Media Bias

[Bronx33]

I have seen the enemy ya ya i know world net, but for some reason this guy gets the same respect that michael jon gets from the military.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49739

An Iraqi officer of significant rank approached my translator as I quietly took notes near the banks of the Euphrates River, at a combat observation post named COP Dunlop. He knew I was an embedded American. He had a sense, perhaps, that I was a sympathetic soul, and he wanted to pass along an urgent message.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/raff.jpg


Franklin Raff

We shook hands and exchanged pleasantries. I learned he was an educated and successful man, an accomplished soldier, and quite knowledgeable about the affairs of the world. He had served under Saddam. He openly spoke about the likelihood of corruption in the new Iraqi Ministry of Defense. We spoke about black-market arms trading, ancient smuggling routes, and the problem of porous borders.

We even discussed personal matters, and the question of his taking a second wife. (I told him the one about a thousand pair of panty-hose hanging from King Solomon's shower-curtain.) We had a reasonably long and genuine conversation about matters of importance to all men. And at a certain moment, he grew a little uneasy and blurted out what he had wanted to say from the beginning:

Why do you people not tell our story? Why do you not say what is going on? Why do you come to our country and see what is happening, you see the schools and the hospitals and you see the markets and you eat with Sunni and Shia soldiers – everybody eats together, everybody works together –you see that Saddam is gone forever and we are free to speak and complain.

You see we are working and eating together and fighting together – Sunni and Shia – you see what we are building here, you see the votes we make as one people. Then you say to the world about a great war and horrible things and how we are all killing each other? We are not animals! We are Iraqis. Look around you! Look!

Non-English speaking Iraqis are distressed and disheartened by American media bias. Many feel personally offended by what they read in translation and hear of in the foreign press. I am not talking about press information and public affairs officers. I am not talking about coalition soldiers (though every one I spoke with on the subject was equally frustrated.) I am talking about Arabic-speaking Iraqis. They see a difference between what we're seeing and what we're saying. What does that tell you about the extent of our problem?

I was truly "downrange" in Iraq, embedded in Baghdad, Sadr City, Fallujah, and a series of remote combat outposts and forward operations bases in the Sunni Triangle. I spent much of my time in areas that were in immediate transition or wholly controlled by Iraqi forces. I wanted to get dirty, and I wanted to see the worst of it.

I was entirely too close to a vehicle-borne IED – intended, possibly, to destroy my party – which tragically killed a U.S. Marine and a young Iraqi boy. I trampled through a mass of depleted uranium, breathed the squalor of a Saddam-era slum, slept uneasily through the bursts of an urban gunfight, and dined on the partially-cooked head of a sheep. But these are not my most disturbing recollections.

Civil unrest is distasteful and at times gruesome, but in much of the Middle East it is an abiding condition. The scenes that flicker in my mind seem graver than the filth, disorder, and sorrow that have been a part of Iraq's dramatic transition. And now that I have returned to Washington, as memories play alongside my daily media intake, they combine to create an increasingly gloomy montage.

It was hilarious at the time. So funny, in fact, I nearly wept. I will never forget the sight of my colleague, a well-known, market-leading radio reporter feverishly clutching his satellite phone as a Chinook transport helicopter flew by, half a mile or so away. He was standing right beside me as he dialed through the time zones to go "live from Iraq":

We're right in the middle of the action! I'm sorry ... I can't hear you! There's a Blackhawk landing right behind me! I can't quite describe what's going on! This is unbelievable!

At the time, you see, we were just outside an Embassy chow hall, quietly discussing the weather. We had just eaten a magnificent lunch. In this combat reporter's trembling right hand was the target of his desperate screams, the satellite phone – his listeners' link to the horror and chaos of war, the sweat and tears, the booming, blood-shod tragedy of it all. And in his left hand – I swear it – a chocolate milkshake.

There is plenty of bombast in the green zone. "On the scene" excitement breeds hyperbole, and many reporters are pretentious and boastful to begin with. There's no need to name names: Most folks can smell manure wrapped in newsprint, no matter who does the wrapping. But I quietly curse when I think of all the self-styled Ernie Pyles in their Baghdad hotel rooms, staring out over the city skyline, giving you news "from the front."

Let me tell you what has become somewhat of a running joke among coalition soldiers. It is evening, and a boom is heard in the distance. Some foreign fighter has blown himself up, and maybe he's taken one of ours with him. Maybe it's an IED. Or it might be an attack on one of our new electrical transformers, engineered to dishearten and confuse Iraqi citizens by depriving them of a nights' electricity. Nobody knows yet, but that doesn't really matter.

Our journalist, "on the line" in his cushy suite, scrambles to the balcony. He sees a puff of dust on the horizon, shivers in the cool night air and the intensity of the moment, and turns down CNN on the television. He e-mails his editor about these explosive developments and then, with a cool beer in hand, begins writing about a great and desperate war. Brothers in the crosshairs. A rag-tag insurrection, gaining momentum in dramatic increments. A few historical references. A scribbled, out-of-context comment overheard in the mess hall. A line or two from some radical imam, if a desirable translation can be found. Bingo: It's a front-page story.

Embedded news-gatherers – even those with military experience, as was the case with me and my immediate company – are essentially expensive luggage. We take up valuable space. We are unarmed, untrained, generally unfit, and we tend to get in the way. We are valuable targets for the border-hopping, media-crazed murderers who seek instability and chaos. But this isn't what irritates our defenders. What bothers them is that when we put pen to paper, we tend to stab them squarely in the back by misrepresenting and over-dramatizing our experiences. It is no wonder a "PRESS" tag will get you a few hairy eyeballs in the field: There's a general consensus that we are liars.

The lies aren't relegated to firsthand reports. I listen to NPR every morning. I read the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and scan any number of online media. As a lifelong and moderately accomplished student of war history and of the works (and memoranda) of men like Sergei Eisenstein and Josef Goebbels, I have been keenly aware of an increasing use of elemental propaganda techniques and tactics in "mainstream" reporting on the war.

Good news from Iraq, for instance, is systematically, if delicately, prefaced with the indication of a biased source. I am almost certain there is a standing order at outfits like NPR's "Morning Edition" to compromise positive stories with selections from an arsenal of useful poll numbers. For good measure, the stories are often relegated to commentary segments of the program, in order to lend a casual and dismissive air to core information.

Let's use, for example, the fact that Sunni, Shia and Kurdish leaders are organizing innumerable micro-summits to resolve their tribal differences in the name of national unity. Participation is nearly 100 percent, negotiations are largely fruitful, and leaders from local imams on up want to reiterate to the press, just like our Iraqi officer did, that despite isolated attacks and foreign insurgent activity, there is no "civil war" going on. So the Pentagon releases selections from this tapestry of reassuring stories in the standard manner along with requisite sound-bytes, interview opportunities, and raw statistics. The news is verifiable, rich in human interest, and undeniably positive. Here's how it plays on "Morning Edition":

The president has admitted he was wrong about WMD, and now, according to the White House, Shia and Sunni leaders are evidently trying to work together to try and quell the burgeoning civil war. Approval ratings for the Bush administration and the war are at an all-time low, so the question is: What's behind these last-ditch efforts, and can they possibly succeed? Joining me to discuss this is NPR senior news analyst Cokie Roberts ...

In the minds of those who do not recognize the telltale signs of subversive delivery, the desired effect is achieved.

This effect – to convince the world that Iraq is a hopeless and violent wasteland, heartbreaking evidence, even, of a trigger-happy cowboy's hubris – is compounded and reaffirmed day after day, as biased and exaggerated reports reverberate through and within thousands of local and syndicated media outlets. As George Orwell explained in his dystopian novel "1984," "If all records told the same tale – then the lie passed into history and became truth."

