Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Dork. · Nov 1, 2006, 11:52 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/01/wo...1military.html

soul-sucking registration required, here's the relevant parts:

A classified briefing prepared two weeks ago by the United States Central Command portrays Iraq as edging toward chaos, in a chart that the military is using as a barometer of civil conflict.

...

In fashioning the index, the military is weighing factors like the ineffectual Iraqi police and the dwindling influence of moderate religious and political figures, rather than more traditional military measures such as the enemy’s fighting strength and the control of territory.

The conclusions the Central Command has drawn from these trends are not encouraging, according to a copy of the slide that was obtained by The New York Times. The slide shows Iraq as moving sharply away from “peace,” an ideal on the far left side of the chart, to a point much closer to the right side of the spectrum, a red zone marked “chaos.” As depicted in the command’s chart, the needle has been moving steadily toward the far right of the chart.

....

The chart does note some positive developments. Specifically, it notes that “hostile rhetoric” by political and religious leaders has not increased. It also notes that Iraqi security forces are refusing less often than in the past to take orders from the central government and that there has been a drop-off in mass desertions.

Still, for a military culture that thrives on PowerPoint briefings, the shifting index was seen by some officials as a stark warning about the difficult course of events in Iraq, and mirrored growing concern by some military officers.

I'm sure that some will say that the Times editors should be strung up for divulging this information. And it's no accident that, although this briefing took place two weeks ago, it's coming out with less than a week until elections. But I think it does explain some of the administrations' sudden shift away from "Stay the Course" -- their own military commanders have been trying to tell them it wasn't working....

Also, although we civillians have heard rumors about how PowerPoint has taken over the military, I find it funny that we can have an entire article written about a leaked PowerPoint slide, complete with a color gradient bar between the Green "Peace" side nd the red "Chaos" side!. What would have been a classified, multiple-page briefing is now encapsulated in one slide, without very much room for detail or nuance. Hey, we've got a lot of Graphic Designers here, maybe we should hold a contest to create a better design for the slide?

Mithras · Nov 1, 2006, 12:45 PM

Or straight to the point:

Yep, that's a problem.

Dork. · Nov 1, 2006, 01:14 PM

Better watch out, some people here would send you to Gitmo for linking to that....

Spliffdaddy · Nov 1, 2006, 01:17 PM

The New York Times has already had to layoff a good part of its staff because they aren't making money.

But then, when you're a tool for Islamofascists some sacrifices must be made.

Atheist · Nov 1, 2006, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

The New York Times has already had to layoff a good part of its staff because they aren't making money.

But then, when you're a tool for Islamofascists some sacrifices must be made.

It truly is pointless to attempt any form of actual debate on this forum..

besson3c · Nov 1, 2006, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

The New York Times has already had to layoff a good part of its staff because they aren't making money.

But then, when you're a tool for Islamofascists some sacrifices must be made.

You've really got your Spliffdaddy down pat. Allow me to join in:

The NYTimes is single-handedly destroying America by sympathizing with the terrorists and hating America and what she stands for.

How did I do?

goMac · Nov 1, 2006, 01:37 PM

In other words, let's string up the New York Times because they've made Bush and company look like liars, and in fact they really are.

I mean, gee... If the insurgents were doing well in Iraq they'd be the last to know, right?

Dork. · Nov 1, 2006, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

You've really got your Spliffdaddy down pat. Allow me to join in:

The NYTimes is single-handedly destroying America by sympathizing with the terrorists and hating America and what she stands for.

How did I do?

You've gotta work the bit about "Islamofascist" in there somewhere. It sounds evil, like a Batman villan. I expect The Penguin, The Riddler, and The Islamofascist to make a ransom demand any day now....

BTW, I'm always interest in serious debate, but I'll also mock when appropriate.

Sky Captain · Nov 1, 2006, 02:16 PM

Low level violence motivated by secretatian differences.
Hmm. Yeah and?
Not only do the muslims hate the West, they hate each other. So what's new?

Oh and string up the editors.
And the person who leaked the slide.
And this was propably prepared by some consultant.
Gitmo is too goo easy for them. That's a beachfront resort.

Mithras · Nov 1, 2006, 03:46 PM

...yeah, because the real problem isn't that things in Iraq have gotten steadily worse in the past year, it's that the media are finding out about it.

Nicko · Nov 1, 2006, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by Mithras

...yeah, because the real problem isn't that things in Iraq have gotten steadily worse in the past year, it's that the media are finding out about it.

