Why we are winning in Iraq.

Coverage from Iraq is way too negative
If you rely on newspapers and TV networks for your news, chances are you have no idea that the controversial performance of Western reporters in Iraq is emerging as a big issue. The mainstream media have virtually ignored the stunning charges made by John Burns, a New York Times Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter. But those charges are all over the Internet and carried by Fox News and conservative commentators.
In the new book "Embedded," Burns says the vast majority of correspondents in prewar Iraq played ball with Saddam Hussein and downplayed the viciousness of the regime.

Burns' comments are echoed by U.S. District Court Judge Don Walter of Shreveport, La. Walter was vehemently anti-war but changed his mind after serving as a U.S. adviser on Iraq's courts. He says we should have invaded sooner to halt the incredible butchery and torture that the UN, France and Russia knew all about and were quite willing to tolerate. And he is distressed by the reporting on Iraq now: "The steady drip, drip, drip of bad news may destroy our will to fulfill the obligations we have assumed. We are not getting the whole truth from the media."

Some congressmen sound the same theme. Georgia Democrat Jim Marshall says negative media coverage is getting our troops in Iraq killed and encouraging Baathist holdouts to think they can drive the U.S. from Iraq. Marshall, a Vietnam vet, says there is "a disconnect between the reporting and the reality," partly because the 27 reporters left in Iraq are "all huddled in a hotel."

Marshall and a bipartisan group of six other representatives just returned from Iraq. The lawmakers charged that reporters have developed an overall negative tone and a "police blotter" mind-set stressing attacks and little else. Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) said he was impressed with the flexibility and innovation of the American military, including 3,100 projects in northern Iraq, from soccer fields to schools to refineries, "all good stuff ... that isn't being reported."

The campaign to get more balance into Iraq reporting has been driven by the Internet bloggers, particularly by Andrew Sullivan at AndrewSullivan.com and law Prof. Glenn Reynolds of the University of Tennessee at Instapundit.com. Reynolds deplores "the lazy Vietnam templating," the "of course America must be losing" spin, the "implicit and sometimes explicit sneer."

Reynolds and Sullivan encourage U.S. soldiers and others in Iraq to send in their own reports, which generally have been positive and hopeful.

"I don't trust most of the journalists, I'm afraid," Sullivan wrote in a July appeal for firsthand accounts.

Perhaps goaded by Internet coverage, USA Today became the first mainstream outlet (as far as I can see) to highlight problems in current Iraq coverage. A strong article last week by Peter Johnson quoted this from MSNBC's Bob Arnot in Iraq: "I contrast some of the infectious enthusiasm I see here with what I see on TV, and I say, 'Oh, my God, am I in the same country?'"

Time magazine's Brian Bennett added: "What gets in the headlines is the American soldier getting shot, not the American soldiers rebuilding a school or digging a well."

Tom Friedman of The New York Times says he is a "worried optimist" who thinks things in Iraq are not as good as they should be by now, but not as bad as they seem from afar. That view might be a starting point for the big media to discuss how the "look from afar" got so skewed.

negative media coverage is getting our troops in Iraq killed and encouraging Baathist holdouts to think they can drive the U.S. from Iraq.

For this Iraqi, it's thank you Bush
Rasheeda Bhagat
The Hindu Business Line
Baghdad
Oct. 15

"Only two entities could have saved Iraq from Saddam: God or the Americans. And God did not listen to our prayers."

IN a country where you hear the persistent chant "The Americans are no good. The Americans must leave Iraq," it comes as a big surprise to meet 45-year-old Anwaar, who teaches management at the University of Technology and Management in the Zafaraniya locality of Baghdad.

"The Americans are good for two reasons: First, because they got rid of Saddam Hussein, and second, because they have provided safety and security for the people of Baghdad," she says.

Anwaar has enough reason to be grateful to the Americans. "During Saddam's regime, I used to get a paltry 13,000 Dinars. But now the Americans are paying teachers with my experience about 300,000 Dinars, which is equivalent to about $160." It's a whopping hike, indeed, and the salary is considered a princely sum in Baghdad today. The lecturer, who is single, drives a car of her own; and petrol in this oil-rich country is cheap... if you can get it at the gas station and at the official rate of 50 Dinars a litre. "But it is being sold in the black market by the gas station owners," she says.

For something as simple as filling up her tank, she often needs the help of American soldiers. "When they are there at the gas station, I can fill up my car at the official rate. But if they are not there, the station owner shouts at us to join the long queue. And by the time your turn comes, you will find the `no stock' sign. The stock is then taken to the black market and sold at five times its original price."

