Showing posts with label news and war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label news and war. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

If We Don't Discuss It, It Doesn't Exist?

There was a time when you'd find people - good, upstanding pillars of the community, members of the country club who went to the right church and everything - acted as though problems could be ignored into oblivion.

If you remember the fifties and sixties, you know about this sort of thing: the prominent businessman whose secretary had to take a long vacation; the society matron whose doctor prescribed extra-strength happy pills; and so on, all the way to that famous meeting of the Harper Valley PTA.

And, of course, there were the hidebound conservatives who really believed that any criticism of "the government" was tantamount to treason.

That was then, this is now. "The establishment" has a different preferred reality, apparently - and I find that I'm still at odds with it.

"Wouldn't it be Loverly?"

I've made the point before, that I don't think war is nice. I also think that it would be nice if everybody would just get along.

Somehow, though, I doubt that people like Osama bin Ladin are likely to decide that they'd feel a whole lot better if they stopped hating the west and killing Muslims who didn't live up - or down - to their standards.

It would be nice, if you could take a dedicated terrorist, be nice to him, show him how to draw nice pictures, and wind up with a nice person who's ready to embrace the whole wide world in one big fuzzy hug. As Eliza Doolittle sang, Wouldn't it be Loverly?"

Or, as the Beach Boys put it: "Wouldn't it be Nice?"

Not, however, very likely. In my opinion.

Art Lessons for Terrorists: You Can't Make This Sort of Thing Up

I've seen enough applied psychology work, over the decades, to be cautious about dismissing most ideas. "Art therapy rehabilitation," though, is quite close to the edge of the envelope when it comes my willingness to be open-minded.
"...Mohammed Atiq al-Harbi, also known as Mohammed al-Awfi, and Said Ali al-Shihri were sent home to Saudi Arabia, where they were admitted to an 'art therapy rehabilitation programme' and later set free, US and Saudi officials said...."
(BBC)
Those art lessons didn't go entirely to waste. A deputy leader (Said Ali al-Shihri) and a field commander (Mohammed al-Awfi) for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, now should be able to draw nice pictures - if called upon to do so. (France24)

Terrorists Don't Believe They're Terrorists

I'm going out on a limb here, but it seems that terrorists - the Islamic-crazy sort, at any rate - believe that what they're doing is right.

Just as Joseph Burges apparently thought that God wanted him to kill people who did naughty things. (A Catholic Citizen in America (July 24, 2009))

Except Al Qaeda and the Taliban have a whole lot of people like Joseph Burges - and they're organized.

I think it's the height of folly to act as if Osama bin Laden, Mohammed Atiq al-Harbi, Said Ali al-Shihri, and others like them, are like misunderstood street kids who just need a break to go straight.

War isn't Nice, But This is War

The War on Terror may no longer exist - officially (March 30, 2009) - but there's a (loosely) organized set of organizations who earnestly, sincerely, passionately believe that God is telling them to kill people.

The people they want to kill don't, quite often, want be killed. What we have, therefore, is a conflict.

The War on Terror isn't a nice, old-fashioned, gentlemanly war where a formal declaration of war is sent - and a battle arranged after tea on some mutually-acceptable afternoon. I rather doubt that wars were ever quite like that - and the War on Terror certainly isn't of that sort.

But it is a war. Over 3,000 people abruptly stopped breathing on September 11, 2001.

Some died when an exploding airliner sprayed bits and pieces of their bodies over New York City. Some didn't get out of New York City's World Trade Center in time. Some, the ones caught on floors above the impact points, couldn't.

Others were crushed, burned, or asphyxiated when an airliner crashed into the Pentagon.

Still others were retaking their airliner when it crashed into a field in Pennsylvania.
I won't 'Get Over It'
It might sound grand to say something like 'put the past behind me' or 'let bygones be bygones' or 'live and let live.' The problem is, the people who keep Al Qaeda and the Taliban going - as well as the other Islamic terrorists - (not all Muslims) aren't willing to 'live and let live.'

And, nice as it sounds, it doesn't take two to make trouble. Not when one of them is intent on killing the other.

This is One Problem That Won't Just Go Away

Back to the 'Harper Valley PTA' strategy, of ignoring a problem - unless it involves someone else.

Pretending that the War on Terror doesn't exist makes about as much sense, I think, a giving terrorists art lessons and feeling that they'll be nice people as a result.

The people running Al Qaeda and like-minded outfits are, quite simply, not nice. Wanting them to be nice, hoping that they'll be nice, treating them nicely, and pretending that everything's nice: isn't nice. It's stupid. And, potentially, lethal.

There's More - There's Always More

If you haven't gotten enough of this post: There's more. I put excerpts from the news and op-ed pieces that got me started, as well as some of my running commentary, after the links in this post.1

Related posts: News and views:
1Excerpts from today's news and views:

Prisoners released from Guantanamo return to fight for al Qaeda

"You won't see this story in many of the U. S. Elite Media...in fact we could not find a mention of it in any of the major papers or broadcast networks. While it is true they all reported several different articles on President Obama's announcement that he was closing Guantanamo they somehow have missed the story. You have to look in the British press to find it.

"The story is that many of the Guantanamo prisoners that are being moved out of the Cuban prison have ended up back on the battlefield fighting with al Qaeda. In fact, 74, at least, have returned to the battlefield. Six prisoners were returned to Yemen last month.

"Meanwhile, there are also reports that a significant number of al Qaeda fighters have moved from Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan to Yemen...."
(News and Commentary, Beaufort Observer)
Lots of assertions, not many specific facts. This is what I started with, this afternoon. I thought that the claims made were quite likely true: but I've learned to research, rather than assume.

So, I started digging: starting with "look in the British press to find it." There's quite a bit of "the British press," but at that clue narrowed the search a trifle.

U.S. suspends Guantanamo prisoner transfer to Yemen

"The Obama administration on Tuesday suspended the transfer of detainees from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay to Yemen as a result of the deteriorating security situation there.

"President Barack Obama bowed to political pressure from Democratic and Republican lawmakers not to send any more prisoners to Yemen as a result of revelations that a would-be bomber on a Detroit-bound plane had received al Qaeda training in Yemen.

"Several of the roughly 91 Yemeni detainees at Guantanamo Bay had been cleared to be sent home, as the Obama administration struggles to close the prison.

"White House officials made clear that the suspension was considered a temporary one.

" 'While we remain committed to closing the (Guantanamo) facility, a determination has been made, right now any additional transfers to Yemen is not a good idea,' said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs...."
(Reuters)
Well, that's interesting. I'm not sure quite what to make of Reuter's turn of phrase - "...President Barack Obama bowed to political pressure...." - but let it pass. Besides, I doubt that someone with the Beaufort Observer would think Reuters was "the British press."

US suspends Guantanamo to Yemen transfers

"The US has said it is temporarily suspending the transfer of prisoners to Yemen from the Guantanamo Bay detention centre in Cuba.

"The move comes after it emerged the Nigerian man accused of trying to bomb a US plane on 25 December was allegedly trained by al-Qaeda in Yemen.

"More than 80 Yemeni men were due to be moved from Guantanamo Bay, as the US tries to shut down the camp.

"Officials fear many could re-join militant groups if sent back to Yemen.

"While we remain committed to closing the facility, the determination has been made that right now, any additional transfers to Yemen are not a good idea," said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs.

"US President Barack Obama has come under pressure to halt Guantanamo transfers to Yemen since investigators said 23-year-old Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab had been trained in that country to blow up a transatlantic flight to Detroit on Christmas Day.

