Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
Why Some Wars Get More Attention Than Others (nytimes.com)
50 points by laksjd 3546 days ago
8 comments

Because of you, NY Times, because of you and your friends. You're literally the creators of attention to stuff, so please explain to us, why you chose to cover one war, and ignore another?
Isn't this pretty much exactly what the author is trying to talk about and explain? Note this quote:

> Conflicts gain sustained American attention only when they provide a compelling story line that appeals to both the public and political actors, and for reasons beyond the human toll

one of two things comes to mind, a certain political candidate will turn their focus towards this issue or that NYT is just getting out ahead of something the US will soon be involved in. I guess the sale of papers is slow and the march of imperialism by the US needs to be pushed again.

Honestly I do not get the NYT. They will push for wars and then turn around and claim to be bamboozled or such. Perhaps there are too many journalist there who think they can just make it happen if they write about it enough

> You know what I've noticed? Nobody panics when things go "according to plan." Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it's all "part of the plan". But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!

- The Joker, The Dark Knight

Wars in some backwater country we've never heard of, or in somewhere that we've always thought of as 'one of those bad places that have wars'? That's not news, that's all in the script. Wars in somewhere we care about? Wars in our own back yard? They get attention because they're not in the script.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar et al. are able to hire high roller lobbyists and spread "wealth" to power brokers in DC. That much attention is given Syria with lot of propaganda on Twitter by PR agencies hired by Saudi et al. These same groups are also spreading "wealth" to suppress news about Yemen.
Wikipedia on Yemeni war:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemeni_Civil_War_(2015%E2%80%9...

There are three major sides in the war:

- Houthi, basically Shia Muslims

- Hadi, supported by Saudi Arabia (Sunnis) and the US

- al-Qaeda, ISIS etc.

"The Houthis have long been accused of being proxies for Iran, since they both follow Shia Islam. (Although the Iranians are Twelve-Imam Shias and the Houthis are Five-Imam Shias.) The United States and Saudi Arabia have alleged that the Houthis receive weapons and training from Iran.[87] The Houthis and Iranian government have denied any affiliation.[88]"

Detailed map:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Yemeni_Civil_War_deta...

"A coalition led by Saudi Arabia[6] launched military operations by using airstrikes to restore the former Yemeni government and the United States provided intelligence and logistical support for the campaign.[4] According to the UN, from March 2015 to August 2016, over 10,000 people have been killed in Yemen, including 3,799 civilians.[58]"

So its like Syria. Its not a civil war at all. Its part of the larger regional conflict between the US and its allies and its enemies such as Iran and Russia.
So it's like the Cold War never really ended.
It's a civil war just like Syria is civil war.

The larger regional conflict is attached to the regional conflict. The issues Houthis or Syrian Sunni majority had before the war did not come from outside.

"a civil war just like Syria is civil war"

Because, as you say, "the issues" "did not come from outside?"

Syria, CNN Dec. 2006:

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1571751,00...

"The Bush Administration has been quietly nurturing individuals and parties opposed to the Syrian government in an effort to undermine the regime of President Bashar Assad."

The cable of the US ambassador in Syria, December 2006 via Wikileaks:

https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06DAMASCUS5399_a.html

cryoshon quoted CIA director William Casey recently:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12597168

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."

"said by CIA Director William Casey at an early February 1981 meeting of the newly elected President Reagan with his new cabinet secretaries"

Outside forces have been messing with them, but the issues that created the civil war were not created by outside forces.

Assad's family and Alawite minority were ruling Syria and Sunni majority was oppressed. It was just question of time when something happens.

Without the weapons and the logistic support provided from the outside, it wouldn't even be a war at all.

It is a proxy war

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proxy_wars

with at least 7 million refugees now.

   Houthis have long been accused of being 
   proxies for Iran
Since when is it illegal to have allies, and to receive weapons from allies?
Saudi Arabia might export an extremist and hateful variant of their religion, but they don't advocate terror (you don't rock the boat when you're on top of the world).