Full story

American Soldiers' Pump Project Helps Iraqi Farmers
By Jeremy Reynalds
Talon News
October 15, 2003

AL JEZEERA REGION, IRAQ (Talon News) -- Thousands of gallons of water surged from a reservoir into an aqueduct Oct. 12 at the Al Jezeera Pump Station, the start of a long journey to serve more than 200,000 farmers throughout the arid plains of Northern Iraq.

According to the American Forces Press Service (AFPS), with support from the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Iraqi engineers worked to fix the water pump, which was inoperative before Operation Iraqi Freedom. After nearly three months of sweat, engineers brought the pump back to life two weeks ago, and on Oct. 12 Iraqi citizens and 101st soldiers watched thousands of gallons of water flow with the pull of a lever.

Full story

I will only considerate it a victory when the target is removed from the backs of our service people. Until than despite the mutterings of Georgie Boy the war is still on going.

101st hands Syrian border control to Iraqis

By Pfc. Chris Jones


NORTHERN IRAQ (Army News Service, Oct. 12, 2003) - The 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) handed control of the Syrian border to the coalition-trained Iraqi Border Guard in a ceremony Oct. 1 at one of the 22 renovated posts along the border.

Ninevah Province governor Ghanim Al Basso called the transfer a significant stride in coalition efforts to return control of Iraq to its citizens while ensuring they have the freedom and discipline to control it.

Full story

By that reasoning the US as an entity is a failure so long as murders occur within our borders.

Does the fact that those who are targeting Iraqis and US soldiers have so far consistently been shown to be Syrian and other foreign nationals? Does it occur to you that we are their targets anywhere we are found? What would you have us do, sequester our military inside Cheyenne Mountain where nobody can hurt them? Or can you possibly recognize that BY DEFINITION our military must be in harm's way to do its job?

Scrat
I will say it again it will not be a victory until it's over. And it will not be over until the media can stop reporting the deaths of our serviceman. Hell even the powers to be have not declared it a victory as yet.



Consistent? Not true. By all reports they are primarily Iraqi nationals who are Saddam supporters Sunni's or have no use for what they believe is an American occupation of their country.

If it is a victory it is a pyrrhic one since it is bleeding us dry and we have no way to exit.

Yes, I understand your propensity for defining the terms by which you will acknowledge reality. How about I say it's over now? Hmmm? Yeah, I'll just set my own personal arbitrary standard and then tell other people we've met it because I think so, so the war is over. Cool?

It's certainly just as valid as you claiming to set the standard.

BookMark

U.S. Officials See Hussein's Hand in Attacks on Americans in Iraq

By DOUGLAS JEHL

Published: October 31, 2003

WASHINGTON, Oct. 30 — Saddam Hussein may be playing a significant role in coordinating and directing attacks by his loyalists against American forces in Iraq, senior American officials said Thursday.
The officials cited recent intelligence reports indicating that Mr. Hussein is acting as a catalyst or even a leader in the armed opposition, probably from a base of operations near Tikrit, his hometown and stronghold. A leadership role by Mr. Hussein would go far beyond anything previously acknowledged by the Bush administration, which has sought in its public remarks to portray the former Iraqi leader as being on the run and irrelevant.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/31/politics/31INTE.html?th


To this point as noted a pyrrhic victory.

That anyone in The Current Administration, President or lesser official, from podium, interview table, or carrier deck, ever claimed "The War is over", whether regarding Iraq or Afghanistan, is simply not the case. Such official pronouncements as exist in the matter uniformly acknowledge the struggle and conflict are and will remain for some time, at significant cost, financial and human, ongoing. The track record of the doomayers in the runup to and through the prosecution of the major combat speaks for itself. In the long run, I expect reality will trump agenda. And honestly, I am beginning to suspect the run will be less long than might have been anticipated even a few weeks ago.

Now if they could just find the rest of him!

Scrat
I heard he is at a resort hotel in the Caribbean with his buddy Bin Laden. I think the Atlantis hotel.

I feel optimistic regarding events in Iraq at this point. BrandX and others have provided me with more positive news than most U.S. media sources have in the last month. It is no secret that the media is driven by sensationalism and therefore directs most of its coverage towards this end. However, this leaves a niche area in coverage area such media outlets such as Bill Moyers' "Now" and PBS's Frontline become more valuable sources simply because of their in depth coverage of more restricted subject matter, such as the restoration of power in Iraq. Granted is the liberal slant of these sources but the more info we get the better able we consumers of this industry are to make wise decisions.

