What's going right in Iraq!

[RACastanet]

For those of you who get their news from CNN or ABC etc and believe that the situation is deteriorating, here is another viewpoint.

Click here:

What's going right in Iraq

Rich

[Bill Glasheen]

Rich

I cleaned your post up a bit.

Here's another one, in USA Today yesterday. It was buried in section something-or-other.

Life in 'un-Iraq' allows Kurds peace, stability


Note the following in that article:

Imagine an Iraq where GIs are greeted with cheers rather than roadside explosives, where traffic flows in orderly processions, where the calm is undisturbed by car bombs or assassinations.

Such an Iraq already exists in the northern third of the country, where the local Kurdish population has governed itself for the past 13 years, tranquility reigns and the exuberant graffiti proclaims "we like USA."

***

While Baghdad's airport remains closed to almost all commercial traffic, Sulaimaniyah is confidently building its own international gateway. The Iraqi capital is a bleak, tense city of concrete fortifications where foreigners are unable to safely venture out of their hotels after dark. Here, Americans are saluted effusively with cries of "welcome, mister," and the nighttime streets are safe. And though Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison remains a symbol of torture, the local facility where Saddam Hussein's jailers beat and executed Kurdish dissidents is being converted into a museum.

Life in this region — call it the "un-Iraq" — offers a glimpse of what a free, secure Iraq might look like. But the Kurdish experience also illustrates the deep difficulties in bringing democracy to the remainder of the country.

"The reason for the stability here is that 99% of the people in Sulaimaniyah are Kurds," says Fuad Ali, 61, a retired teacher talking with friends in a local teahouse.

It also helps that the Kurds and the Americans have been allies since the end of the Persian Gulf War of 1991, their bond cemented by a shared antipathy toward Saddam Hussein.

- Bill

[IJ]

Good news to read. Despite the griping overall, it seems like things are clearly better than when Saddam was in power, and that despite what is likely to be a protracted battle with the zealots, the situation is slowly stabilizing. Should continue especially if we play our cards right. Anyone want to make a guess how long we'll be there?

[Bill Glasheen]

Hopefully we'd get out within a few years. But you just never know with what's going on these days.

As long as there is oil and the non-Muslim world is dependent on it, there will be a friggin mess over there. When it's gone, then we all can mind our own businesses.

- Bill

[pshaw]

What's going right? What are you guys smokin? Perhaps you learned scholars and latter-day military folk would be interested in a CIA viewpoint to enlighten you.

advertisement

In an interview with NBC’s Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell, he calls the U.S. war in Iraq a dream come true for Osama bin Laden, saying, “Bin Laden saw the invasion of Iraq as a Christmas gift he never thought he’d get.” By invading a country that’s regarded as the second holiest place in Islam, he asserts, the Bush administration inadvertently validated bin Laden’s assertions that the United States intends a holy war against Muslims.

In his book, titled "Imperial Hubris," he calls the Iraq invasion "an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat,” arguing against the concept of pre-emptive war put forward by President Bush as justification for the Iraq war.

[Bill Glasheen]

Yes, I saw that.

This guy gave a darkened-faced interview this AM on The Today Show. Later comments about the fellow indicated that he always has been and always will be confrontational.

Way back in the Clinton administration, this guy was sounding the alarm about Bin Laden. Nobody at the time was listening to him. Why? I heard the commentary. Other than the fact that the Clinton administration was dangerously inept at dealing with al Qaeda (which set up 9-11 in the first place), this guy apparently doesn't know how to communicate without alienating his peers (not my comment).

Ya think?

Now he gets to dance and say "I told you so," and continue to be the canary he fashions himself to be.

Often such people are valuable sources of information, providing you know how to separate the wheat from the chaffe (or chafe).

Meanwhile, he has a book to sell. The whole darkened-faced mystique and confrontational statement act $ells more book$.

By the way, pshaw, did you check out our sources? One was Boston Globe - hardly a conservative news source. The second was USA Today. We didn't make this stuff up. If you're looking for reefer, better check out those New Englanders. Maybe they're getting a whiff of what's drifting down from the Great White North...

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

Here's the author of the first article.

About Jeff Jacoby

Jeff Jacoby became an op-ed columnist for The Boston Globe in February 1994. Seeking a conservative voice to balance its famously liberal roster of commentators, the Globe hired him away from the Boston Herald, where he had been chief editorial writer since 1987.