Iran is probably the world's largest terror exporter (Pakistan might be worse?) and militarily expansionist. I think they even (internally) argue for their goal of controlling the muslim holy places, etc.

So Iran actively destabilizes Middle East countries. The only good thing with this is that it gave Israel and the Arab countries a common enemy.

   Saudi Arabia might export an extremist [...] 
   but they don't advocate terror 
Some contradiction right there.

   Iran is probably the world's largest [...] 
   militarily expansionist.
Iran has invaded which countries in the last 2000 years, and how does this compare with e.g. the Soviet Union, the US, the UK, the Mongols, the Incas?

   Iran is probably the world's largest terror exporter
Reference needed. Which large scale terror attacks in the last few decades (e.g. 9/11 or the attacks in Paris/Nice) were supported by Iran?
I saw this much later. This is a misquote of what I said:

  >> Iran is probably the world's largest [...] 
  >>   militarily expansionist.
(But, as I noted, even the Iran priests talk about "emancipating" the Islam holy places from Saudi Arabia -- that even scared the Gulf States and SA to work with Israel.)
>> Some contradiction right there.

So just because someone is politically/religiously extreme they are violent?

>> Iran has invaded which countries in the last 2000 years

2 minutes with Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavid_dynasty#Recovery_of_te...

"The Ottoman Turks and Safavids fought over the fertile plains of Iraq for more than 150 years"

(But I understand -- it was _really_ Iranian to start with. Iran's empires have been the only non-expansionist ones in human history. :-) )

>> Iranian terror.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terro...

(Edit: Wikipedia for terror is simpler than referencing e.g. the South American stuff, because then you will quote the Iranian priests' declarations of innocence. IIRC, once the Iranian leadership even denied supplying Hamas with weapons at the same time Hamas went out and thanked them. Bad coordination. :-) )

   2 minutes with Wikipedia:
Wikipedia is not a credible source in such matters. Many of the claims are clearly dubious, e.g. "Bahraini security forces [...] arrested a number of suspects linked to Iran's Revolutionary Guards" Oh yes, Bahraini security forces, that fountain of truth, and model of just democracy.
> Iran has invaded which countries in the last 2000 years

Iraq?

When has that been the case?

The Iran–Iraq War of the 1980s was started by Iraq.

Are you sure? Saudi Arabia is the creator of ISIS and its main sponsor. Also Saudi Arabia is the homeland of Bin Laden and the one country a lot of sources say is implicated in the 9/11 terror attack.
"Creator" and "sponsor" are very odd words to use to describe that relationship. By this logic the UK is the "creator" and "sponsor" of the IRA.

In a sense it's true; the folks who wanted to violently revolt against the UK government were, in fact, UK citizens. Similarly, the folks who want to topple the house of Saud and impose their own government on Saudi Arabia are mostly Saudi citizens.

But I think it's a stretch to call that relationship "creator" and "sponsor". The UK government, as an organization, is staunchly opposed to the IRA. And similarly for the Saudi government.

IRA is irrelevant for this discussion, let's stay on the topic:

At the moment ISIS does promote regime change in Saudi Arabia, so the regime there really don't like them related to that, but the former history is very different.

They also don't complain to ISIS' application of Sharia (punishments, like decapitations and outlawing homosexuals and atheists) as they are anyway prescribed by the same Sharia understanding, in big part common to Saudis and ISIS. They also don't condemn fighting against Shias, as both consider them "unbelievers" who are to be fought and killed.

Assad is also Alawite, also the enemy of both ISIS and Saudis.

Edit: I see you again try to "prove by" (for me false) "analogy with IRA" in your following reply. Please just stay on topic to ISIS. You can't prove anything, at least to me, by avoiding to discuss the relevant facts of the relevant topic.

> export an extremist and hateful variant of their religion, but they don't advocate terror

How can this sentence even be written? The content of that extremist and hateful religion includes jihad, a duty of believers, which is an armed struggle against unbelievers, until the whole world is Muslim and governed by Sharia "a body of moral and religious law derived from religious prophecy, as opposed to human legislation."