It's worse than that, they are actually reporting it and no one seems to care!

ironknee · Nov 1, 2006, 04:49 PM

boy what an ugly slide...and the data sucks as well

SpaceMonkey · Nov 1, 2006, 08:40 PM

Originally Posted by ironknee

boy what an ugly slide

Yeah, I can see why the government wouldn't want that slide out in the hands of the public. John Q. Islamofascist might get ahold of it and then he'd need to spend about 5-10 minutes just to digest it. Of course then he'd be too busy to be planning any terrorist attacks in that time...

Hm...

Maybe we need more slides!

dcmacdaddy · Nov 1, 2006, 10:19 PM

Putting aside the question of whether or not they should have published the slide, I find it very distressing that those in charge of the military operations think that the trend has been a move away from peace towards civil war. What, if anything, can they do to reduce that likelihood? I don't think there is a whole lot for them to do as long as the Sunni and Shia factions have as much, or more, hate for one another as they do for the US/West. It seems to be a lose-lose situation with nothign but more deaths forUS troops and Iraqi civilians caught in the cross-fire.

placebo1969 · Nov 1, 2006, 10:33 PM

If we get a Democrat for President in 2008, do you think the NYT will still leak classified material? I just don't see it happening.

Face Ache · Nov 1, 2006, 10:48 PM

I thought George said on Wednesday that we were "winning the war in Iraq"? Is the idea to get the arrow to the end?

ironknee · Nov 2, 2006, 12:14 AM

Originally Posted by placebo1969

If we get a Democrat for President in 2008, do you think the NYT will still leak classified material? I just don't see it happening.

if a dem president was saying one thing to the public and the facts are saying something eles, then i EXPECT the nyt to print it...if they don't shame on them....

olePigeon · Nov 2, 2006, 03:56 PM

I like this slide better:

ghporter · 08:40 PM

Whoever gave the NYT the presentation needs to do hard time. But they SHOULD publish the fact that the DoD feels that the situation in Iraq is deteriorating and how bad it looks to the brass, because the Administration is NOT telling us anything of the sort.

I feel that Iraq is in the process of being used by fanatics as a place to make their violent statements-and as far as that goes, I think that's good because they're not making them here. But this is NOT why the GIs who are there went there; they went to give the Iraqi people a safe place where they could make their own decisions. Whatever the president wanted THAT is why something serious needs to change-over 2000 good men and women have died for giving the Iraqi people their own say in their lives, and it would be a travesty if they died in vain.

Originally Posted by placebo1969

If we get a Democrat for President in 2008, do you think the NYT will still leak classified material? I just don't see it happening.

Can you describe the color of the sky on your world? Seriously, Bill Clinton's administration had more leaks than you could count-it was more common for something to be leaked than to be (properly) classified by several orders of magnitude. The biggest complaint we heard from the press during Bush's first several months was that there were NO leaks and the press had gotten used to them.

This leaking stuff has a lot to do with how the people inside the administration feel about their boss and his effectiveness. As in not good.

Rumor · Nov 2, 2006, 06:51 PM

I thought the administration didn't care what the military generals thought?

tie · Nov 2, 2006, 08:36 PM

Originally Posted by placebo1969

If we get a Democrat for President in 2008, do you think the NYT will still leak classified material? I just don't see it happening.

You must be kidding? Of course it would still be happening, particularly if we are still messing around going nowhere in Iraq -- and if Bush "stays the course" as he so wants to, then we certainly will be.

smacintush · Nov 3, 2006, 09:17 AM

I didn't read the full story because I'm not going to register, so I ask: Why should we believe that this is real? (seriously)

ironknee · Nov 3, 2006, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by smacintush

I didn't read the full story because I'm not going to register, so I ask: Why should we believe that this is real? (seriously)

because the millitary is looking to see who leaked the slide...basiclly comfirming it was real, they are not denying it

Dork. · Nov 3, 2006, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by smacintush

I didn't read the full story because I'm not going to register, so I ask: Why should we believe that this is real? (seriously)

Because the NYTimes is reporting it, that's why! And their Graphic Artists are generally much better than this.

Serouusly, though, I wonder what's considered a bigger offense by the Government: publishing classified and sensitive information, or passing up made-up information as classified and sensitive in an attempt to discredit the Government? If the NYTimes just made this up, how could the Government possibly prove it?