There is another phenomenon that supplies me with hope: While we still see U.S. troops being attacked these events seemed confined to passive bombings of convoys just passing by or suicidal attacks with small arms in combo with RPG's. Some would argue this demonstrates Iraqi citizens' ire towards the U.S.

But if we look closer we find that those well planed spectacular attacks are not against U.S. troops in the aggregate, indeed, attacking U.S. troops is akin to assaults against a porcupine or, more accurately, a hornets' nest. Such actions have very real consequences for the perpetrators and seem more the realm of suicidal events that merely demonstrate desperation.

What we see is this: The destruction of power lines, bombings of UN Headquarters, International Red Cross center, and that of police stations manned by Iraqis trying to make their community a little safer. Who these actions are against may be debated but who they hurt in the long run cannot. It is the collective and individual Iraqi who suffers. Text book terrorist acts all. They are designed to intimidate Iraqis. It is, therefore, ultimately up to the Iraqis to express their displeasure with the architects of these events.

The uneducated, true to character, shortsightedly look no further and blame the Americans. After all, before Saddam's ouster there were no such problems or at least they never heard of any (One suspects most problems were just buried...literally). The educated know differently and, due to the American/British presence, can now say so.

The many of the "Dead Enders" do seem to have immigrated. We suspect this somewhat of Iran but the main culprit is Syria. Remember that Syria has a tremendous amount of influence over Hezbollah which is based in Lebanon and may be attempting alliances with such groups in Iraq. Iran, after a recent visit from high officials from the U.K., France, and Germany, has agreed to closer inspection of their nuclear program by the IAEA. This tentative agreement has gotten the nod from the U.S. So look for the U.S. to concentrate "diplomatic efforts" regarding Syria's Iraqi adventures.

The pressure will continually mount for the U.S. military to leave up to a certain point. That point will be reached when things become better and the Iraqis begin to appreciate what has been done for them and when they see how good their lives can become. This point is also the one at which the U.S. can begin its "Over the Horizon" approach. This will allow a minor U.S. "presence" wherein it is possible to have influence in the area without the locals feeling they are "occupied". This obviously will require a delicate balancing act but surely will be easier than the present situation.

I do have one source of dismay. This stems from my perception that we were not fully prepared for the end of "hostilities", that is, to reconstruct post Saddam Iraq. I know how the administration thought it was going to go but any General worth his salt will tell you that any plans made before a conflict starts are obsolete the minute hostilities begin. This criticism is somewhat unfair and may be Monday Morning Quarterbacking but surely we have had a few months to sort this out. It just seems we should have figured this out much earlier and made a concerted effort. The 87 million smacks of the administration being "A day late and a dime short". Perhaps I am somewhat ill-informed as to our progress but one thing is sure...time is beginning to run out.

Hopefully my concerns are premature; after all, the Marshall plan for Europe did not materialize immediately after Germany's defeat in 1945. But this comparison also implies that a greater investment of time may be needed. Perhaps the big question is whether the Bush administration has not only the will but the political luxury of time to fully devote its efforts towards this problem. The biggest factor in such a determination may be the differing degrees of information access granted the American public today and that of the late 1940's.

JM

IMO, it will take veru much time to set up a normal order in Iraq. Technically, this is a very complex country, and its complexity stems from the circumstances that followed its foundation.
UK needed to reward some Sheik form the Hashimite tribe for assistance during the WWI, and the country was formed from the Ottoman Empire remnants to make him a king of it. And the three incompatible areas of the empire were taken for the new state: Kurdish, Arabic Sunnite and Arabic Shi'ite. Their permanent controversies made impossible any democratic model, since only authoritarian dictatorships could hold together such mutually unsuitable areas.
Now the authoritarian dictatorship was removed as a result of the U.S. military operation, and all the controversies were set free. Add to this both Baathist and Islamic resistance in their traditional shape, known as terror... Therefore, it will take very much time to regulate the situation and to install the sane and civilized regime based on the Iraqi self-governing. The problem is whether the USA and UK are ready to deal with the problem for a long time.

I don't think we are going to end up with the type leaders there that we hope to. The type gov't will be closer to our aim, and the important piece to that region will set an example for the rest of the ME.

I think it will take years to get that message fully across, and will be a monumental test for America and the Iraqi's. The Iraqi's need to prove they can rebuild and reform their culture after so many years of opression, restore dignity to their nation. I feel a leader worthy of the job will soon rise up, don't know if it's Sistani though.

America needs to be successful in helping Iraq achieve these goals, but not be to controlling about it. Moreover, America had better come out of this with it's political interest, whatever they are, achieved.