The Boston Phoenix has dubbed his twice-weekly essays a "a must-read," describing Jacoby as "the region's preeminent spokesman for Conservative Nation."

A native of Cleveland, Jacoby graduated with honors from George Washington University in 1979 and from Boston University Law School in 1983. He practiced law for a short time at the firm of Baker & Hostetler, but returned to Boston to become deputy manager of Ray Shamie's 1984 campaign for the US Senate. From 1985 to 1987, Jacoby was an assistant to Dr. John Silber, who at the time was president of Boston University.

In addition to his print work, Jacoby has been a political commentator for WBUR-FM, Boston's National Public Radio affiliate. For several years he hosted "Talk of New England," a weekly television program, and has often appeared as a panelist on WCVB-TV's "Five on Five." He is an overseer of the Huntington Theatre Company, the largest resident theatre in Boston, and is on the board of The Concord Review, a quarterly journal of essays on history by secondary students worldwide.

In 1999, Jacoby became the first recipient of the Breindel Award for Excellence in Opinion Journalism, a $10,000 journalism prize.

Jacoby's column appears every Sunday and Thursday in the Globe, and he writes a Web-only column on the fourth Tuesday of every month.

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

I have no bio on the second author - David J Lynch. But here are a few more articles by him. Do you see a political bias?

For some Iraqis, jobs more pressing than politics

Rickety oil industry limps along, waiting for spare parts, help

Cash crunch curbs rebuilding in Iraq

China economy zooms ahead, but growth might be too fast

- Bill

[pshaw]

Liberal = bad? Actually the source of the interview was NBC’s Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell.
Can't trust the Boston Globe? How about NBC?

Must be tough rebuilding with bombs falling and the death toll mounting.

[Bill Glasheen]

Exactly what are you trying to communicate?

You were the one that questioned the integrity of the previously cited sources.

What's going right? What are you guys smokin?

I merely provided you with bios and additional information about those sources. So, you can refute them if you wish, but don't lay the reefer madness on us, sir.

And what do you mean by this?

Actually the source of the interview was NBC’s Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell.
Can't trust the Boston Globe? How about NBC?

I was the one that told you, sir, that I saw the entire bit on NBC this morning. The Today Show, BTW, is an NBC program. Andrea's comments were a very small part of the entire piece.

And what do you mean by this?

Must be tough rebuilding with bombs falling and the death toll mounting.

Perhaps you should look in today's paper, sir.

Coordinated insurgent strikes kill over 100, including 3 Americans

So, whose bombs were you referring to?

U.S. officials have been warning that al-Zarqawi's followers — who were responsible for the beheadings of American businessman Nicholas Berg and South Korean hostage Kim Sun-il — would likely step up bombings and attacks to try to disrupt the transfer of sovereignty to the interim Iraqi government.

*********

But the worst bloodshed came in Mosul, the country's northern metropolis often touted as a success story in restoring order in Iraq, where four car bombs killed 62 people

Are you angry about those bombs, as I am, or is this just a Bush problem?

And as for this...

Liberal = bad?

...well you tell me. I never implied anything one way or another.

Be careful of your accusations. Go back to the beginning of the thread, and check out exactly what was posted. You are attacking the messengers, and not the message. Shame on you!

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

Yesterday I posted part of an article (linked above) as the reporting was developing. As I read that original article, it was somewhat confused. On the one hand, they talked about Jordanian-born Zarkawi (executioner in at least one of the Iraqi beheading incidents) possibly being at the root of bombings in parts of the country. On the other hand, they talked about tanks rumbling through the city with guns blazing, and Iraqi citizens being angry at the Americans for what they had done.

Today the story that can be found at the exact same link is quite different. Dramatically different. (See my comments below)

Coordinated insurgent strikes kill over 100, including 3 Americans

By Steven Komarow, USA TODAY

BAGHDAD — Insurgents launched a series of attacks across Iraq on Thursday that killed more than 100 people in one of the most organized guerrilla offensives since the fall of Saddam Hussein.


An Iraqi man looks at the destruction of the Ramadi, Iraq police station after a militant attack Thursday.
By Imad Mulla, AP

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaeda ally who has boasted of bombings and beheadings, claimed responsibility for at least some of the carefully timed attacks. (Related photos: Insurgents strike Thursday)

The attacks came six days before the United States is to turn over power to an interim Iraq government.