I wanted to confess to my new friend, the Iraqi officer at COP Dunlop, that we have an autocracy in America that has never been deposed – an imperious corps of convenience-isolationists with short memories and powerful imaginations. I wanted to explain that though there are hardly any soldiers among them, they rule the thoughts and actions of legions of citizens.

I wanted to tell him about our media elite, about how "if it bleeds, it leads," about our 24-hour news cycle, and about the "Journal of Record" and its endless struggle to embarrass and discredit our president. I wanted to tell him that the same folks who tell us they're giving the world "all the news that's fit to print" are the same ones who deep-sixed Babi Yar and ignored the Holocaust, the same ones who bury stories about Saddam's mass graves and "spike" Iraqi efforts to show us the awe-inspiring progress they have made.

I wanted to acknowledge that too many Americans lack the fortitude and patience to stand behind our new Iraqi allies as they forge a new nation. I wanted to explain that certain powerful Americans feel we didn't find quite enough chemical, nuclear and biological weapons to make our multinational effort worthwhile – no matter what we have, in fact, found; no matter what the Iraqis witnessed, no matter our soldiers' experiences and testimony, no matter Iraq's success thus far.

I wanted to tell him that not all media people are liars. But I knew that my thoughts were too complicated to make it through translation. I knew that when I returned to America, the words "civil war" would be plastered all over the mainstream media, just as they were when I left. So I held my tongue.

I returned to what I expected. All the hotshot analysts and commentators are speculating, with that requisite gravitas, about the "roots" of civil war.

I was there. I was in some miserable places, but I saw a miracle every day. I saw a lot of smiles, a lot of hope, and a lot of pride in that traumatized country. I saw a remarkably fraternal affection between Iraqi and coalition soldiers. I saw bustling markets, busy streets, and peaceful demonstrations. I believe I may have witnessed a pivotal time in the infancy of a vibrant, freedom-loving ally in the Middle East.

I did not see a civil war. I did not see the beginnings of a civil war. But I did learn a thing or two about the "roots" of this civil war: Iraq's civil war has been engineered, in no small part, from the comfort of a Baghdad hotel room. It is catalyzed by minor exaggerations, partial facts, and propagandistic suppressions. It will escalate, over time and across media, as minor mistruths beget outright lies, until the truth itself begins to change.

As our new Iraqi allies become discouraged by what they see in the world news, and as they start losing hope, they may abandon their dreams once and for all. Our media's dark prophecies will then have fulfilled themselves. Then, and tragically, Iraqi and coalition pleas for "truth" may finally be silenced.

[bendog]

Amazing donohue got shouted down when he questioned whether war was necessary. This liberal media sucked bushii's balls.

[defenseman]

Phil Donohue is not in it for america, he's in it for himself......dman

[clarker]

Phil Donohue is a douche bag. When he was on MSNBC he went on and on about those snipers on the east coast a few years ago were white men, who were in the NRA, drove pick up trucks, hated gays and bla, bla, bla.

When it turned out to be a black man and his son, he only talked about it for about two seconds, saying that he "might" have had that one wrong.

And he wasn't sh.t canned for speaking out against the war. He was sh.t canned because wasn't pulling in good ratings.

[bendog]

myth. His ratings were profitable. He was canned because advertisers didn't like his spin. It's hilarious with you guys. If a story is anti bush, it's media bias. If the media is suckign bushii off, it's valid reporting. LOL

[bendog]

pay no attention to the man behind the curtain:

While "Donahue" does badly trail both O'Reilly and CNN's Connie Chung in the ratings, those numbers have improved in recent weeks. So much so that the program is the top-rated show on MSNBC, beating even the highly promoted "Hardball With Chris Matthews."

Although Donahue didn't know it at the time, his fate was sealed a number of weeks ago after NBC News executives received the results of a study commissioned to provide guidance on the future of the news channel.

That report--shared with me by an NBC news insider--gives an excruciatingly painful assessment of the channel and its programming. Some of recommendations, such as dropping the "America's News Channel," have already been implemented. But the harshest criticism was leveled at Donahue, whom the authors of the study described as "a tired, left-wing liberal out of touch with the current marketplace."

The study went on to claim that Donahue presented a "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war......He seems to delight in presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration's motives." The report went on to outline a possible nightmare scenario where the show becomes "a home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity."
http://www.allyourtv.com/0203season/news/02252003donahue.html

The irony being that olberman is now doing quite nicely now that the message of the day is "question authority" rather than "wave the flag."

[Bronx33]

I just want the media to step up!! and quit altering reports for ratings and the public for being so gulliable iam sure there are people out there that visit ONE site for their world news and form an opinion based on that info.


I read this stuff from what i see as a realiable source and it p***** me the **** off that a journalist would even do that.

At the time, you see, we were just outside an Embassy chow hall, quietly discussing the weather. We had just eaten a magnificent lunch. In this combat reporter's trembling right hand was the target of his desperate screams, the satellite phone – his listeners' link to the horror and chaos of war, the sweat and tears, the booming, blood-shod tragedy of it all. And in his left hand – I swear it – a chocolate milkshake.


Money again gets in the way of telling a story truthfully.

[bendog]

I agree. But, let's not hold our breath for either those stories, or stories focusing on the US's image and prestige in the world, and the effect on combating international terrorists who actually intend to harm us. But, at some pt., the worm will turn, and possibly those stories will once again be approved by the mulitnationals that own, and own the adverisers on, the media.

[defenseman]

Nobody is saying Bush is perfect, he is not, nor has he been entirely affective in my estimation. That said, it is apparent to me, that the 'facts' aren't good enough for the press. I see his shortcomings well enough without the press making a mockery of news reporting by basically exagerating, embellishing and "using writers imaginations" to dream up some of the stuff that is printed. Downplaying the good, and reemphasizing or affirming the worst. They are a joke, the lot of them. I'll say it again, I gave Clinton the benefit of the doubt for one reason, he, like nearly all of us deserves it, until "no kidding" caught in lie, which he was. I'll do the same for Pres. Bush until he is done with his term, or his decisions "totally" alienate his direction from mine. I will say, he needs to step up with respect to the border, and on the SEC of DEF (there is more to that story than meets the eye I'm sure). If one breaks, I'd for once surely like it to be the truth...dman

[Bronx33]

Nobody is saying Bush is perfect, he is not, nor has he been entirely affective in my estimation. That said, it is apparent to me, that the 'facts' aren't good enough for the press. I see his shortcomings well enough without the press making a mockery of news reporting by basically exagerating, embellishing and "using writers imaginations" to dream up some of the stuff that is printed. Downplaying the good, and reemphasizing or affirming the worst. They are a joke, the lot of them. I'll say it again, I gave Clinton the benefit of the doubt for one reason, he, like nearly all of us deserves it, until "no kidding" caught in lie, which he was. I'll do the same for Pres. Bush until he is done with his term, or his decisions "totally" alienate his direction from mine. I will say, he needs to step up with respect to the border, and on the SEC of DEF (there is more to that story than meets the eye I'm sure). If one breaks, I'd for once surely like it to be the truth...dman


Iam in full agreement.

[bendog]

Lying about bj's is waht all married men do. Lying about mushroom clouds aimed at my kid's a tad bit different. Not that I'm for impeachment, but to say the media gave WJC a pass and is hammering bushii is a joke. The mainstream media didn't want the monica/paula jones stuff, because .... people didn't care, outside those who read the Enquirer, and the guys running the corps owning the media and advertisers prolly are getting bjs from interns too. Bank on it that at some pt, bushii was a pig too.