"It was alleged last week that the bomb plot was planned by two men who were released by the US from Guantanamo Bay in November 2007.

"Mohammed Atiq al-Harbi, also known as Mohammed al-Awfi, and Said Ali al-Shihri were sent home to Saudi Arabia, where they were admitted to an 'art therapy rehabilitation programme' and later set free, US and Saudi officials said...."
(BBC)
Do I really need to say it? BBC - the British Broadcasting Corporation - is, well, British. This could be the source alluded to by the B.O.

Said Ali al-Shihri isn't exactly a household name here in America, but it looks like he's a very important person in Al Qaeda. Specifically, there's good reason to believe that he's the deputy leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP. Mohammed Atiq al-Harbi? He's only an Al Qaeda field commander. ("Key figures in al Qaeda's Yemeni branch," France24 (January 5, 2010))

Well, at least both of them should be able to draw nice pictures now.

'Bad guys' make it difficult to close Guantánamo

"The Christmas Day airline bomb plot, with its direct links to al-Qaeda in Yemen, is causing a big headache at home for President Obama and, in particular, for his already deeply troubled effort to close Guantánamo Bay.

"Of the 198 detainees still in the prison, nearly half — 91 — are from Yemen.

"In the past 24 hours there have been calls from Republicans and Democrats for the White House to freeze plans to repatriate many of them to Yemen...."

"...There is little confidence in Washington over Yemen's ability to secure its prisoners, or keep tabs on those that have been released. Memories are still fresh of a 2006 jailbreak by 23 top al-Qaeda members. 'All transfers of Yemeni detainees should stop,' Senator Joseph Lieberman, an independent, insisted.

"Two of the four top leaders of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula — Saudis called Said al-Shiri and Muhammad al-Awfi — are former Guantánamo detainees who crossed into Yemen after being sent back to Saudi Arabia. Of the more than 800 who have passed through the site in Cuba since it opened in January 2002, 108 have been Yemenis — and only 18 have been repatriated.' 'Yemen has produced an unusually high percentage of seriously bad guys,' said Benjamin Wittes, a Guantánamo expert at the Washington-based Brookings Institution. 'Given Yemen is likelier than the average country to be really scary, and the Government less likely than about all others to keep an eye on them and manage the risk, you end up with a very difficult combination of circumstances.' "
(Times Online (UK))
Or maybe this is "the British press" resource that the Beaufort Observer's writer used. Or, maybe not.

That failed Christmas weekend attempt to bring down Northwest Flight 253
(December 27, 2009) has been quite an embarrassment to the American president. From the looks of it, though, traditional American news media has recovered from the surprise - and administration officials are being quite a bit more prudent about off-the-cuff remarks. (December 28, 2009)

The Yemen connection? Not so obvious in American news coverage. My opinion.

Key figures in al Qaeda's Yemeni branch

"Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) has claimed a botched Christmas Day attack on a US-bound flight in a statement released on the Internet. FRANCE 24 takes a look at some of the group's top leaders.

"Days after the failed attack on Detroit-bound Northwest Airlines Flight 253, the international spotlight has focused on Islamist networks in Yemen, where 23-year-old Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was reportedly trained by an al Qaeda bomb-maker. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called the situation in Yemen 'a threat to global and regional security'.

"But the threat from Yemen – especially from al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), the group that has claimed the Christmas Day plot – is not a new phenomenon.

"US and Yemeni authorities have been familiar with some of the key figures in Yemeni jihadist circles for the past few years. An alarming number of top AQAP leaders have passed through US and Yemeni detention centres and they are well-known to authorities in both countries.

"The 'emir': Nasir al-Wuhayshi

"A Yemeni former aide to Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, al-Wuhayshi, was in Tora Bora, near the Pakistani border, during the US-led offensive after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. He escaped via Iran and was arrested by Iranian authorities who then extradited him to Yemen in 2003...."
(France24 (January 5, 2009))
This is a pretty good background resource: I hope France24 keeps the page online.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

ACORN, News, and Business as Usual

ACORN's made mistakes - most recently, giving dubiously useful advice to a couple posing as a pimp and a prostitute planning to set up a brothel with underage Hispanic girls. (San Bernardino County Sun)

It's gotten so bad that the U.S. Census decided to say they won't be using ACORN's help. (Examiner.com)

Reporting ACORN, Haditha, Westward Venture, Global Patriot

ACORN's chronic lapses in ethics - and common sense - do get in the news, but it's nowhere near as easy to find out what the advocacy group (or grassroots community organization, or whatever) has put its foot in, as it has been to find references to the Westward Venture and Global Patriot incidents. And, of course, that perennial favorite, Abu Ghraib.

It's tempting to feel that any and all reports of ACORN naughtiness are 'lies' - after all, it wouldn't be right (by some standards) to criticize a group whose aim is to defend the oppressed and disadvantaged. I think that's a sort of updated retread of the old 'my country right or wrong' or 'America, love it or leave it' attitude that we were taught to despise in conservatives.

When it's applied to a bunch that says it's protecting an oppressed minority, of course, 'it's different.'

But ignoring chronic ethical lapses simply doesn't make sense. Particularly for those who support the publicly-proclaimed ideals and goals of a shifty group.

Not that mainstream, traditional, news outfits have been suppressing the story. The New York Times, for example, had an article about the U. S. Census Bureau cutting ties with ACORN. In their politics section. On September 11, 2009.

Yes, ACORN Coverage - Or Lack of it - Does Relate to the War on Terror

ACORN is, I think, essentially a political organization: making sure that people, living and dead, vote in a particular way.

I have no problem with organizations pursuing political goals. Democracy is messy, but it does, I think, help ensure that a wide range of ideas get considered. On the other hand, I do draw the line at voting the graveyard. To the best of my knowledge, the right to vote does not extend beyond the grave.

Although the Supreme Court may have decided otherwise.

The problem I have with ACORN - or, rather, with the decided reticence with which traditional news media treats the organization's shortcomings - is what I perceive as preferential reporting.

An American "warship" like the Global Patriot fires on boat whose crew acts like they're starting a suicide run - it's international news, with "US admits killing Egyptian in Suez Canal" and "All men are not equal" headlines. (April 7, 2008)

A minority-rights group tells what they have every reason to believe is a pimp and a prostitute how to get away with opening and running an underage brothel - it's "Census Bureau Drops Acorn From 2010 Effort" - in a back section, on the anniversary of 9/11.

I don't think it's 'some kinda plot' - but I do think that "all the news we feel like printing" is the working motto of many if not most of America's traditional news outfits. They're not, in my view, trying to be biased.

But old-school journalists may not be aware of the profound changes which have taken place since Woodstock: and have affected the world outside Berkeley, Amherst, Boulder and downtown Manhattan. They certainly don't seem eager to publish information that would embarrass an organization with 'relevant' goals.

America, for the time being, is a republic with a strong tradition of democracy. Like it or not, what 'the people' think and feel makes a difference in foreign policy. And that make a difference - a huge one - in what happens in the war on terror.

And, who gets elected makes a difference. Which means that the behavior of advocacy groups like ACORN matters.

And it matters, if American journalism's old guard is trying to be nice and polite about ACORN's boo-boos.

I know this sounds corny: but facts matter; and the truth is important. Even if it doesn't feel good.

Related posts: In the news:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, March 22, 2009

Somalia, Minnesota, and Common Sense

Somalis in Minnesota are in the international news again. A Somali man, one of around 20 who disappeared, was spotted at the Minneapolis Mall. Or someone who looked like him, anyway. Those news accounts are, in my opinion, hovering around the borders of 'some-guy-told-me-he-heard' credibility.