Officials said they expect the violence to continue or increase as the hand-over approaches.

Three U.S. soldiers were killed, and hundreds of Iraqis were injured.

The attacks struck hard at police stations and government buildings. Iraqi and U.S. forces regained control of buildings seized by fighters, but the attacks seemed designed to convince Iraqis that guerrillas are strong enough to take on Iraqi forces directly.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's terror network claimed responsibility for the offensive. Most of the casualties were Iraqi civilians. Three American soldiers were killed and at least 12 were wounded. (Related video: Reaction to the attacks)

The violence began after dawn:



In Baqouba, rebels struck the main government building, seized two police stations and destroyed the home of the provincial police chief. American jets dropped three 500-pound bombs to help break up the attack. Two U.S. soldiers died when their patrol was ambushed. U.S. forces retook the buildings by afternoon.

In Mosul, which was rocked by multiple car bombs, at least 62 people, including a U.S. soldier, were killed in explosions at police stations and a hospital.

In Fallujah, a U.S. Marine helicopter was forced to make an emergency landing, but the crew was safe.

In Ramadi, two police stations and a government building were attacked.

A suicide bomb killed four Iraqi soldier in southern Baghdad. Four police stations in the capital also were hit.

In Mahaweel, south of Baghdad, a bomb exploded outside the police station, killing one officer and wounding six.

Contributing: Wire reports

The original part I extracted and quoted (above) cannot even be found. I left out the part about tanks roaring through the streets, and Iraqis being angry at Americans for what "they" had done. Now those parts of the story are nowhere to be found. Perhaps it was my bias. Or... maybe I understood how confusing such a situation can be when you are in the middle of it. In any case, the story today sure makes me look like I got it right.

Clearly this is a great example of the fog of war, combined perhaps with a little knee-jerk emotional reporting in real time before editors could create the "consensus story."

It's often no different in a real fight. Even the best trained individuals are lucky if all their actions are deemed appropriate and informed under the scrutiny of 20/20 hindsight. This is one reason I am uniformly supportive of anyone who has just been assaulted, and managed to survive. I also tend in general to be supportive of LEOs and soldiers who engage crime and warfare. They were there; we were not. It's so easy to Monday morning quarterback. Yes, it's important to study and learn from the experience of others. For most, it's all they've got to work with. But for those who were there, "good enough" is often damned good!

- Bill

P.S. Click on the hyperlink to the photos. Very powerful images!

[Bill Glasheen]

I saw this story pop up just a few minutes ago. Very revealing!

Wolfowitz Apologizes
For Calling Reporters
In Iraq Afraid


DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
June 24, 2004 11:20 p.m.

WASHINGTON -- Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz issued an unusual apology Thursday to war correspondents in Iraq after saying they reported rumors because they were too afraid to leave their Baghdad hotels.

In a letter provided by a Pentagon spokesman, Mr. Wolfowitz wrote: "Just let me say to each of you who have worked so hard and taken such risks to cover this story, I extend a heartfelt apology and hope you will accept it.

"I understand well the enormous dangers that you face, and want to restate my admiration for your professionalism, dedication, and, yes, courage," the deputy defense secretary said.

Read Paul Wolfowitz's apology letter to journalists covering Iraq below.

On Tuesday, in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, Mr. Wolfowitz agreed with statements by Rep. Jim Saxton (R., N.J.) that the news media's focus on violence in Iraq has eclipsed reports of progress there.

"Because frankly, part of our problem is a lot of the press are afraid to travel very much, so they sit in Baghdad and they publish rumors. And rumors are plentiful," Mr. Wolfowitz said.

After criticizing Arab media outlets, he said: "And I think our own media have some responsibility to try to present a balanced picture, instead of always gravitating for the sensational. And the violent is admittedly sensational."

In his letter, Mr. Wolfowitz said he was trying to express frustration over "erroneous coverage of one particular news story," but his words came out wrong. It isn't clear from the letter or the transcript of his testimony what coverage he was referring to.

Mr. Wolfowitz said in his letter that 34 journalists have been killed covering the war in Iraq and noted some were "almost killed" when they were with him during an insurgent attack last October at the al-Rasheed Hotel.

