“U.S. General Open to Ground Forces in Fight Against ISIS in Iraq” is the web site headline in the New York Times.
The print edition headline is “U. S. General open to ground force as ption in Iraq” with a sub head “Joint Chiefs chairman raises apossibility Obama rejects.”
Rebellion in the ranks? The generals oppose President Obama’s policy?
The body of the report suggests a very different story:
“Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that while he was confident that an American-led coalition would defeat the Islamic State, he would not foreclose the possibility of asking Mr. Obama to send American troops to fight the militants on the ground — something Mr. Obama has ruled out.
“ ‘My view at this point is that this coalition is the appropriate way forward. I believe that will prove true,’ General Dempsey said. ‘But if it fails to be true, and if there are threats to the United States, then I, of course, would go back to the president and make a recommendation that may include the use of U.S. military ground forces.’ ”
“If there are threats to the United States” of course matters would be re-considered. We don’t need the President of Gen. Dempsey to tell us that.
It wasn’t just the NYT headlines that distorted the testimony.
Nor is it the reporters.
Headline writers often act like hucksters, trying to draw attention. That is okay for the National Enquirer, but we expect something better from the Times.