The Abubakar As-Saddique Mosque in Minneapolis, on the other hand, is getting investigated: by the FBI, which I think makes sense; and by the Senate, which is what Senators do, I suppose.

A "nonprofit journalism enterprise" wrote:

"Some Somalis say the mosque invited scrutiny and suspicion by helping to radicalize young Somali men for jihad in their homeland. Others say the mosque is a wrongly accused victim of the politics of war in East Africa." (Minnesota Post)

And
"If U.S. counterterrorism agencies took these commendable measures to correct President George Bush's myriad blunders in the war on terror, it was mindboggling to note the complete disregard of these suggestions in a recent meeting between Minneapolis-St. Paul Somali community and staff for Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Sen. Joe Lieberman. This three-member group stated its mission as a fact-finding one to shed light on the recent disappearance of young Somali men from the Twin-Cities and the allegations that these men returned to Somalia to join Al-Shabab, an organization listed as a terrorist group with the United States government.

"An ongoing FBI investigation is looking into how young men like Shirwa Ahmed, who is considered the first known American suicide bomber in Somalia, came to become 'radicalized.' While there have been very few details as to what the FBI has uncovered thus far, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, referring to the Somali community in the Twin-Cities, stated that 'the prospect of young men, indoctrinated and radicalized in their own communities … is perversion of the immigrant story.'

"Lieberman's staff coming to the Twin Cities to correct 'the mishandling of this investigation' by the FBI and to get the story straight from the horse's mouth for a Senate hearing on the issue of terrorist cells in America was initially viewed by many Somalis who attended these meetings as a commendable first step to stop the media hysteria surrounding this story. This perception changed, however, once members of this staff started their queries with 'What is radicalizing young Somali men?' in the Twin Cities. This framing of the problem, and its unbounded generalization not as a problem of a handful of individuals among a community of 30,000 or more, was the first indication that gaining the trust of the Muslim community in America, let alone winning the hearts and minds of Muslims around the world, was far from the agenda these men." (Minnesota Post)
(I try to avoid huge block quotes like that: but I wanted the MP's remarks available in context.)

Obligatory Bush-bashing notwithstanding, the MP may have a point: The Senatorial staff's "What is radicalizing young Somali men?" line is, if not offensive, entirely too broad. Only 20 or so young Somali-Minnesotans have disappeared. That reminds me of the 'good old days' that I'm (thank God) too young to remember, when this country's best and brightest might have asked "what makes Irishmen drink too much?"

On the other hand, I must be terribly insensitive: I don't see how the FBI's statement - that someone could be radicalized (the MP put it in quotes, apparently they see something dicy about the word) in his or her own community - is naughty. The FBI fellow said that radicalization like that is "perversion of the immigrant story." He did not say that it's what happens with Somalis. Or, if that's what he did say, the MP should have included that quote.

And, for that "...there have been very few details as to what the FBI has uncovered thus far...," business: This is an on-going investigation. I'd be worried if the FBI was publicizing who they suspected, where they got their information, and exactly how much they knew. People who talk people into blowing up other people are not nice, and might skedaddle if they knew the jig was up. That's a best-case scenario. If the 'suspects' were smart, they'd kill whoever ratted on them, or might know too much, and then leave the area.

As for what's going on in Minnesota, I'm glad that the investigations are not entirely in the hands of Senators out on a junket. There appears to be a real problem in my state: Minnesotans are disappearing, probably radicalized by some of their neighbors

Shirwa Ahmed is one of the young Minnesotans who disappeared. A great many pieces of him showed up in Somalia, with enough DNA to identify him. He's back with his family now, "...buried simply as a Muslim man...." (FOX 9 (December 3, 2008))

What happened to Shirwa Ahmed is wrong. What he apparently did is wrong. And, I think, investigating how he and - almost certainly - others were radicalized is right. Even if members of Senatorial staffs need to be reminded that there are a whole lot of 'funny-looking Americans' around these days.

As I've written before, "there's a war on."

Related posts: News and views:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Carville, Limbaugh, 9/11, Obama, and Objectivity in the News

This blog isn't political, but how news is reported does affect the War on Terror. And the curious case of Carville and Limbaugh shows, I think, how objective the old-school American news media is.

Carville and Bush: "Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!"

If you're like most Americans, you didn't know that American political consultant, commentator, and (seriously) very knowledgeable James Carville said "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed," of then-President George W. Bush.

Shortly after Mr. Carville said, "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed," Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg commented on a then-recent survey.

Seeing public misgivings about George W. Bush, Mr. Greenberg said, "We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him," and added: "They don't want him to fail. I mean, they think it matters if the president of the United States fails."

Carville, Greenberg, and Really Bad Timing

About that time
  • Two airliners hit New York City's World Trade Center
  • One airliner plowed into the Pentagon
  • One airliner crashed in rural Pennsylvania
  • President Bush, speaking from a Sarasota elementary school, said,
    "Today we've had a national tragedy. Two airplanes have crashed into the World Trade Center in an apparent terrorist attack on our country...."
Mr. Carville then announced, "Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!"

I don't blame Mr. Carville a bit for instructing reporters at the conference they were attending to pay no attention to what he and Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg had just said. If that little "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed" remark got out, people might misconstrue it.

Hours, days, weeks, months, and years followed. Mr. Carville's ill-timed "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed" went unpublished.

I can see why, given the values of many traditional, old-school news editors. Reporting Mr Carville's inopportune remarks would have been not only impolite, but might give readers the wrong impression about his patriotism or common sense.

Rush Limbaugh, Known Conservative, and President Barack Obama, President

Detailed reporting and analysis of known conservative Rush Limbaugh's remarks about democratically elected President Barack Obama is, of course an entirely different matter.

'Everybody knows' about "radio fat-mouth Rush Limbaugh" (guardian.co.uk). An American Chronicle writer described the radio personality as "an Obese,[!] megalomaniac and narcissist man named Rush Limbaugh."

If enjoy following politics, and don't know that Rush Limbaugh asked, "What is so strange about being honest and saying, 'I want Barack Obama to fail?' " at a recent Conservative Political Action Conference: You're just not paying attention.

I didn't find out about the Carville/Limbaugh dichotomy until today: but then, I'm not exactly a fan of politics.

Polite Reticence for Carville, Enthusiastic Reporting for Limbaugh: This is Objective?

I don't mind people having definite views on any given subject, although I prefer that the views have some connection to the world the rest of us inhabit.

I do, though, appreciate it when biases are clearly stated.

For example, I'm quite biased about the War on Terror. All things considered, I'd rather remain alive and free to worship as I choose. That makes me a far-from-impartial observer of the conflict between supporters of a particular flavor of Islam and the Muslims and non-Muslims they don't approve of.

Traditional American news media's tendency to publish all the news they want to print isn't a particularly good match with their claims of impartiality. The polite consideration they showed Mr. Carville, compared with the journalistic zeal with which they pursued Mr. Limbaugh's remark, seems anything but impartial.

Wake Up, Everybody! It's the Information Age

Happily, we don't have to depend on the ABC/CBS/NBC triumvirate, NPR, and The New York Times for news and information any more. That's a good thing, in my view, because American citizens have a say in who represents them and, to a lesser extent, the decisions those representatives make.

On the whole, as an American citizen, I'd prefer being able to get as much information as possible: not just what a handful of Yankee gentlemen in the northeast, and socially-conscious editors, think we should know.