Activity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrassas_in_Pakistan

1947 there were only 189 madrassas in Pakistan but "over 40,000" by 2008. Mostly financed by Saudis:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses...

"Q: So they were basically recruiting schools? A: They were recruiting, organizing schools which also use Islamic ideology as a way of creating a very efficient guerilla army" "We're dealing with the sort of unintended consequences of that"

>> How can this sentence even be written?

I answered that -- it is not in the Saudi interest to rock the boat.

It is fully possible SA is cooperating with the Pakistan government regarding terror against India. But the Saudi government don't want to destabilize the economy of their big customers in the west, at least for now.

[Edit: SA is a brutal dictatorship which spreads religious hatred for internal political reasons, quite like Iran really. I argue that it isn't in their self interest to make the Western world angry. Both as customers and because they want support against Iran. I might of course be wrong, juntas often buy their own hype.]

No wars "get attention". The media, who makes money by manipulating the masses, puts them on screen and on paper. So the people talk about them. So they get attention. NYTimes should ask himself and its competitors, how they pick the wars they report about.
I think it's because American's media. They like viewership. Some stupid war gets coverage than other.
"Search SUBSCRIBELOG INWorld

Why Some Wars (Like Syria’s) Get More Attention Than Others (Like Yemen’s)

Damage in a house after a Saudi-led airstrike last month in Yemen, whose war has not gotten much attention. MOHAMED AL-SAYAGHI / REUTERS OCTOBER 1, 2016 The Interpreter By AMANDA TAUB It is a truth universally acknowledged by every war correspondent, humanitarian aid worker and Western diplomat: Some wars, like Syria’s, receive tremendous public attention, which can translate into pressure for resolution. But many others, like Yemen’s still raging but much ignored conflict, do not.

Some of the reasons are obvious; the scale of Syria’s war is catastrophic and much worse than Yemen’s. But attention is about more than numbers. The conflict in eastern Congo, for instance, killed millions of people and displaced millions more, but received little global attention.

Every country in the world has its own version of that dynamic, but it is uniquely significant in the United States.

The United States is the world’s sole remaining superpower, but Americans often seem so inward-looking as to be almost provincial. Foreigners often express wonder that American television news, for instance, spends fewer minutes covering the rest of the world than the rest of the world’s news shows spend covering America.

A result is that American attention seems both vitally important and frustratingly elusive.

But when the world asks why America has forgotten Yemen and other conflicts like it, that has the situation backward. The truth is that inattention is the default, not the exception.

Conflicts gain sustained American attention only when they provide a compelling story line that appeals to both the public and political actors, and for reasons beyond the human toll. That often requires some combination of immediate relevance to American interests, resonance with American political debates or cultural issues, and, perhaps most of all, an emotionally engaging frame of clearly identifiable good guys and bad guys.

Most wars — including those in South Sudan, Sri Lanka and, yes, Yemen — do not, and so go ignored. Syria is a rare exception, and for reasons beyond its severity.

The war is now putting United States’ interests at risk, including the lives of its citizens, giving Americans a direct stake in it. The Islamic State has murdered American hostages and committed terrorist attacks in the West.

And the war offers a compelling tale of innocent victims and dastardly villains. The Islamic State is a terrorist organization with a penchant for crucifixions and beheadings. President Bashar al-Assad of Syria and his patrons in Iran are hostile to the United States and responsible for terrible atrocities. And now Russia, which is at best America’s frenemy, is fighting on their side as well.

The Obama administration’s refusal to bomb Syria in 2013, and subsequently to intervene more fully, has also made this a domestic political dispute, giving politicians on both sides an incentive to dig in. This provided an appealing focal point for election-year political debates over Mr. Obama’s foreign policy and for how to assign blame for the Middle East’s collapse. Those debates have sharpened and sustained domestic attention on Syria, giving both the public and politicians reason to emphasize the war’s importance.