"Our hopes now are that through your efforts and those of coalition military and civilian forces, the nation and the people of Iraq will someday know the full blessing of liberty, especially a robust and prospering free press," Mr. Wolfowitz wrote.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz's Letter

June 24, 2003

To Journalists Covering Iraq

I know that many journalists continue to go out each day -- in the most dangerous circumstances -- to bring us coverage of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since the beginning of hostilities in Iraq, 34 journalists have given their lives; many others have been injured while bringing us that story. I knew personally three journalists who died near the war's beginning, and spoke about their courage and service at the dedication of the Correspondents' Memorial at Antietam last fall. I used that occasion to note how important their lives and example were to all who value freedom of speech -- especially to those of us at the Department of Defense who knew and worked with them. I have visited in the hospital with journalists who have been grievously wounded. Journalists who were with me in the Al Rashid Hotel were almost killed in a terror attack. So, again in this letter, I want to express my sincerest thanks for their work and my admiration for their courage.

But, most of all, I want to extend an apology. During a House Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday, I remarked on the difficulty of covering the war, given the dangerous circumstances journalists in theater often face. Unfortunately, in meaning to convey my frustration about the erroneous coverage of one particular news story, the statement I made came out much differently than I intended. And while I know reporter understand better than most that sometimes the best of intentions and the most elaborate of preparations can't prevent error, that doesn't for a moment change the seriousness of my mistake or the deep regret I feel that I did not instantly correct the record. Just let me say to each of you who have worked so hard and taken such risks to cover this story, I extend a heartfelt apology and hope you will accept it. I understand well the enormous dangers that you face, and want to restate my admiration for your professionalism, dedication, and, yes, courage. I pray that you all may return safely.

Journalists routinely brave danger so that Americans and others in the world may benefit from America's free press and free media, institutions that have helped us preserve freedom in this country for more than two centuries. Our hopes now are that through your efforts and those of coalition military and civilian forces, the nation and the people of Iraq will someday know the full blessing of liberty, especially a robust and prospering free press.

Sincerely,
Paul Wolfowitz

- Bill

[RACastanet]

Subject: IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: USA Today - "A Marine sees what defeatists don't"




A Marine sees what defeatists don't
By Ben Connable
RAMADI, Iraq - This is my third deployment with the 1st Marine Division to the Middle East.
This is the third time I've heard the quavering cries of the talking heads predicting failure and calling for withdrawal.

This is the third time I find myself shaking my head in disbelief.

Setbacks and tragedy are part and parcel of war and must be accepted on the battlefield. We can and will achieve our goals in Iraq.

Waiting for war in the Saudi Arabian desert as a young corporal in 1991, I recall reading news clippings portending massive tank battles, fiery death from Saddam Hussein's "flame trenches" and bitter defeat at the hands of the fourth-largest army in the world. My platoon was told to expect 75% casualties. Being Marines and, therefore, naturally cocky, we still felt pretty good about our abilities.

The panicky predictions failed to come true. The flame trenches sputtered. Nobody from my platoon died. Strength, ingenuity and willpower won the day. Crushing the fourth-largest army in the world in four days seemed to crush the doubts back home.

Twelve years passed, during which time America was faced with frustrating actions in Somalia and the Balkans. Doubt had begun to creep back into public debate.

In the spring of last year, I was a Marine captain, back with the division for Operation Iraqi Freedom. As I waited for war in the desert, just 100 miles to the north from our stepping-off point in 1991, I was again subjected to the panicky analyses of talking heads. There weren't enough troops to do the job, the oil fields would be destroyed, we couldn't fight in urban terrain, our offensive would grind to a halt, and we should expect more than 10,000 casualties.

Remembering my experience in Desert Storm, I took these assessments with a grain of salt. As a staff officer in the division command post, I was able to follow the larger battle as we moved forward. I knew that our tempo was keeping the enemy on his heels and that our plan would lead us to victory.

But war is never clean and simple. Mourning our losses quietly, the Marines drove to Baghdad, then to Tikrit, liberating the Iraqi people while losing fewer men than were lost in Desert Storm.

In May of last year, I was sitting with some fellow officers back in Diwaniyah, Iraq, the offensive successful and the country liberated from Saddam. I received a copy of a March 30 U.S. newspaper on Iraq in an old package that had finally made its way to the front. The stories: horror in Nasariyah, faltering supply lines and demonstrations in Cairo. The mood of the paper was impenetrably gloomy, and predictions of disaster abounded. The offensive was stalled; everyone was running out of supplies; we would be forced to withdraw.