Related posts: News and views: Background: Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , ,

Wednesday, January 7, 2009

News from Gaza: Making a Game of Death and Destruction

It's a variation of "what's wrong with this picture?"

While you're watching the news from Gaza, or reading about Israeli aggression and Palestinian pathos, try looking for this sort of detail:
  1. A photo of shattered concrete, twisted steel, once a happy home
    • With a brightly-colored, spanking-clean toy sitting on top of the dust
  2. A Palestinian who speaks fluent English, being interviewed as resident of one town
    • Being interviewed as another resident of another town a little later
  3. Any photo that looks like the one on the right:

Learning from Past Mistakes

The second example may not be too likely. Saddam Hussein's regime provided reporters with articulate young women in different locations, who spoke fluent English and gave moving accounts of what the Yankees were doing to Iraq. Until a particularly astute reporter noticed that the young women all had the same voice, the same face, and were, in fact, the same person.

I think Hamas is smart enough to learn from the mistakes of others.

The same goes for the third possibility. Ever since Reuters published what may be the worst digital editing outside Photoshop 101, and got caught, news services seem to have been a little more careful.

Even so, Iran 'enhanced' a photo of its indomitable missiles being launched was published as the real McCoy in:
  • The Los Angeles Times
  • The Financial Times
  • The Chicago Tribune
  • BBC News
  • MSNBC
  • Yahoo! News
  • NYTimes.com

(from The Lede/The New York Times, used w/o permission)
Impressive, isn't it?

Then, The Associated Press found the original photo.


(from The Lede/The New York Times, used w/o permission)
Can you spot the difference between these two photos?

To Iran's credit, whoever did the postwork on that photo was pretty good. A person would have to look closely, to notice that two clouds of dust on the ground are virtually identical.

Isn't Playing a Game with War Coverage Ghoulish?

Actually, I rather hope that 'spot this lie' doesn't catch on as entertainment. The War on Terror is a very serious matter.

On the other hand, I would like to see more people pay attention to what they see, rather than letting the news wash over them. Particularly since it's hard to shake the impression that at least some 'objective' journalists aren't quite convinced that outfits like Al Qaeda, Hamas, and the Taliban are a bigger threat than the FBI and the CIA.

More-or-less related posts:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, January 5, 2009

Taliban Triumphs and the Truth: Or, Never Tell a Little Lie

Wow! The Taliban, those Lions of Islam, killed 5,220 foreign troops in Afghanistan's quagmire (oops: quicksand) last year!

According to the Taliban.

That's about 20 times what the foreign oppressors say were killed.

The foreign oppressors are, of course, America which is 'unilaterally' 'brutalizing' Afghanistan, along with NATO and other forces.

I'm inclined to believe the western figures. Partly because I'm an American - but mostly because I know the west's almost obsessive attention to detail, when it comes to reporting its own casualties.

NATO's member countries, and NATO as a unit, report all troop deaths: complete with names, ages, hometowns, and how the soldiers were killed. America is the same way.

It's possible that the military of over a dozen countries would lie about death tolls: but soldiers have families, who probably would notice if their son or daughter dropped out of sight; and if the families didn't notice something odd, reporters routinely nose around war zones and the home front, looking for a story.

And discovering a systematic cover-up of thousands of American and European deaths would be news!

The Taliban has an answer to that: it's all a vast conspiracy. "The true damage inflicted on U.S. and NATO fighters over the last year has been 'repeatedly hidden by the enemy and they have controlled the media by using money, power and their lies,' the [Taliban] statement said."

If the Truth Doesn't Suit You: Substitute Your Own

One of the advantages the Taliban has, I think, is that they're playing to an audience whose members desperately want to believe that
  • America and western civilization is absolutely awful, and the cause of all their problems
  • The god of their own hand-rolled version of Islam will give them victory
  • Any inconvenient facts are part of a plot against them
Maintaining that sort of belief system is, I think, a lot easier than thinking: which may help explain the popularity of outfits like the Taliban - in some quarters, anyway.

Running Low on Funds and Suicide Bombers? Tout Your Triumphs!

If the triumphs aren't really as big as your marketing people say they should be: boost the numbers. But, be sure to say that western media, military, and governments are all involved in a big plot to hide your version of the truth.

The Associated Press article explained it this way:

"The insurgents' exaggerations are designed to boost morale inside the Taliban and to attract financing from donors sympathetic to their cause, a U.S. military official and a Taliban expert said.

" 'They put out this propaganda in order to raise capital to continue their operations,' said Col. Jerry O'Hara, a U.S. military spokesman.

"Vahid Mojdeh, the author of a book on the Taliban who continues to study the militia, said the exaggerated claims help the insurgents recruit new fighters.

" 'The Taliban needs volunteers to carry out suicide attacks, so they want to show they are killing a lot of people,' Mojdeh said...."

Of course: that's the Associated Press. And, according to the Taliban, they're conspiring with the American military to hide The Truth - Taliban style.

Related posts: In the news: Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Sunday, November 16, 2008

Baghdad's Palestine Hotel Open for Business: Nothing to See Here, Move Along?

Several years ago, a unilateral invasion of Iraq by America and a couple dozen other countries replaced Saddam Hussein with a puppet government: or maybe freed Iraq from a brutal dictator. It depends on how you look at it.

Between Al Qaeda, Iraqis who liked Saddam Hussein's rule, and the usual assortment of people who enjoy killing other people, the next few years weren't good for business in Baghdad. Or anywhere else in Iraq.

And, if you believe some accounts, at least some American soldiers were always being rude to journalists and occasionally shooting them.

Baghdad's Palestine Hotel on Firdos Square Gets Remodeled - the Hard Way

Monday, October 24, 2005, was a particularly bad day for people in Baghdad's Palestine Hotel. First, one suicide bomber blew a hole in the hotel's perimeter. Then another was frustrated by hotel security. He went around a traffic circle and blew up near a mosque.

Odd people, these lions of Islam.

Finally, some martyr driving a cement truck came through the new hole in the hotel's perimeter. Some inconveniently placed barbed wire got the truck tangled, so the suicide bomber blew up there. Which is probably just as well, since the truck was headed for the hotel entrance.

Quite a few people were killed, and The Palestine had to close.

Between the near-miss nature of the attack, journalists being the 'obvious' target, and an Associated Press crew getting video of the cement truck going off, the Palestine Hotel bombing was big news for several days.

Oh, yeah: non-journalists were affected, too. Some foreign contractors were staying at the hotel, and a couple of Iraqi cops were killed.

That was Then, This is Now: The Palestine Opens - Quietly

Journalists got in the habit of staying elsewhere, while The Palestine's management got the place fixed up. The hotel's open now, and the journalists haven't returned.

Except for at least one, who did a 'three years later' report last month.






October 24, 2005: A 'typical day in Baghdad, only worse.
(From FOXNews, used without permission)


October 24, 2008: A T-wall -
Then, a prefab concrete security barrier.
Now, a really big surface for landscapes and other artwork.
(From FOXNews, used without permission)

I'll freely grant that hotel re-openings in other countries don't make much of a splash in American news. By and large, Americans just aren't that interested in events like supermarket openings and hotel remodeling: in Iraq, America, or anywhere else.

On the other hand, I've been impressed at how little attention has been paid to what American soldiers have done in Iraq during lulls in the fighting. I've written before, about Awakening Councils. I think that concerned Iraqis formed these 'American-backed' groups after they had a chance to compare coalition forces to Al Qaeda.