Right now people don't seem to really want to know the depth of bushii's duplicity in the run up to war. People do think that Iraq's a debacle trending to civil war; that the cost in dollars and lives was not worth it; but the soldiers are good guys ... and that seems to be the message being "advertised."

[defenseman]

The media was difficult wrt Clinton also. Believe it or not, I thought at different points of his term(s) he did a great job, others not so great. In any case, the press screwed with the facts in his case too. I guess the lesson is, DON'T TRUST THE PRESS FOR THE TRUTH, not unlike the iraqi's who also are dismayed by our press. If they know it's not the truth, WHY do our own lemmings here in the US buy into it? Truth be told, the efforts in Iraq are going "OK". I wouldn't say great at this point. From where I sit, when we make announcements of the capture/killing of the TOP terrorists in country, Osama and the few he trust just under him, it will be much better. Until then, more civilians will continue to pay the price at a pretty high rate. I do see us slowly turning over the reigns at this point though...dman

[ClevelandBronco]

Lying about bj's is waht all married men do.

Not all married men. Some guys have the stones it takes to stay away from situations that could lead to extramarital entanglements.

[Hogan11]

Not all married men. Some guys have the stones it takes to stay away from situations that could lead to extramarital entanglements.

It's easy to do when their "stones" are in their wives purse. Ha!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

myth. His ratings were profitable. He was canned because advertisers didn't like his spin. It's hilarious with you guys. If a story is anti bush, it's media bias. If the media is suckign bushii off, it's valid reporting. LOL

Bendog with the reality check. :thumbs:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Shame on the Post's Editorial Page

As arguably the most influential newspaper in the nation’s capital, the Post might have been expected to encourage a healthy pre-war debate that reflected diverse opinions from experts in the fields of government, diplomacy, academia, the military and the broader American public. War, after all, is not a trivial matter.

Instead, the Post’s editorial section served as a kind of pro-war bulletin board, posting neoconservative manifestos attesting to the wisdom of invading Iraq and tacking up harsh indictments of Americans who dissented from George W. Bush’s war plans.

Yet what is perhaps most amazing is that even now – after all that’s been learned about Bush’s Iraq War deceptions – the Post’s editorial page continues to act as the administration’s hall monitor for the war, trying to keep the American people and especially Washington insiders in line.

This month, the Post published two more editorials disparaging critics of the Iraq War. One resumed the near-three-year-old campaign to tear down former Joe Wilson for challenging “twisted” pre-war intelligence on Iraq; a second scolded retired generals for speaking out against Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/041906.html

[enjolras]

It still amuses me to no end that the right is quite sure the 'liberal' media is distorting facts and otherwise pushing an agenda. The left is equally sure that they're being screwed by the media.

Sounds like football fans and referees. Everyone is POSITIVE that their side is being screwed..

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It still amuses me to no end that the right is quite sure the 'liberal' media is distorting facts and otherwise pushing an agenda. The left is equally sure that they're being screwed by the media.

We already have ample proof that the MSM distorted facts like good corporate lapdogs during the run-up to BushCo's invasion of Iraq.

The NY Times even published a half-assed apology for its role as an unthinking, uncritical cheerleader for the Iraq invasion.

[defenseman]

It makes no difference. You got a healthy "tit for tat" in progress between one side and the other, and quite frankly , I'm tired of the whole damn thing. The answer is quite simple, come clean, BOTH SIDES and lets clear the air. Then MAYBE, we can get something done in this country, as it is, we are spinning our wheels here in the US. I will say, I absolutely want the "true" status and facts of Iraq to come out just as much as I want GW and the bunch to come clean on everything. My only question is will our press play ball, of course not. Herego, can anything getting better around here or anywhere else anytime soon. Will the government come totally clean on some of their "skeletons"? Probably not, ditto things not getting better. The whole thing is real sad if you ask me. I frustrated enough, I'm ready to volunteer to head up a contigent down at the border and take it out on the illegals. Shut down the border and refocus on a scenario I can have a positive affect one.....dman

[bendog]

First, someone point out some evidence that things are going "ok" in Iraq. Not happy soccer balls from soldiers stories, but something positive about the Kurds, shiaas (both groups of them, Sadr and al-Hakim not to mention Sistani) and sunnis wanting to live together as happy campers? Straw and Condi both went over there and told them to get a damn govt in place weeks ago, and only now is there the slightest budge by the Sadr camp. And even after the shiia finally get a PM, the kurds still want to opt out, and the sunni are still "insurgencing." A balkanized Iraq is even worse than Saddam.

2. Meanwhile as to bushii, the "liberal" media is focusing what little attention it has on Rove, Liddy, bushii, cheney and Plame. The forged intell, Ledeen, Cheney and bushii is ignored. If the media really wanted to end the bushii presidency in an impeachment, it would have done so by now.

[Bronx33]

First, someone point out some evidence that things are going "ok" in Iraq. Not happy soccer balls from soldiers stories, but something positive about the Kurds, shiaas (both groups of them, Sadr and al-Hakim not to mention Sistani) and sunnis wanting to live together as happy campers? Straw and Condi both went over there and told them to get a damn govt in place weeks ago, and only now is there the slightest budge by the Sadr camp. And even after the shiia finally get a PM, the kurds still want to opt out, and the sunni are still "insurgencing." A balkanized Iraq is even worse than Saddam.

2. Meanwhile as to bushii, the "liberal" media is focusing what little attention it has on Rove, Liddy, bushii, cheney and Plame. The forged intell, Ledeen, Cheney and bushii is ignored. If the media really wanted to end the bushii presidency in an impeachment, it would have done so by now.


http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=40898
http://americancitizensoldier.blogspot.com/
http://gxonline.com/features/redbulls/blog/index.html
http://www.marinecorpsmoms.com/
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/


You never hear of see this stuff on the news.

[enjolras]

You never hear of see this stuff on the news.

Also, unfortunately not true. Just yesterday I saw an embedded reporter with CNN espousing how well things are going with the unit she was with (which a buddy of mine is leading no less).

[bendog]

"Victory will be achieved by meeting certain objectives: when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq’s democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can protect their own people, and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot attacks against our country. These objectives — not timetables set by politicians in Washington — will drive our force levels in Iraq."

cracking me up.

No, I said some credible information that these people are really forming a govt that is going to hold this country in a republican federation. I don't really give a crap about the amry and marines - they enlisted. I hope they come out ok. I truly feel sorry for people like my kid's science teacher who was ****ting bricks while her hubby finished his reserve duty. I truly hope they all come back safe.

But I was asking for one credible take that the neocon viision of Iraq is workign. And that **** you put up was just feel good for the troops bull****. I hope they feel good. But shooting one insurgent after another is NOT getting the job done.

[Bronx33]

"Victory will be achieved by meeting certain objectives: when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq’s democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can protect their own people, and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot attacks against our country. These objectives — not timetables set by politicians in Washington — will drive our force levels in Iraq."

cracking me up.

No, I said some credible information that these people are really forming a govt that is going to hold this country in a republican federation. I don't really give a crap about the amry and marines - they enlisted. I hope they come out ok. I truly feel sorry for people like my kid's science teacher who was ****ting bricks while her hubby finished his reserve duty. I truly hope they all come back safe.

But I was asking for one credible take that the neocon viision of Iraq is workign. And that **** you put up was just feel good for the troops bull****. I hope they feel good. But shooting one insurgent after another is NOT getting the job done.


You need to read more news services dude it seems you had your mind made up no matter what anybody posted.

