NPR, is about as objective as one can come by. It does a very good job of presenting the current conflict, while staying relatively neutral. It gives its reader a chance to analyze the information in front of him or her, and the reader is able to draw his or her own conclusion. This is the best attempt at reporting by any of the news distributors I have come by. Good and bad reporting can come from every news source, but it is up to the readers who has to decide whether to listen to the article or to ignore it and look for another option. So, it doesn’t depend on where the readers get their news, but it depends on how they interpret what they read and how far they are willing to go to get valuable, objective information.