With 'occupying forces' right there in their neighborhoods, many Iraqis noticed "that Al Qaeda was torturing and beheading Iraqis, while Americans were rebuilding power plants, hospitals, and roads."

Sheik Majid Tahir and others in his position figured out that, by and large, Americans were doing more good than harm to his country. Maybe, someday, traditional news organizations will follow suit.

Stranger things have happened.

News and background:
Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , ,

Monday, November 10, 2008

Bush Approves Secret Orders! Warrantless Wiretaps! Liberties in Danger!

Or, not.

'Everybody knows,' in some circles at least, the CNN works for the Democratic party, and FOXNews is a tool of the Republicans. And, my guess is that quite a few people still believe that The New York Times publishes "all the news that's fit to print."

That slogan is true, in my opinion, if you recognize that The New York Times is more New York City's hometown paper, than America's newspaper of record. But I'm getting off-topic.

The New York Times Breaks Story Favorable to George W. Bush?!

"Secret Order Lets U.S. Raid Al Qaeda in Many Countries" (The New York Times (November 9, 2008)) seems to be the headline that started this news story. Since 2004, "The United States military since 2004 has used broad, secret authority to carry out nearly a dozen previously undisclosed attacks against Al Qaeda and other militants in Syria, Pakistan and elsewhere, according to senior American officials."

Wow.

Details of a highly-effective policy, which probably saved hundreds of lives, carried out by the Bush administration. And in The New York Times, of all places. Actually, this "broad, secret authority" may have saved thousands of lives. Quite a few people didn't get out of New York City's World Trade Center in time: and there's no reason to assume that Al Qaeda isn't trying for a sequel.

Wait a minute. Terms like this aren't viewed the same way by all people:
  • "...broad, secret authority..."
  • "...a more sweeping mandate to conduct operations in countries not at war with the United States..."
  • "...the Bush administration had already granted America's intelligence agencies sweeping power..."
  • "...warrantless eavesdropping on telephone and electronic communications..." (not exactly 'warrantless' - I've discussed this before)
And, "CIA" was mentioned three times in two paragraphs.

At first glance, I saw the article as an out-of-character affirmation of the George W. Bush administration's no-nonsense approach to keeping Al Qaeda from killing more Americans.

But, I regard Al Qaeda as a bigger threat than the FBI, the CIA, and the Republican party put together. Not all people see the world that way. If I take my mind on a journey back to the coffee shop on campus, this article reveals a plot by the 'diabolical' Bush to steal our freedom and endanger the world with his militaristic and intolerant ways. Just like Richard Nixon.

Viewed that way, the article makes a lot more sense.

It Gets Weirder

The New York Times with a story that some guy in Minnesota could see as pro-Bush is just the beginning of the strangeness.
CNN Isn't Covering This?
The last I checked, a couple minutes ago, I couldn't find mention about Bush's secret orders (Rumsfeld's, really, but with White House approval). There was "Bush leaving office more unpopular than Nixon" (CNN (November 10, 2008)), though. I suppose that being able to boast that a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey got 76% of a sample to disapprove of George W. Bush may be more important than secret orders.
FOXNews IS Doing a Bush Expose?!
"Report: Secret Order Lets U.S. Strike Al Qaeda Anywhere" (FOXNews (November 10, 2008)). That does make sense, since FOXNews emphasizes how the order made it possible for the American military to stop Al Qaeda in places that would normally be safe havens. And, significantly, ignores the threat posed by Nixon-style wiretaps of our private telephones by the CIA.
Across the World, It's More Business As Usual
The Australian, BBC, and Reuters covered the story more routinely, although without The New York Times' relevant focus on the CIA and other threats to liberty and privacy.

Am I being unfair? Maybe. A little. Just a little.

But I think how this story was - and wasn't - covered is a good example of why it's a good idea to study the news: not just read it.

Related post: In the news:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Bush Administration Secret Orders Revealed: No Hiding Place for Al Qaeda

It's been open season on Al Qaeda for units of the American military, since 2004. Setting up bases in countries that are "not at war with the United States" (NYT) didn't put them off-limits. Stepping across a national border, killing people, then stepping back and going 'neener, neener' didn't work.

It must have been frustrating for Al Qaeda leaders.

I can't say that I'm disappointed to learn that then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld signed an order that gave the American military "broad, secret authority" to go after Al Qaeda. And, that the 'demonic' George Bush approved.

Secret Orders, Broad Authority: Is This Some Kind of Plot?

Well, yes. It is. It looks like the Bush administration has, since around September of 2001, been out to get Al Qaeda.

Just because of some incident involving four airliners, two skyscrapers, the Pentagon, a field in Pennsylvania and several thousand people: many of whom left pieces big enough to be identified.

Secret Orders! The Horror! The Horror!

I'm all for dialog and transparency, but let's be realistic: Al Qaeda wants to destroy western culture, and seems particularly focused on American culture and institutions.

Quite a few Americans would just as soon keep things more or less the way they are.1 And, more to the point, would just as soon not be killed by religious fanatics.

Al Qaeda leaders can hardly overthrow America if their organization is knocked to pieces. And, I'm pretty sure that Al Qaeda's leaders would just as soon stay alive. They're remarkably generous about letting their underlings become holy martyrs, but not so eager themselves.

Under those circumstances, it simply does not make sense to go through the usual diplomatic channels, engage in dialog, and be transparent. Let's say that, before going after a base in Syria that Al Qaeda is using to kill Iraqis, American officials engage in dialog with:
  • Syrian officials
  • The United Nations Security Council
  • Leaders of
    • Saudi Arabia
    • Jordan
    • Lebanon
    • Turkey
    • Iran
    • Kuwait
    • The United Arab Emirates
    • Oman
    • Yemen
    • Eritrea
    • Sudan
    • And, just to be thorough, Brunei
I could be wrong, but I think that by the time a consensus was reached, Al Qaida would have moved the base somewhere else. And the whole transparent dialog could start over.

That Was the Bush Administration: Now What?

Whether or not the Obama administration continues this 'no hiding place' Al Qaeda policy will, I think, tell us a lot about what to expect in the next four to eight years.

I hope that Barack Obama will risk offending President Ahmadinejad, Code Pink, and Bare Witness: and be practical about the War on Terror.

Related post: In the news:
1 I'm no great fan of the America of Madison Avenue and Hollywood Boulevard myself, but knocking down buildings with people inside is not a sensible response.

A Catholic Citizen in America (Following Catholic beliefs and practices in America: One man's experience) discusses my counter-cultural lifestyle in today's America, and how I respond to the culture around me.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Good News From Iraq? There Must be Something Wrong Here

A half-dozen items from the last 24 hours of news about Iraq jumped out at me. Being a recovering high school teacher, I found myself writing a pop quiz about them.

Which item does not belong in this list?
  1. "Details of Iraq pact reveal US debacle"
    Asia Times Online (Hong Kong) (October 24, 2008)
  2. "Two-Year Anniversary of the Only Missing Iraq War Soldier "
    Newsweek (October 23, 2008)
  3. "Bill Hemmer Visits Baghdad Park Once Used to Launch Terror Attacks"
    FOXNews (October 23, 2008)
  4. "Widows testify in case of Iraq officer killings"
    Associated Press (October 23, 2008)
  5. "Eleven killed as bomber targets Iraq minister's convoy"
    AFP (October 23, 2008)
  6. "Washington warns Baghdad about rejecting security deal"
    Minneapolis Star-Tribune (October 22, 2008)
Answer: C.