[Bronx33]

Real accounts of what is REALLY going on straight from the horses mouth is NOT feel good troup reporting (did you even read any of those? iam betting no becuause you responded wayyy to soon to have done that)

[Bronx33]

Also, unfortunately not true. Just yesterday I saw an embedded reporter with CNN espousing how well things are going with the unit she was with (which a buddy of mine is leading no less).


It's rare (that much is true) i don't care what some journalist thinks who never leaves the green zone piecing a report together to make it interesting for ratings (i want the truth) so i can make a logical decision on the progress.

[Bronx33]

Web logs have provided a unique window into the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, allowing troops to bypass the mainstream media to detail their exploits. But these so-called milblogs are increasingly serving as forums for policy debates, such as the effectiveness of the war strategy or how to deal with Iran's nuclear program.

There are hundreds of milblogs, and the Pentagon, which has cautiously supported some of them but also has deep concerns about the ability to control them, recently ordered a top level advisory panel to study the issue.

"'Googling' and 'blogging' are making their way into military operations at all levels," Kenneth Krieg, the undersecretary of defense, wrote in a recent memo requesting that the Defense Science Board look into the matter. "But the full implications of this revolution are as yet unknown, and we have no clear direction and defined doctrine.


Hmmmm guess whos worried about us getting the real story instead of same old crap we get from the big money news agencies.

[bendog]

I guess I'm not being clear. THE MILITARY PICTURE IS IRREVALANT. Yes, the US army can kick the **** out a bunch of semi-literate third world types.

Most Americans (65%?) have concluded that Iraq is not going to achieve political stability to become a unified representative democracy and/or the price in lives (americans if not the whole bloody 100K and counting) and money is not worth the payoff. What is there to say the political solution is working and the common perception wrong?

[alkemical]

Web logs have provided a unique window into the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, allowing troops to bypass the mainstream media to detail their exploits. But these so-called milblogs are increasingly serving as forums for policy debates, such as the effectiveness of the war strategy or how to deal with Iran's nuclear program.

There are hundreds of milblogs, and the Pentagon, which has cautiously supported some of them but also has deep concerns about the ability to control them, recently ordered a top level advisory panel to study the issue.

"'Googling' and 'blogging' are making their way into military operations at all levels," Kenneth Krieg, the undersecretary of defense, wrote in a recent memo requesting that the Defense Science Board look into the matter. "But the full implications of this revolution are as yet unknown, and we have no clear direction and defined doctrine.


Hmmmm guess whos worried about us getting the real story instead of same old crap we get from the big money news agencies.


what's funny is how our gov't & news media tries to 'undermine' the blogging that goes on here in the US as being 'wrong' -


http://www.irandefence.net/showthread.php?t=32

The true iran and its people.


check that out all -

[Bronx33]

I guess I'm not being clear. THE MILITARY PICTURE IS IRREVALANT. Yes, the US army can kick the **** out a bunch of semi-literate third world types.

Most Americans (65%?) have concluded that Iraq is not going to achieve political stability to become a unified representative democracy and/or the price in lives (americans if not the whole bloody 100K and counting) and money is not worth the payoff. What is there to say the political solution is working and the common perception wrong?


Ok 65% of americans conclude that Iraq is not going the achieve poilitical stability i would really like to know how they formed this opinion and where they got their information from to form this opinion. Now this thread wasn't posted to say if this war was right or wrong it was about the MEDIA and the lack of a fair MEDIA to the people.

[bendog]

Well, yes, but what says the common perception is incorrect? 4 years ago the common perception that Saddam was about to hit us with nukes and/or smallpox. That was wrong. Some of us KNEW it was wrong then, because we seek information. But what is there today to show the Iraqi political and social situations are trending to a unified representative democracy?

I've just never thought that the Kurds wanted in, or that Iran would accept a shiaa state with the oil and stronger political ties to the sunni than to them. What shows the neocons were right?

[alkemical]

Ok 65% of americans conclude that Iraq is not going the achieve poilitical stability i would really like to know how they formed this opinion and where they got their information from to form this opinion. Now this thread wasn't posted to say if this war was right or wrong it was about the MEDIA and the lack of a fair MEDIA to the people.


yes and 33% still believe saddam was involved in 9-11

[bendog]

yes and 33% still believe saddam was involved in 9-11
Well, sure, the admin pushed that misinformation. But the issue is more that we all know how the corp masters determine what stories get airplay in the mass media (fox, cbs even the NYT and Wash Post). It's what stories to the consumers of advertising accept. I differ with Bronx. There's absolutely no question that before the invasion attempts to question the rationale were suppressed. Donohue and Matthews were the most clear examples. After Donohue was axed, Matthews became a cheerleader. And the admin was free to cleverly insert its disinformation, always being careful to avoid an outright lie, or in Cheney's case, proudly go on denying a lie is a lie. lol

Somewhere along the line, questioning became ok. It seems to me Bronx is saying the media decided that. I think it's more complex. As the casualties mounted, and the violence actually increased, and it's still increasing today, I think we consumers started asking "WTF?" So the corp masters gave us what we wanted: "WTF?"

That isn't to say that just because the media is now questioning, a pessimistic view of the eventual outcome in Iraq is the most accurate view. If there's actually positive movement on getting all three tribes, and the subsets fo the tribes, cooperating, I think it'd be published. The Guardian, al Jazeera, Lebanon Star, etc. I don't see it, but I could be missing it.

[Bronx33]

Well, sure, the admin pushed that misinformation. But the issue is more that we all know how the corp masters determine what stories get airplay in the mass media (fox, cbs even the NYT and Wash Post). It's what stories to the consumers of advertising accept. I differ with Bronx. There's absolutely no question that before the invasion attempts to question the rationale were suppressed. Donohue and Matthews were the most clear examples. After Donohue was axed, Matthews became a cheerleader. And the admin was free to cleverly insert its disinformation, always being careful to avoid an outright lie, or in Cheney's case, proudly go on denying a lie is a lie. lol

Somewhere along the line, questioning became ok. It seems to me Bronx is saying the media decided that. I think it's more complex. As the casualties mounted, and the violence actually increased, and it's still increasing today, I think we consumers started asking "WTF?" So the corp masters gave us what we wanted: "WTF?"

That isn't to say that just because the media is now questioning, a pessimistic view of the eventual outcome in Iraq is the most accurate view. If there's actually positive movement on getting all three tribes, and the subsets fo the tribes, cooperating, I think it'd be published. The Guardian, al Jazeera, Lebanon Star, etc. I don't see it, but I could be missing it.


Nope i said the media is a factor in that i never said they decided it, the question is did the public have all the info and i guess we agree they didn't and all iam saying is they still don't.

[bendog]

What I'm saying is that the mass market media is a whore. From Fox to CBS to NYT to Wash Post. Some are higher class whores, but whores none the less. They are in the biz of selling themselves to make money. Therefore, the really decide nothing. Even Fox is bailing on Bushii, but for Scarborough. Most republicans have concluded he failed, though he's still better than Kerry and Gore. The Wash Post is bailing on the neocons, because it's readers are fed up. The NYT is trying to atone to its readers for Judith Miller - "gosh really we didn't exercise editorial judgment, but trust us we're still economic elitists and social progressives, really, really we are. Please love us."

But, esp with the internet, the raw stories are still there. Blix's reports. The war blogs you posted. And of course we can assess non US media pretty easily now.

