Communication between government and the media, political science homework help

Rate this post

Please respond to the following discussion questions

Discussion Topic 1:

Communication between government and the media during a crisis has often been described as a love-hate relationship. The idea that “publicity is the oxygen of terrorist groups” raises the question of how much terrorists influence media coverage. It has also been stated that “the media and terrorists have a symbiotic relationship; they mutually depend on each other and the terrorists manipulate the media to further their propaganda war.” The constant repetition of the videos of the airliners striking the twin towers is cited as an example of the freedom of the press advancing the cause of terrorists. It led to a movement to prohibit showing of the videos by some. Are the criticisms valid? Is the media a tool of terrorists?

Instructions:

Please provide a follow up response to the discussion topic. The response is to the topic mentioned above.

Requirements:

Min 350 words

APA format

2 References cited min

Discussion Topic 2:

Former President Obama made the drawdown of active US military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan a centerpiece of his national policy. Critics maintain he simply transitioned open war to covert war through the use of drone strikes. To be successful, drone operations require an extremely high level of actionable intelligence. Critics assert the drain on intelligence resources for drone warfare degrades the quality of intelligence generation elsewhere. Do you believe these are valid criticisms or political posturing? Why or why not?

Instructions:

Please provide a follow up response to the following 2 responses. The responses are to the topic mentioned above.

Requirements:

Min 1 paragraph

1 Reference cited min

Response 1:

I do not believe the criticism is valid by stating the drain on intelligence resources for drone warfare degrades the quality of intelligence generation elsewhere. The Intelligence Community (IC) within the United States and around the world are working diligently to analyze data in order to provide intelligence (preferably actionable intelligence) to a variety of agencies regardless of potential drone strikes.

Actionable intelligence is simply that: information gleaned from a range of sources that enables decision makers — from political leaders to field commanders — to take appropriate and timely action when faced with a security threat like an imminent terrorist attack or the shipment of weapons of mass destruction (Doyle, 2013). The US use of drones to attack a target when actionable intelligence is received is a great assets in the fight against terrorism.

The US use of drones in the fight against terrorism has worked well: by killing key leaders and denying terrorists sanctuaries in Pakistan, Yemen, and, to a lesser degree, Somalia, drones have devastated al Qaeda and associated anti-American militant groups (Byman, 2013). They have done so at little financial cost, at no risk to U.S. forces, and with fewer civilian casualties than many alternative methods would have caused.

According to an article in the Guardian, “Between 2009 and 31 December 2015, President Barack Obama administration claimed that it launched 473 strikes, mostly with drones, that killed between what it said were 2,372 and 2,581 terrorist “combatants” (Ackerman, 2016).

The critics in my opinion are political posturing because the job of the IC is to collect, evaluate, analyze, interpret, and disseminate intelligence (preferably actionable intelligence). The mere fact a drone is used as the attack method to execute a mission derived from actionable intelligence does not equate to degradation of the quality of intelligence elsewhere.

By Samuel Hynes

Response 2:

Former president Obama made the drawdown of active US military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan a centerpiece of his national policy. This weeks discussion states that Critics maintain he simply transitioned open war to covert war through the use of drone strikes. With the use of drone strikes, decisions made must be done by referring to actionable intelligence that is analyzed on an extremely high level. I believe that by critics asserting that the drain on intelligence resources for drone warfare degrades the quality generation elsewhere is politically posturing. Realistically speaking, intelligence degradation does not directly apply to the case of drones as covert warfare. As the discussion question states, drone strikes require highly actionable intelligence. If there was no actionable intelligence for drone strikes to happen, not only would the United States be wasting money on drone strikes, but we would also be making decisions based on improper intelligence.

Drones are able to support counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations without risking the lives of military personnel. According to Walsh (2013), “Perhaps the most consequential advantage of drones is their ability to integrate intelligence collection with decisions to use force.” Drones like the MQ-9 Reaper and MQ-1 Predator are able to gather and transmit intelligence collected from imagery, infrared, signals, and other types of sensors. From this, other decisions can be based off gathered intelligence to commit to the use of force. Intelligence resources for drone warfare do not necessarily degrade the quality of intelligence generation elsewhere. Rather, it can provide support for gathering intelligence. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Drone strikes are complex in nature and are done covertly meaning that there is not much data demonstrating the effectiveness of drone strikes. The establishment of the intelligence community and coordination of this community by the director, would have factored in; and addressed, the issue of intelligence quality degradation, wouldn’t it?

By Brandon Wong

< a href="/order">