Review: News about Iraq is grim. In this list, we see articles about
  1. A US debacle involving an Iraq pact
  2. A sad story of an American soldier missing for two years in Iraq
  3. An account focusing on one park, illustrating how life in Baghdad, Iraq, is returning to normal
  4. The trial of American soldiers forced to kill their own officers
  5. Almost a dozen people killed in the ongoing violence in Iraq
  6. The American government trying to force Iraq into an unwanted agreement
Articles A, B, D, E, and F are normal news coverage of events in Iraq. They contain the correct sort of information:
  • American blunders
  • American losses
  • Fragged officers
  • Death tolls
  • American bullying
Article C, which deals with Iraqis playing soccer and having picnics where terrorists launched missiles recently, is clearly out of place.

Am I being unfair in my assessment of the 'correct' five articles? A little, perhaps. But pay attention to the news: isn't that what we're told, day after day? Accounts of rebuilt roads, repaired hospitals, and business returning to normal are few and far between.

Part of this is due to the nature of news. Traffic running smoothly isn't news; a ten-car pileup downtown is.

Even assuming that there's no preference for publishing articles demonstrating appalling cost and futility of America's failed policies in Iraq (the ones that replaced rocket launchers with soccer and picnics), I think it's important for readers to remember that shock, death, disaster, and body counts are what make it into print. For the most part.

One More Thing: A Change of Prayer

Here's another article that doesn't belong in 'news from Iraq:'
  • "U.S. Troops See Little Combat in Anbar Province, Once Iraq's Most Dangerous Area"
    FOXNEWS (October 23, 2008)
    • "HADITHA, Iraq — In one of the world's most heavily armed congregations, the prayers of U.S. Marines are changing. When the Navy chaplain in Haditha trades his Kevlar vest for a priest's alb, he hears less about surviving today's battle and more about the future.
    • ""Many of them are concerned with trying to maintain that sort of relationship with their wives or girlfriends; that comes up. The second thing is their future — a lot of them are at that age where they are trying to decide what they want to do" said Chaplain Paul Shaughnessy.
    • "There is time to think about that future now because the daily fighting is over in Anbar province, home of Fallujah, Ramadi and Haditha — what was once the most dangerous part of Iraq.
I suppose that's more of a human interest story: not news.

As I've said a few times now, when you read the news, please: think!
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Friday, October 17, 2008

Marines Abandon Fallujah!!! (Or, Let's Keep Quiet About This)

Don't tell anybody, but it looks like the "Surge" worked. Marines are moving out of Fallujah.

Fall of Saigon, unknown sourceIt's not like the fall of Saigon, or this withdrawal would have gotten more coverage. Vietnam: now that was a war! Best of all, from one point of view, there was that dramatic climax in Saigon, showing the futility and human cost of American imperialistic militarism. Or Militaristic, imperialistic, Americanism. Or imperialistic American militarism. Or whatever.

There's been so little violence around Fallujah and elsewhere in the Anbar province, that Marine Major General John Kelly decided it was time to go. Now that the local and regional authorities can handle the situation, the Marines are quietly leaving. Mission accomplished. For now, at any rate.

Odds are pretty good that you haven't read about this in the news. It isn't anywhere near as important, from some points of view, as the trial of a Marine. He's accused of murdering someone. Now, that's news!

Suppressing Surge Success: Some Kind of Plot?

I do not believe that news organizations around the world are engaged in some conspiracy to keep us from knowing The Truth. If I did, I'd probably assume that CNN and the BBC were part of the 'vast right-wing conspiracy,' for their 'cover-up' of the 'real' "Joe the Plumber" story.

I do think that reporters, and particularly editors, see what they believe is true, based on their culture and preferences about how the world should work. Which makes the case of the murderous Marine a whole lot more important than a troop surge resulting in an outbreak of comparative peace.

Besides, it's so much more dramatic when America is failing.

In the news:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Sunday, July 13, 2008

Haditha, Iraq; My Lai, Vietnam: This Isn't the Good Old Days

The Haditha incident had so much promise.

Monster Marines Massacre Men, Mommies, and Moppets

What actually happened:
  • The place
    Haditha, Al Anbar province, Iraq
  • The time
    November 19, 2005
  • The event
    About two dozen Iraqis died, quite abruptly
What we've been hearing in the news: There's been an investigation, of course. So far, it's been rather anti-climactic. Charges have been dropped against most of the Marines involved, sometimes in exchange for testimony. The 'journalism student' who provided video seems to have been a plucky young reporter in his forties, with ties to Al Qaeda. (That last detail is from a panel discussion - no transcript available - and I've found no solid online corroboration: just references to other references.)

All the News We Feel Like Printing

There are some very interesting details of the Haditha incident in an unclassified report on the events of November 19, 2005. This report, and its contents, aren't a particularly good match to the 'Haditha is Iraq's My Lai' story, which may explain why the news media hasn't taken note of it.

The report appears to identify the enemy action in Haditha as:

"Enemy propaganda
  • Use of 19 Nov attack to gain local support"
There's another very odd entry:

"Local Iraqi views and opinions
  • 'CF handled the situation perfect'
  • Others blamed CF for the death of local Iraqis"
"...handled the situation perfect?!" Aside from the grammatical error, what's strange about this is that it isn't the sort of thing we hear in the news. American soldiers simply aren't to be seen as a positive presence in Iraq, or anywhere else.

The report also acknowledges that "others blamed CF for the death of local Iraqis." Which I expect is true. You may have noticed the same phenomenon here in America: Thug shoots convenience store clerk, carjacks customer, gets chased by police, and runs into a wall. It's the fault of the police, for chasing him.

It also names Muhannad Hassan Hamadi, who was in the enemy force on November 19, 2005, was captured December 11, 2005, turned informant and told the Marines of the insurgent's plan to make a propaganda piece of the "massacre."

Anti-American Bias in Haditha Coverage? Could Be

I don't know what, exactly, happened at Haditha: apart from the near-certainty that about two dozen people died there on November 19, 2005.

I do think that there's good reason to think that 2005's enthusiastic coverage of 'an Iraqi My Lai,' compared to this year's lackluster acknowledgment of a dull legal process, is another example of American news media's fervent desire to see America as a global bully and all-round bad guy.

My Lai Massacre: Not Quite as Advertised

'Everybody knows' that the My Lai Massacre was a horrible, awful, brutal case of bloodthirsty American soldiers killing a whole lot of innocent people for no reason at all.