[Bronx33]

What I'm saying is that the mass market media is a whore. From Fox to CBS to NYT to Wash Post. Some are higher class whores, but whores none the less. They are in the biz of selling themselves to make money. Therefore, the really decide nothing. Even Fox is bailing on Bushii, but for Scarborough. Most republicans have concluded he failed, though he's still better than Kerry and Gore. The Wash Post is bailing on the neocons, because it's readers are fed up. The NYT is trying to atone to its readers for Judith Miller - "gosh really we didn't exercise editorial judgment, but trust us we're still economic elitists and social progressives, really, really we are. Please love us."

But, esp with the internet, the raw stories are still there. Blix's reports. The war blogs you posted. And of course we can assess non US media pretty easily now.

I guess we agree, all iam saying is some peeps stay with the high class whores as you put it and assume that as 100% truth and maybe should entertain other views and not dismiss them as false right off the bat.You can just see what direction a news outlet is going based on golf course politics and that crap turns me off, just tell the truth so folks can make a logical decision that effect the whole world. Just imagine if we didn't have the internet through all of this we the public would be even more isolated with our decision making.

[defenseman]

To be honest, Foxnews and Oreilly, I'm calling him foul names half the time i watch it. The other half I listen then move on. In any case, I still filter the stuff they put out also. I have to because, agreed, all of them are whores, just a different "flavor" of whore...dman

[Bronx33]

To be honest, Foxnews and Oreilly, I'm calling him foul names half the time i watch it. The other half I listen then move on. In any case, I still filter the stuff they put out also. I have to because, agreed, all of them are whores, just a different "flavor" of whore...dman


Peeps have to be careful though just because you like the guy and the way he delivers the news doesn't mean he/she is giving you the truth.

[bendog]

Actually, I meant to say Hannity. He's the guy sticking with bush. I don't know what scarborough's doing. I stopped watching the talking heads when Matthews sold out. He was ok when he was doing his angry white guy thing, and mad at everybody, but he's a shill. Maybe lou dobbs is ok. I prolly should watch olberman, but they had that dumb blond chick Deborah Norville, and she was like a root canal

you may wonder why I'm familar with Fox. The guys at my gym have it on all the time. We'd rather have bushii than increase fdic and sec 8 housing (-:

[alkemical]

i can't stand nancy grace

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Most Americans (65%?) have concluded that Iraq is not going to achieve political stability to become a unified representative democracy and/or the price in lives (americans if not the whole bloody 100K and counting) and money is not worth the payoff. What is there to say the political solution is working and the common perception wrong?

Quote of the Day

"Bush is as stubborn as Slim Pickens in 'Dr. Strangelove:' He'd rather ride Rummy to Armageddon than concede that Iraq was a botched project."

- Howard Fineman

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12388817/site/newsweek

http://www.bartcop.com/decider-problems.gif

[clarker]

Quote of the Day

"Bush is as stubborn as Slim Pickens in 'Dr. Strangelove:' He'd rather ride Rummy to Armageddon than concede that Iraq was a botched project."

- Howard Fineman

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12388817/site/newsweek

http://www.bartcop.com/decider-problems.gifNow that is a cartoon that sums it up because I think most Republican voters are like me who have came to the point where they could care less if the Republicans lose the House and Senate. So either they will vote democrate or not vote at all.

I know I am at the point as long as they present a good plan for the problems of the country, I could careless what party they belong to. It will not do them any good for my vote for them to simply say "We hate Bush" or "We are not Bush". Because I'm sick of Bush and about 90% of both parties. I want a plan not just someone standing up saying Bush is a clown. Because while I might have been a slow learner, I'm on that bandwagon. I want someone who can at least start to clean up this mess.

BTW the Howard Fineman quote is damn funny as well. Sadly it is all too true.

[Bronx33]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/267529_vessay21.html

A soldier sees and feels a wider variety of sights and emotions in a year than most people will experience in a lifetime. ...

In my short time in the military I have experienced more suffering than I could have imagined before joining up. I have held the hand of a dying Marine who had only one last wish: that someone would be with him and hold his hand as he passed on. So I sat there with a strange man, holding his hand, not saying a word, until he died. ...

I have watched grown men cry, and cried with them, as we stood in front of the traditional memorial of a rifle thrust bayonet-first into the ground with the fallen soldier's helmet and dog tags draped on the weapon. His empty boots stand at attention in the fore of this tableau.

My heart broke when I gazed upon a little girl, no older than my own 5-year-old, crying and begging in broken English for food and water. I have awoken from sleep in shock as it finally dawned on me how close I came to death on a recent patrol. I have lived in fear that I would never see my family again, or that my daughter would grow up without her daddy. ...

On one of those days in Iraq where I wasn't sure if I'd see my daughter again, I was working at a checkpoint near a small camp in the desert. ... The locals would gather around our checkpoints to try to sell us things, beg for food or water, or just hang around the soldiers.

On this particular day one of the locals had his little girl with him. She was shyly watching me from behind his legs. When I smiled and waved at her, she brazenly ran up to me with a big smile and held out her arms, expecting to be picked up. At first I was shocked at her sudden bravery, and it took me a second to reach down and pick her up. When I did, she immediately kissed me on my cheek and then nestled in as if she meant to stay a while.

I looked toward her father and he immediately began talking rapidly in Arabic and gesturing at me. Our translator quickly explained that he, the father, had been locked in a prison for most of the child's life. He had been sentenced to death for being a Shiite dissident traitor. The man went on to say that soldiers wearing the same patch on the shoulder as I was (the 101st Airborne Division) had freed him shortly after we began the liberation of Iraq. His daughter from then on believed that the famous Screaming Eagle patch of the 101st meant that we were angels sent to protect her family.

I sat in a little folding chair with that girl in my arms for well over 30 minutes. She trusted me so completely that she had fallen asleep with her head on my shoulder. All of my fears and worries faded as I held that little miracle. It had been so long since I had held my own daughter that this episode was even more healing for me than it was for her.

I have often wondered if, on that day when I missed my family so much, it wasn't a coincidence that she found me, of all soldiers. Maybe it was that innocent girl, and not me, that was the angel sent by God.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Now that is a cartoon that sums it up because I think most Republican voters are like me who have came to the point where they could care less if the Republicans lose the House and Senate. So either they will vote democrate or not vote at all.

I know I am at the point as long as they present a good plan for the problems of the country, I could careless what party they belong to. It will not do them any good for my vote for them to simply say "We hate Bush" or "We are not Bush". Because I'm sick of Bush and about 90% of both parties. I want a plan not just someone standing up saying Bush is a clown. Because while I might have been a slow learner, I'm on that bandwagon.

I concur with all of the above.


I want someone who can at least start to clean up this mess.

Clinton did a good job of cleaning up the last Bush's mess.

Cleaning up the current Bush's mess is gonna be a much, much taller order.

I feel sorry for the Democrat who has to do it.

[Hogan11]

Now that is a cartoon that sums it up because I think most Republican voters are like me who have came to the point where they could care less if the Republicans lose the House and Senate. So either they will vote democrate or not vote at all.

I know I am at the point as long as they present a good plan for the problems of the country, I could careless what party they belong to. It will not do them any good for my vote for them to simply say "We hate Bush" or "We are not Bush". Because I'm sick of Bush and about 90% of both parties. I want a plan not just someone standing up saying Bush is a clown. Because while I might have been a slow learner, I'm on that bandwagon. I want someone who can at least start to clean up this mess.

BTW the Howard Fineman quote is damn funny as well. Sadly it is all too true.

I'm at the point where as long as they're not an "end-timer" I might give them a shot.

[Bronx33]

http://www.fumento.com/weblog/archives/2006/04/another_firefig.html

I sure learned the hard way about the veracity of the Chinese expression that begins: "Be careful what you wish for . . ." We were told we might encounter the bad guys because you always "might," but by noon yesterday I would be a seasoned combat photojournalist.