The Arab world was about to ignite into a fireball of rage, and the Middle East was on the verge of collapse. If I had read those stories on March 30, I would have had a tough time either restraining my laughter or, conversely, falling into a funk. I was concerned about the bizarre kaleidoscope image of Iraq presented to the American people by writers viewing the world through a soda straw.

Returning to Iraq this past February, I knew that the Marines had a tremendous opportunity to follow through on our promises to the Iraqi people.

Believing in the mission, many Marines volunteered to return. I again found myself in the division headquarters.

Just weeks ago, I read that the supply lines were cut, ammunition and food were dwindling, the "Sunni Triangle" was exploding, cleric Muqtada al-Sadr was leading a widespread Shiite revolt, and the country was nearing civil war.

As I write this, the supply lines are open, there's plenty of ammunition and food, the Sunni Triangle is back to status quo, and Sadr is marginalized in Najaf. Once again, dire predictions of failure and disaster have been dismissed by American willpower and military professionalism.

War is inherently ugly and dramatic. I don't blame reporters for focusing on the burning vehicles, the mutilated bodies or the personal tragedies. The editors have little choice but to print the photos from the Abu Ghraib prison and the tales of the insurgency in Fallujah. These things sell news and remind us of the sober reality of our commitment to the Iraqi people. The actions of our armed forces are rightfully subject to scrutiny.

I am not ignorant of the political issues, either. But as a professional, I have the luxury of putting politics aside and focusing on the task at hand. Protecting people from terrorists and criminals while building schools and lasting friendships is a good mission, no matter what brush it's tarred with.

Nothing any talking head will say can deter me or my fellow Marines from caring about the people of Iraq, or take away from the sacrifices of our comrades. Fear in the face of adversity is human nature, and many people who take the counsel of their fears speak today. We are not deaf to their cries; neither do we take heed. All we ask is that Americans stand by us by supporting not just the troops, but also the mission.

We'll take care of the rest.

Maj. Ben Connable is serving as a foreign-area officer and intelligence officer with the 1st Marine Division.

[Bill Glasheen]

Rich

For the life of me, I can't understand. Hasn't anyone ever read about the tough early going of the Revolutionary War? Of WWI and WWII? The near annihilation of our troops in Korea? There were setbacks. There were losses. There was impropriety. There were friendly fire incidents. There was death by disease and other unforseen misfoutunes.

And yet...we prevailed.

In Vietnam, troops endured the Tet Offensive, scoring a major military victory. But the war was lost in the press and at home, for reasons too lengthy to go into in this short thread. (FWIW, I was one who at the time opposed the war. It was a Nixon thing...).

Today I got up early in my hotel room in Baltimore, and saw the news on TV. Iraq's new leadership trumped the terrorists. They took the mantle of authority 2 days early, catching the insurgency with their pants down. No major offensive for Michael Moore and the press to embarass the interim government and the U.S. Instead, we hear cries of law and order from a people who have taken enough $hit and are ready to give it back. Not that I endorse it but...there was talk of heads rolling - literally. A little payback perhaps. The sense of ownership, national pride, and determination was palpable.

I do not wish to disrespect Mike when I quote him. He mentioned our reason for failure in Vietnam as underestimating the determination of the VC, and suggested we faced the same issue in Iraq. And to that I say "You betcha!"

It hasn't been clean. It hasn't been pretty. It hasn't been for ALL the right reasons. But when it comes to execution, our forces have done well in spite of the support at home. And to that I remind all that success is the sweetest revenge.

Anyone wanna come see Spiderman with me next weekend, and knock Moore's propaganda off the charts? I can't think of a better film to do it! Make it to the theatre with me, and it's my treat. After all, we each have to do our part at home for our troops, and for the next fledgling democracy.

- Bill

[RACastanet]

Good post. Yes, even our democracy was shakey for a few years. From our Declaration of Independence to the Constitiuion was about 11 years, and that was with 72 Virginians behind it.

As for Moore's film... it is considered a Blockbuster with some $20 million in revenue the opening weekend. As I recall, Mel Gibson's take on the crucifiction exceeded $80 million on opening weekend! I guess it is all relative.

Spidey 2 should put Moore's film to rest.

Rich