Innocent people probably did get killed, but there's more to the incident than that. ("After Word: My Lai and Abu Ghraib, Perception and Reality" (March 4, 2008))

Iraqi My Lai in the News

  • Orphan Headlines
    • "What happened at the Iraqi My Lai?"
      (Los Angeles Times, print edition) (May 31, 2006)
    • "U.S. braces for 'Iraq's My Lai' "
      Chicago Sun-Times (May 28, 2006)
    I couldn't find those articles online today, but they're referenced at Newsbusters.
  • "Battle for Haditha (2007)"
    The New York Times movie review (May 7, 2008)
    • "The Killing of Innocents Faces a Dry-Eyed Dissection
    • "In 'Battle for Haditha,' the British filmmaker Nick Broomfield revisits a wretched chapter of the war in Iraq. On Nov. 19, 2005, marines stationed in Haditha, a Euphrates River valley city northwest of Baghdad, killed 24 Iraqi civilians, including at least 10 women and children, from toddler age up, who were in their homes. The reasons for the killings remain in dispute, though not this evidence: most victims died from close-range gunfire and at least five were shot in the head. After various investigations, murder charges against four marines were dropped; one still faces reduced charges.
    • "Although Mr. Broomfield has made his name with spiky, pugnaciously personal documentaries like 'Biggie and Tupac' and 'Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer,' this new film is a dramatization, complete with actors and a semblance of a screenplay. Shot in Jordan with mostly nonprofessional performers, including several former marines who fought in Iraq (including in Falluja) and many more Iraqi war refugees, the film is located at the familiar intersection of nonfiction and fiction, where raw documentary grit receives an imaginary glaze. The Middle East dust in this film looks chokingly authentic because, much like the prostrated Iraqi women keening over their dead and much like the battle scar that runs along one marine’s upper leg like a zipper, it is...."
  • Iraqi Assails U.S. for Strikes on Civilians"
    The New York Times (June 2, 2006)
    • "BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 1 — Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki lashed out at the American military on Thursday, denouncing what he characterized as habitual attacks by troops against Iraqi civilians.
    • "As outrage over reports that American marines killed 24 Iraqis in the town of Haditha last year continued to shake the new government, the country's senior leaders said that they would demand that American officials turn over their investigative files on the killings and that the Iraqi government would conduct its own inquiry.
    • "In his comments, Mr. Maliki said violence against civilians had become a 'daily phenomenon' by many troops in the American-led coalition who 'do not respect the Iraqi people.'... "
  • "The Erosion of a Murder Case Against Marines in the Killing of 24 Iraqi Civilians "
    The New York Times (October 6, 2007)
    • "BAGHDAD, Oct. 5 — Last year, when accounts of the killing of 24 Iraqis in Haditha by a group of marines came to light, it seemed that the Iraq war had produced its defining atrocity, just as the conflict in Vietnam had spawned the My Lai massacre a generation ago.
    • "But on Thursday, a senior military investigator recommended dropping murder charges against the ranking enlisted marine accused in the 2005 killings, just as he had done earlier in the cases of two other marines charged in the case. The recommendation may well have ended prosecutors’ chances of winning any murder convictions in the killings of the apparently unarmed men, women and children...."
  • "Iraqi Assails U.S. for Strikes on Civilians"
    The New York Times (June 2, 2006)
    • "BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 1 — Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki lashed out at the American military on Thursday, denouncing what he characterized as habitual attacks by troops against Iraqi civilians.
    • "As outrage over reports that American marines killed 24 Iraqis in the town of Haditha last year continued to shake the new government, the country's senior leaders said that they would demand that American officials turn over their investigative files on the killings and that the Iraqi government would conduct its own inquiry.
    • "In his comments, Mr. Maliki said violence against civilians had become a 'daily phenomenon' by many troops in the American-led coalition who 'do not respect the Iraqi people.'..."
Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Monday, June 30, 2008

Army Report: Big Mistakes in Iraq!

The American Army released "On Point II: Transition to the New Campaign The United States Army in Operation IRAQI FREEDOM May 2003–January 2005" today: a copy has been available on the Pentagon website since the weekend.

(It's a hefty document: a 104 MB *.pdf file - 720 sheets of not particularly light reading.)

Mild, Muted Reactions

Reactions were much more muted than what I expected:
  • "Army Did Not Plan for Post-Invasion Iraq? What About Bush?"
    DAVIDCORN.com (June 30, 2008)
    • "The latest non-news news about Iraq comes from a nearly 700-page Army study that notes that the Army--including General Tommy Franks--did not prepare adequately for the post-invasion phase in Iraq. The bottom-line quote: "The military means employed [in Iraq] were sufficient to destroy the Saddam regime; they were not sufficient to replace it with the type of nation-state the United States wished to see in its place." But this failure does not belong only to Franks and the Army. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld...."
  • "US Army's Report ---- Bush (cheney)ed Up"
    TwoPuttTommy's blog (June 29, 2008)
    • "Ladies and Gentlemen, two years ago the Pioneer Press asked the 22 major party candidates for congress three questions, one of which was: 'Did the U.S. do the right thing sending troops to Iraq?' John Kline answered, and I quote: 'Second guessing is for Monday morning quarterbacks and not the way to decide foreign policy. The point is our troops are in Iraq now, so the real question is how do we support our troops and the new Iraqi government?' Ladies and Gentlemen, that was a bullshit answer then, and it still is...."
  • "Generalship and Iraq"
    HG's WORLD (June 28, 2008)
    • "...They all have the same thing in common. They were in charge of either winning or commanding, the decisive battle in a war. Everyone of this men justly earned the accolades of their nation and in the case all save one, continued to serve until the job was done...."
(There were many more 'blog' posts than these. I selected posts that expressed opinion or offered commentary, rather than just parroting news reports (my own parrot squawks are mostly at the end of this post).)

Big Iraq Mistakes Report Creates Big Dilemma

I suspect that the reasons we aren't seeing more triumphant whoops from the out-now people is that this Army report is a long, tedious read - and doesn't quite say the right things.

For example, there's the report's handling of President Bush's infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner:
"...This stunning victory led President Bush, with the encouragement of his top military leaders, to announce the end to major combat operations on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln. While viewed by some as tantamount to a declaration of victory, in reality, this announcement merely marked the point where the campaign transitioned from combat to the next phase of operations focused on the reconstruction of Iraq...."
("On Point II," Prologue, page 19, continuing a topic raised on page 9)
That "Mission Accomplished" banner story took on a life of its own: and I doubt that those who prefer to see it as an example of ignorant arrogance appreciate the facts being brought up again.1

Too Many Facts

It must be difficult for those dedicated to seeing American involvement in Iraq as an unmitigated failure, to have a major military 'admission' be so annoyingly filled with facts.

Contrary to what it's like in what I'll call the World According to Berkeley, the American military is not made up of sadistic; power-mad rulers; bent on oppressing the hapless losers they command; and through them, the world.

The American military in the real world is made up of fallible human beings: but human beings who are smart, professional, and who want to learn from past mistakes. As the Commanding General of US Army Training and Doctrine Command, General William S. Wallace, wrote in the forward:
"...One of the great, and least understood, qualities of the United States Army is its culture of introspection and self-examination. American Soldiers, whether it is the squad leader conducting a hasty after action review of a training event or the senior leader studying great campaigns from the past, are part of a vibrant, learning organization. The CSI motto—The Past is Prologue—neatly captures the need for this study. Publishing the recent history of the United States Army's operations is a key part of the TRADOC mission to develop adaptive, innovative leaders who are flexible, culturally astute experts in the art and science of the profession of arms, and who are able to quickly adapt to the contemporary operating environment...."
("On Point II," Prologue, page iii)

"The Past is Prologue" - Learn From It!

This report is part of the American Army's efforts to learn what has gone right in Iraq, and what's gone wrong. The long range goal: to repeat past successes, and avoid past blunders.