We joined up at 7 am with Alpha Company, with whom we'd been laughing and joking the night before so we'd already gotten to know many of them and they'd gotten to know us. It's nice to go outside the wire with people you've already bonded with bit, not that I would not trust anybody in the 506th to be there for me if I needed them. We three reporters loaded into an M113 armored troop carrier that carries a .50 cal machine gun and can much better withstand both an IED and an RPG round, especially because it has a sort of grill (commonly called a "cheese grater") that will make an RPG round explode a foot away from the armor.

After perhaps a 5-minute ride we were dropped off in a different section of the city from the day before, near a former hotel that was so bombed out it looked like a good hard breath would knock it over. I think it was about 60% Iraqi and 40% us. The Iraqis were supposed to do the main patrolling while we entered the taller houses in the area and went up to the roof to cover them with light machine guns and M203 grenade launchers. Those are tubes that attach to the bottom of M-16s.

We did always knock or even ring the doorbell first -- honest -- but if there was no quick response the gates got kicked in. One just wouldn't budge but a large soldier gave it an almighty kick and while the lock and chain held, the side pulled right out of the concrete to which it was attached. Thirty seconds later a guy from next door shows up and offers us the keys . . .

Inside they kicked a few doors and were trying to knock in a really beautiful one when -- lo! -- a woman pops out of nowhere with the key. We don't like messing up people's places but we also don't like Mooj popping out from nowhere and spraying us. So once you enter a house each room must be checked.

It was at the next house where we started hearing gunfire. I asked somebody how long it had been since we dismounted. Forty-two minutes! These bad guys can't shoot for a darn, but they certainly are punctual.

We took up positions on the roof but the walls were very high, which is good protection from snipers but not good for observation. I think we took rounds directly on our position, but it's a funny thing; you often can't tell. But we weren't in position to fire back. So we'd listen to the shooting, joke around a bit, listen to the shooting, and joke around some more. One soldier was teased because his smoke grenade had gone off while hooked to his load-bearing equipment on his vest. Somehow this had managed to burn his uniform just below his crotch. The other soldiers made him open his fly to check his skin for burns, saying his resistance was because he was afraid he'd find his genitals baked. Tension relief under fire is muy importante.

Finally we "exfilled" (exfiltrated) to another house when it seemed the shooting had ended. This would be a feature of the firefight to come. Just when things got peaceful and you thought it was all over, suddenly the Mooj would start firing again and with more weapons than the round before. We occupied the top of another building, which had a roof on the left side and an excellent observation position on the right with little more than glass windows to hide any part of your body behind. I hid a bit of myself behind a pillar but most of me had to remain exposed. Here we heard bursts of fire every few minutes but most of it was from the M240 light machine gun manned by Pfc. Robert Killion from the roof position on the left side of the building. Out of four confirmed enemy KIA that day, Killion would get two.

So I gave up on our machine gunner and went over to Killian's position, also manned by Sgt. Jonathan Falk. I'd been shooting most video and still needed some good combat stills and I jokingly ordered the two men to just pick out some inanimate target and fire at it while I snapped away. It didn't prove necessary. Soon enough they were banging away and I got my first good shot with Killion's spent brass casings bouncing of the chest plate of my body armor. I also got good footage of an enemy round missing Killion's head by a matter of inches. He wasn't too happy about that.

It became like a bizarre joke; enemy firing would stop for awhile and we'd be ordered to head downstairs but just as soon as the men pulled back from the wall the firing would start up again and it was back to the wall to fire back. Meanwhile, the machine gunner where I had been standing on the other side of the building was letting loose. So I went back over there and watched a soldier lay a couple of grenade rounds on the enemy. One struck home, making it three dead Mooj killed from the house we occupied.

But the Mooj had been firing back. About where my head had been there was a large pock mark in the opposite wall. It might have drilled me had I remained there; I can't say. But the window I'd been standing next to had a nice clean bullet hole that clearly would have gone right through my side where I have absolutely no protection and continued until it reached my heart. It put me in a pensive mood, but I didn't have long to contemplate it before we were told it was time to exfil and start trekking back to the pickup point. The shooting had stopped and once again it seemed like the fighting was over. Actually it was about to get a whole lot worse.

As soon as everybody was out of the houses the bad guys hit us big time. Machine gun and rifle fire seemed to come from every direction. In part, perhaps, this was because of sound reverberations off the walls and possibly it was because it was coming from every direction. Americans tossed several smoke canisters to conceal us as we crossed the first wide street, but since the Mooj tend to fire wildly anyway I'm not sure how much it helped. All they do is point their weapons in our general direction and squeeze off as many rounds as they can. But a haphazardly-fired bullet when it hits you has the same impact as an expertly aimed one.

We could have pulled back into the houses and simply shot it out with the Mooj but we would have ended up there all day, and given the Mooj a chance to call in more and more of their buddies. We also would have endangered the civilians inside. So we took option number two: run like crazy. It was just like the scene towards the end of "Blackhawk Down," when they ran the so-called "Mogadishu Mile" to the stadium. I don't think they ran a mile and I know we didn't, but it seemed like several at the time.

The tactic: One machine gunner darts across the street or alley to provide cover from that side. He's wearing a ton of body armor, pounds of ammo, and a weapon considerably heavier than an M-16 rifle. But if somebody had clocked him he would have qualified for the Olympics. Then a second machine gunner guards the street or alley from the first side. Both machine-gunners lay down suppressive fire to keep the Mooj heads down. Now the rest of us would fly across the intersection. It doesn't matter how much gear you're carrying, or whether you wrenched a knee or ankle. It doesn't matter how much junk is lying in your path. You will fly. I saw a few guys fire their rifles sideways as the crossed particularly wide areas.

At one point I was crossing the street at a non-intersection to join up with the main body of men when a machine gun began spraying from behind me in what sounded like exactly my direction. Maybe it was; maybe it wasn't. But the shielding walls on the sides of the street looked a million miles away from me at that moment and all I could think of was dropping flat like a pancake onto the middle of the road, then rolling to the other side. I kept my camera up at all times (the footage makes you dizzy), but probably two dozen GIs saw me go down and were sure I was hit.

One brave soul, who turned out to be Sgt. Falk, risked his hide by jumping from his relatively safe position along the wall to pull me in. I yelled: "I'm okay! Go back!" But darned if he wasn't determined to rescue me! My lack of injury doesn't make him any less a hero in my book. As soon as I got to the wall I stood up all the way so everybody could see I was alright, but then another fellow apparently slipped and all eyes turned to him. But he was okay, too. He just needed water so I gave him my Camelbak water bladder to drink from, assuring him I didn't have cooties. The non-injured helping the non-injured!

Speaking for myself and probably every man there, I was far too busy trying to stay alive to be scared. At one point on my tape you can hear me singing "We've got to get out of this place . . . " from the Rolling Stones song. I don't even like the Stones; but it seemed appropriate at the time. And so we went from protective wall to protective wall, across alleys, streets, and open spaces that looked like they were forever long. As we sat under one wall, machine gun bullets tattooed it above us dropping plaster on some guys' heads.

As we approached our pickup area and relative safety, I came across an Iraqi soldier with blood streaming from his face onto his body armor and yelled for a medic. To the first American soldiers who looked at him it appeared it was just a bad nick. But -- and if you think I'm making this up I have pictures to prove otherwise -- he'd apparently taken a ricochet round sideways through the nose! Unreal. For all intents and purposes he now had four nostrils.