But it is rare for so many stars to align.

Yemen’s death toll is lower than Syria’s, and although Al Qaeda does operate there, Yemen’s conflict has not had the kind of impact on American and European interests that Syria’s has. There is no obvious good-versus-evil story to tell there: The country is being torn apart by a variety of warring factions on the ground and pummeled from the air by Saudi Arabia, an American ally. There is no camera-ready villain for Americans to root against.

A woman and child after an airstrike in Syria on Friday. AMER ALMOHIBANY / AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE — GETTY IMAGES The war’s narrative is less appealing to American political interests. Yemen’s Houthi rebels pose little direct threat that American politicians might rally against. On the other side of the conflict are Saudi airstrikes that are killing civilians and targeting hospitals and aid workers, at times with United States support.

No American politician has much incentive to call attention to this war, which would require either criticizing the United States and an American ally, or else playing up the threat from an obscure Yemeni rebel group. It is little wonder that, when several senators recently tried to push a bill to block arms sales to Saudi Arabia over its conduct in Yemen, they found only a few sponsors and the motion was tabled in a 71-to-27 vote."

In a democracy, we're all morally culpable for what our government is doing. In this case, the idea that our government is using our tax dollars to arm an ally that is intentionally targeting hospitals and aid workers, is extremely concerning. As the holocaust has shown, pleading ignorance is no defense against such crimes against humanity. I can only wonder what future generations will think about us when they look back on our apathy and implicit acceptance of such abominable behavior.

But when the world asks why America has forgotten Yemen and other conflicts like it, that has the situation backward. The truth is that inattention is the default, not the exception.

It's backward, but for a completely different reason. When has USA "attention" ever helped a war situation? "The world" should be careful what they wish for.

- When has USA "attention" ever helped a war situation?

Depends on what side you are on. Abstractly, I would say WWII was a fairly widespread net benefit, though a strong case could be made for the Korean war and several other more recent conflicts. Though, considering this stuff was before I was born that's tricky.

You're right, various situations from the 1950s and before might well qualify. The distance of decades makes it difficult to judge.
They are obviously not isolated wars, and the reasons they give are transparently fake.

Look at a map. https://www.google.com/maps/vt/data=RfCSdfNZ0LFPrHSm0ublXdzh...

Yemen is a choke point.

Syria is in an extremely strategically important position both in terms of territory and it is an ally to Iran.

Iraq and Afghanistan are on each side of Iran.

Egypt was blocking the Libya invasion. That was a cyber-intelligence coup, not a 'democratic revolution'.

All of these are part of an extended military campaign that goes back decades. Or centuries. Or thousands of years, depending on how you count it.

It is amazing that people don't see the connection between ISIS -- a supposedly Muslim enemy that (currently) somehow all of our enemies conveniently fall under the umbrella of, and the other ones that came before it -- Al Qaeda.. all the way back to the Crusades.

Anyway, I am going to take an image of this comment. If it is deleted or flagged or something, that is how you know that Hacker News is also part of the propaganda party.

I'm totally willing to believe it's Cold War continued, with casual roots going back to pre-WW 2. But I'm not buying the "extended military campaign" that goes back centuries or millennia. It doesn't make sense (the HN Chief Propaganda Officer told me so, and I believe him :P s/).
this is like three or four levels beyond simply 'ill-informed'
Right on the spot! I support your comment. Mainstream HN don't.
ISIS is created by Russia to raise prices of oil and natural gas.
Then why the US is helping them killing syrian soldiers and bombing bridges?

http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/10/syria-bombing-us-backs-isis...

Why you think that stopping Russians will help ISIL?

My conversations with Russian agents in Ukraine shows that they are using ISIL and anti-Christian propaganda to control Muslims. I cannot tell in details, of course, because of war with Russia.

No. The Russians are pretty clearly backing the Assads.
Russians are playing using two hands.