There's no doubt about it: the report shows some very serious problems in the Pentagon, like Lieutenant General (Retired) Jay Garner and his ORHA team, and chain of command.
"...General Keane had similar concerns about Garner's authority in the spring of 2003 when DOD formed ORHA. After a briefing from Garner at the Pentagon, Keane recounted, 'I asked him who he was working for and he said that he was working for Secretary Rumsfeld. I said, goddamn it, Jay, that is the wrong answer. Every damn time we don't have unity of command. You should be working for one guy and one guy only, and that is Franks.' ..."
("On Point II," page 150)
And, there are problems in the matter of getting enough troops and the right equipment to the right places.
"...[former Ambassador] Bremer remembered that the al-Sadr uprising and Sunni attacks of April 2004 conclusively demonstrated to him that Coalition troops were stretched too thin and that led him to send a written request for one or two more divisions.... According to Bremer, he never received an official response to his request...."2
("On Point II," page 168)
Successes are in the report, too. But, from some points of view, they're the wrong sort of successes.
"...Neither mission accomplishment nor the integrity of the media was compromised. . . . Embedded media had a more realistic understanding and were more optimistic in their accounts than media who were reporting from the Pentagon, from (CENTCOM) in Qatar, or from Coalition Forces Land Component Command (CFLCC) in Kuwait. . . . In sum, the embedded media balanced the negative press from reporters outside Iraq...."
("On Point II," page 294, quoting from 3d ID, AAR, Lessons Learned, Chapter 6: Embedded Media, 40–44.)

The 'Big Mistakes in Iraq' Report is Out - Now What?

I think that awareness of this report will fade away, as the truth sinks in. "On Point II: Transition to the New Campaign" describes eighteen months of an imperfect, flawed, campaign to put Iraq on its feet as a free democracy - while terrorists did their best to ruin the process.

Here's the last entry in the chronology:
"Iraq holds its first free national elections in 50 years. Voter turnout is higher than projected, but most Sunnis boycott.

"Nine suicide bombers and insurgents firing mortars kill 26 Iraqis and wound over 100 in election-related violence."
("On Point II," pages 641-648)
Here's one way to look at the facts:
  • Sunnis Boycott Iraqi Election
  • Election Violence Kills 26 Iraqis
Here's another:
  • Iraq: First Free Elections in Over 50 Years
    • Sunnis Boycott Election
    • 26 Iraqis Dead, Over 100 wounded in Election-Related Violence
I'm inclined to see free elections as a good thing. I know that the situation in Iraq is not everything it should - and can - be. But, I don't see it as hopeless.

Let's remember what has been accomplished.

(CENTCOM Photo, from "On Point II," page 421, used w/o permission)
"Figure 106. Iraqi woman voter."

American Army report on the Iraq campaign, in the news:
  • "US army blames 'flawed' Iraq plan "
    Al Jazeera English (June 30, 2008)
    • "An official US army account of the US-led Iraqi invasion and occupation has admitted that planning for the operation was flawed.
    • "The 700-page report, released on Monday, concludes that military and civilian leaders failed to prepare adequately for the post-war mission.
    • "It says the rapid military defeat of Saddam Hussein's forces led US policymakers to believe its post-war military scenario would prove equally easy...."
  • "Army criticizes itself in Iraq invasion report"
    CNN (June 30, 2008)
    • "(CNN) -- The U.S. Army's official history of the Iraq war shows military chiefs made mistake after mistake in the early months of the conflict.
    • "Failures to recognize the chaos engulfing the country and to send in enough troops to restore order after the 2003 invasion have long been highlighted by critics, but a new report shows the Army assessing itself.
    • "Frank opinions from officers serving in the 18 months from the start of war to Iraqi elections in January 2005 reveal there were concerns at the time, not just about assumptions made by planners but at decisions taken once U.S.-led coalition forces had control of Iraq...."
  • "Army study: Iraq occupation was understaffed"
    International Herald Tribune (June 30, 2008)
    • "DENVER: A nearly 700-page study released Sunday by the Army found that 'in the euphoria of early 2003,' U.S.-based commanders prematurely believed their goals in Iraq had been reached and did not send enough troops to handle the occupation.
    • "President George W. Bush's statement on May 1, 2003, that major combat operations were over reinforced that view, the study said.
    • "It was written by Donald P. Wright and Col. Timothy R. Reese of the Contemporary Operations Study Team at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., who said that planners who requested more troops were ignored and that commanders in Baghdad were replaced without enough of a transition and lacked enough staff.
  • "New Public Military History Criticizes Pentagon on Post-Invasion Planning for Iraq"
    FOXNews (June 29, 2008)
    • "WASHINGTON — A new report by Army historians levels heavy, unvarnished criticism against Pentagon leadership for its failure to plan beyond the initial invasion of Iraq.
    • " 'On Point II: Transition to the New Campaign' - which outlines the 18 months following the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime - said too much focus was placed on a military victory, and not enough on post-war planning, due in part to optimism by the White House and the Pentagon that civilian agencies would take care much of the country's post war rebuilding...."
  • "US army blames leaders over post-war Iraq"
    Guardian (UK) (June 29, 2008)
    "Military historians single out Rumsfeld and Franks
    "Too much focus on getting rid of Saddam, says study
    • "The US army has told of errors, poor planning and complacency among its own top commanders in a warts-and-all official history of the steep descent into violence that followed the Iraq war.
    • "In a 696-page account, army historians fault military and political leaders for focusing excessively on toppling Saddam Hussein in 2003 without looking towards a broader transition towards a stable society. Actions by the former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the top US commander during the Iraq invasion, Tommy Franks, are singled out in the study, which was delayed for six months to allow senior army figures to review drafts.
    • " 'The transition to a new campaign was not well thought out, planned for and prepared for before it began,' says the history, On Point II: Transition to the New Campaign, published by an internal army thinktank called the contemporary operations study team. 'The assumptions about the nature of the post-Saddam Iraq on which the transition was planned proved to be largely incorrect.'..."
1 It's quite probable that the idea of that "Mission Accomplished" banner came from "Navy officials on the carrier." (CNN, "White House pressed on 'mission accomplished' sign - Navy suggested it, White House made it, both sides say" (October 29, 2003))

And, the statement was correct. The mission, to remove Saddam Hussein from Iraq, had been accomplished.

As the President said that day,
  • "...Our mission continues. Al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations, and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people...."
  • "...The war on terror is not over; yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory...."
That statement, "while viewed by some as tantamount to a declaration of victory," is, I think, rather mild. I remember how, almost five years ago, the stupidity, the arrogance, of the bad cowboy president was discussed in connection with that banner. What the president actually said on the deck of the Lincoln didn't match the 'stupid, arrogant Bush' model, so those details were largely forgotten.

The "Mission Accomplished" banner was, in retrospect, a mistake. Bush's visit to the USS Lincoln might have been better received, if the banner had read, "We're Sorry."

I can't help thinking that, if the self-defined best people in America had their way, Washington would have been criticized for claiming the mission of securing Yorktown as a victory, because the mission of promoting "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" had not been fully completed. (And it hasn't, to date: it's a sort of ongoing mission.)

2 This, and a general impression I get from some of what I skimmed, make me concerned that America is close to repeating a mistake from Vietnam: inept 'experts' in Washington micro-managing field commanders.
Posted by at 4 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Unique, innovative candles


Visit us online:
Spiral Light Candle  • Find a Retailer
• Spiral Light Candle Store

Blogroll

Note! Although I believe that these websites and blogs are useful resources for understanding the War on Terror, I do not necessarily agree with their opinions. 1 1 Given a recent misunderstanding of the phrase "useful resources," a clarification: I do not limit my reading to resources which support my views, or even to those which appear to be accurate. Reading opinions contrary to what I believed has been very useful at times: sometimes verifying my previous assumptions, sometimes encouraging me to change them.

Even resources which, in my opinion, are simply inaccurate are sometimes useful: these can give valuable insights into why some people or groups believe what they do.

In short, It is my opinion that some of the resources in this blogroll are neither accurate, nor unbiased. I do, however, believe that they are useful in understanding the War on Terror, the many versions of Islam, terrorism, and related topics.