Finally we approached the protected position whence we had begun, with concrete on top and one side. Safe at home, right? Not in this firefight. "Incoming!" somebody yelled, and we dived that few extra feet for cover. There was an explosion in the distance and we saw a plume of smoke, but it turns out to have been a Mooj firing an RPG at a tank coming to support us. The rocket pretty much just bounced off.

The tank was too late, but we did have support from some M113's. Nothing came from the air until we reached the safe point, when a jet swooped over and flew off. The rules of engagement are very tough for Ramadi for two reasons. First, it's heavily populated and it's all too easy to accidentally kill civilians. Second, with more and more joint American-Iraqi patrols it's also all too easy to kill friendly soldiers. Even 500 lb. bombs can't be dropped in the city. But the Iraqi soldiers don't necessarily understand this. Knowing I was a reporter, they pointed to the fellow with four nostrils and then to the jet and told me "Ameriki (Americans) no good!"

Well excuse me! The Iraqis did perform admirably by Iraqi standards. They held their positions and suppressed enemy fire. But without our guns, they'd have taken terrible casualties. As is, other than the nose shot only one of them was injured, in the calf, and he was removed from the battle zone immediately and presumably under heavy fire. No Americans were injured, but two video cameras caught me hitting the dirt so you could say I wasn't a casualty but I played one on TV.

In the M113 on the way back you might have expected a sort of stunned silence, yet it was anything but. The sounds were of excited chatter and outright laughter. Even later, as we reporters looked at each other's video footage we laughed all over again. It's hard to explain. The original laughter was surely part in relief. And keep in mind that we knew nobody had even been badly hurt on our side. But it was also like the best amusement park ride you've ever been on. Whatever else it may have been, it was thrilling. All three of us reporters immediately inquired as to whether there would be another patrol that afternoon or the next day, but found patrols had been halted because of some upcoming activities that will remain unmentioned here.

And yes, it was thrilling for the soldiers as well. "I don't think we've been under heavy fire like that before," Pfc. Tony Wickline of A Company told me. "I mean, we've been shot at a lot but today . . . " Then he just started shaking his head and muttering: "Uh, uh, uh, uh, uh."

Photos:
http://www.fumento.com/military/iraqphotos2006ramadi2.html

[clarker]

I concur with all of the above.



Clinton did a good job of cleaning up the last Bush's mess.

Cleaning up the current Bush's mess is gonna be a much, much taller order.

I feel sorry for the Democrat who has to do it.Clinton was good at balancing the federal budget and he got rid of that douche bag in Kosovo. But he gets way to much credit for the ecnommy. He was lucky he fell into the .com boom and was leaving before the fall out of the .com bust came to full force.

To be fair though I think all Presidents get either too much credit or blame for the private sector economy, IMO.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

But he gets way to much credit for the ecnommy. He was lucky he fell into the .com boom and was leaving before the fall out of the .com bust came to full force.


The .com boom was only one of several things that contributed the the strength of the economy during the Clinton years.

I could provide you with a list of things Clinton did to improve the economy that would be so long it would take several pages to post it.

[W*GS]

I could provide you with a list of things Clinton did to improve the economy that would be so long it would take several pages to post it.

Oh, go ahead - you've provided us hyperpartisan Clinton-worshipping nonsense of greater length before.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://img466.imageshack.us/img466/7670/troll4alert7xp.gif

[W*GS]

[...]

Follow your own advice.

[Bronx33]

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/

http://michaelyon-online.com/media/images/disp/virgin_market/virgin_sm.jpg

I’ve never posted a rebuttal to a news story. Today is an exception.
Last week I participated on a panel at the Marine Command General Staff College in Quantico, Virginia. The dais was stacked with distinguished journalists — I was the baby in the room — who addressed a large group of military officers. I traveled from Afghanistan just to speak there after a scheduling conflict with their first choice, Joe Galloway, resulted in his recommendation that I fill his seat. When Joe Galloway talks, people listen. I was honored by his recommendation and privileged to join the panel in a vigorous debate of the symposium theme: “Selling the Truth: Media Portrayal of Insurgents, the Government, and the Military.”

As the day opened, a Marine officer was asked to pick a story about current events and comment on it. He held a copy of the Wall Street Journal, a paper I first started reading as a teenager. The WSJ is a reliable source, and so I’ve stuck with it through the years. The Marine was holding a WSJ in front of this distinguished group of military officers that also included DEA and FBI officials, not to mention the representatives of CBS, CNN, Al Jazeera and others. As the Marine opened the paper, I said something like, “That’s yesterday’s Wall Street Journal? That’s easy. Turn to page A16 and there is a commentary about Afghanistan. It’s pure bull****.” There was a microphone in front of me, but luckily, the crowd was mostly military and they laughed off the language.

When I’d first read that item on page A16 about doing business in Afghanistan, I was so put off that I actually remembered the page number. The piece entitled “A Virgin Market,” described a business climate in Afghanistan in such glowing terms that it crossed the line from upbeat to being wishful.

“A Virgin Market,” begins thusly:
KABUL — The recent Yale graduate I was chatting with at a party here spoke Chinese and had lived in China, the seeming epicenter of all things capitalist. “Why did you decide to come to Afghanistan?” I asked. He stared at me. “This is the largest rebuilding and development effort in the history of the world. Who wouldn’t want to be here?”

Stop. Interview at a party? I just spent two weeks on the ground talking with business people who seldom get time to go to cocktail parties in Kabul. I met people with millions of dollars in contracts in Afghanistan who were too busy trying to navigate the grime and crime to stop long enough to clink glasses together. I also talked with officials from several governments, many Afghans, and military personnel from various countries.

The writer goes on:
Writers of a certain ideological stripe whine that because Afghanistan isn’t Switzerland, it’s yet another sign that the U.S. can’t get anything right. But fortunes are being made here by those who think for themselves. And there are few countries where Americans are as welcome. A recent BBC poll reports that 72% of Afghans see American influence as positive, as opposed to just 25% of the French and 21% of Germans.

“Writers of a certain ideological stripe whine…” Stop. Did the writer get out of the cocktail party scene? I started a business in Poland when I was in my twenties, after traveling all over Eastern Europe looking for opportunities. I talked with bankers, economists, military people, and journalists and on and on. I read the WSJ a lot, too. I finally decided on Poland and I started a business there. I was present at a Warsaw palace the night Pepsi announced that it would invest $500 million into Poland. These were heady times for the former communist state sputtering into market based democracy. Business was difficult in Poland, but physical security was never an issue. Navigating cultural, language and commerce competency gaps were a daily challenge, but nobody had to worry about RPGs or IEDs or getting overrun and beheaded.

The commentator in the WSJ goes on to posit:
The security situation is far better than the media and the $500-a-day security companies would have you believe. British-educated Minister of Communications Amirzai Sangin notes that Americans are losing opportunities due to fears about security: “There is potential for five mobile companies here.

The fact that Investcom paid $40 million for their license — and that another company is in negotiations with us now — should give you the assurance that there is security here. We have 3,700 employees in every one of the 34 provinces and to date no person has been killed or kidnapped.”

Now it’s time to say in writing what I said to those government officials, military officers and journalists down at Quantico: Bull****. While I was there, one driver under contract for a friend — who has been doing business in Afghanistan since 1997 — was murdered. They shot his truck with RPGs and small arms fire and killed him. There were attacks every day. Even some of the bases might be in danger of being overrun.

Just after I departed Afghanistan, the Associated Press reported on April 24:
…Elsewhere in the south, a group of heavily armed Taliban militants attacked an Afghan construction company working for coalition forces before dawn Sunday, killing one security guard and wounding two others before remaining security personnel fled.

The two-hour battle raged at the headquarters of the Thavazoo company in Shah Wali Kot district, about 25 miles north of the city of Kandahar, said Haji Mohammed Youssef, the company’s director.

The Taliban fighters entered the compound after security forces fled, burning 14 trucks and bulldozers and stealing equipment before escaping, said Youssef, whose company won a contract from the coalition forces to build a 25-mile stretch of road.

“Coalition forces are giving us money to help rebuild our country, but the enemies of Afghanistan don’t want us to succeed,” he said.

These cocktail party interviews have no place in the Wall Street Journal, and should not count as informed reporting. I very much hope that Iraq and Afghanistan become self-sufficient, prosperous countries, but misleading people who might invest money, energy and blood into these areas is no way to make that happen. I’ll still pick the WSJ out of any 10 papers, but I should hope the editors exercise more circumspection when printing commentary.

In fact, the media is not up-playing the danger in Afghanistan but seems to be grossly missing it. Unfortunately, I predict NATO and other forces will lose increasing numbers of soldiers in Afghanistan. The place is bad. Really bad. And it’s getting worse. Yesterday an Indian engineer was murdered. They cut off his head. Also, yesterday, the car bomb in the photo above exploded close by some employees of a friend. I was close by two bombings in just six days in Lashkar Gah, a place they used to call “safe.”

It is easy to start a business in Afghanistan, and some people are truly making a lot of money. But Afghanistan is no place for rookies.

[Bronx33]

I am a 21 year old Marine and veteran of two tours in the Iraq War. I'm in the infantry and I fought in Fallujah when we stormed the city in November 2004. I just wanted to thank you for your blog and your reporting of the news. I come here when I want to see what's going on and I agree with all of your commentary. I found your site through Bill Roggio's blog. I used to go there for all my news but now I'm finding myself visiting your site more and more.

It is a great relief to see that other people in other parts of the country think like I do. And it is a great relief to see that so many people come to your site for the TRUTH. Because I can't say enough how angry I am and how much hate and rancor I have for the mainstream news media. Mainly over Iraq. I feel that we (veterans) have been betrayed, STABBED IN THE BACK, by the news media for their inaccurate and objective driven "news" that they broadcast. I'm sure you know but I'll say it anyways that we are winning in Iraq. From what I saw the last time I was there (not even two months ago) and what I received from other truth driven blogs (namely Bill Roggio) the campaign in Iraq is pretty much over, or very close to it. But the news media is lying like hell and doing whatever they can to make it look like we are losing in the hopes that they can sway the American people into believing their lies and get the people against the war and against Bush. They are trying to influence elections. Sadly, I believe they are succeeding because Bush's approval ratings are in the 30's. If the American people knew the truth, if the American people knew what I know, had seen what I've seen, this would not be so. Bush would be up in the 80's. But they continue to spew their lies and average people believe it. If it gets to the point where the American people demand we pull out and we give up in Iraq then everything that we worked and fought so hard for will be for nothing. And then and only then will we lose this war. This is outright treason. They are actively rooting for the enemies of America. Whenever they show Jihadist videos of attacks they are providing free advertising and recruiting for anti American forces. They show dead Americans, but they don't show dead Jihadists. And so you see in my eyes the news media has betrayed the American fighting man, sold us out for their own special interests. This is a crime which I will never forgive them for. As long as I live, and I have a long life ahead of me.

I thank you for your website and for providing the world with the truth. You are doing a great service for everyone. We need more websites like this one and more people like you.

[bendog]

I'm not sure it's the media's doing. The military itself is predicting a continued upsurg in violence and terror bombings. Presumably the goal is that by the time a new potus comes in and pulls out the troops, the Iraqi govt will be functioning to the degree that the populace no longer gives cover to the insurgents.

[Bronx33]

I'm not sure it's the media's doing. The military itself is predicting a continued upsurg in violence and terror bombings. Presumably the goal is that by the time a new potus comes in and pulls out the troops, the Iraqi govt will be functioning to the degree that the populace no longer gives cover to the insurgents.



Insurgents are getting desperate and their cause is losing momentum, there will be a surge but it won't last long.

[Bronx33]

http://hotair.com/archives/top-picks/2006/05/18/video-hayden-says-cia-needs-to-get-out-of-the-news/

[Bronx33]

Spending time in the United States after a tour of Iraq can be a disorienting experience these days. Within hours of arriving here, as I can attest from a recent visit, one is confronted with an image of Iraq that is unrecognizable. It is created in several overlapping ways: through television footage showing the charred remains of vehicles used in suicide attacks, surrounded by wailing women in black and grim-looking men carrying coffins; by armchair strategists and political gurus predicting further doom or pontificating about how the war should have been fought in the first place; by authors of instant-history books making their rounds to dissect the various fundamental mistakes committed by the Bush administration; and by reporters, cocooned in hotels in Baghdad, explaining the carnage and chaos in the streets as signs of the countrys impending or undeclared civil war. Add to all this the days alleged scandal or revelationan outed CIA operative, a reportedly doctored intelligence report, a leaked pessimistic assessmentand it is no wonder the American public registers disillusion with Iraq and everyone who embroiled the U.S. in its troubles.

It would be hard indeed for the average interested citizen to find out on his own just how grossly this image distorts the realities of present-day Iraq. Part of the problem, faced by even the most well-meaning news organizations, is the difficulty of covering so large and complex a subject; naturally, in such circumstances, sensational items rise to the top. But even ostensibly more objective efforts, like the Brookings Institutions much-cited Iraq Index with its constantly updated array of security, economic, and public-opinion indicators, tell us little about the actual feel of the country on the ground.

To make matters worse, many of the newsmen, pundits, and commentators on whom American viewers and readers rely to describe the situation have been contaminated by the increasing bitterness of American politics. Clearly there are those in the media and the think tanks who wish the Iraq enterprise to end in tragedy, as a just comeuppance for George W. Bush. Others, prompted by noble sentiment, so abhor the idea of war that they would banish it from human discourse before admitting that, in some circumstances, military power can be used in support of a good cause. But whatever the reason, the half-truths and outright misinformation that now function as conventional wisdom have gravely disserved the American people.

For someone like myself who has spent considerable time in Iraqa country I first visited in 1968current reality there is, nevertheless, very different from this conventional wisdom, and so are the prospects for Iraqs future. It helps to know where to look, what sources to trust, and how to evaluate the present moment against the background of Iraqi and Middle Eastern history.

Since my first encounter with Iraq almost 40 years ago, I have relied on several broad measures of social and economic health to assess the countrys condition. Through good times and bad, these signs have proved remarkably accurateas accurate, that is, as is possible in human affairs. For some time now, all have been pointing in an unequivocally positive direction.

The first sign is refugees. When things have been truly desperate in Iraqin 1959, 1969, 1971, 1973, 1980, 1988, and 1990long queues of Iraqis have formed at the Turkish and Iranian frontiers, hoping to escape. In 1973, for example, when Saddam Hussein decided to expel all those whose ancestors had not been Ottoman citizens before Iraqs creation as a state, some 1.2 million Iraqis left their homes in the space of just six weeks. This was not the temporary exile of a small group of middle-class professionals and intellectuals, which is a common enough phenomenon in most Arab countries. Rather, it was a departure en masse, affecting people both in small villages and in big cities, and it was a scene regularly repeated under Saddam Hussein.

Since the toppling of Saddam in 2003, this is one highly damaging image we have not seen on our television setsand we can be sure that we would be seeing it if it were there to be shown. To the contrary, Iraqis, far from fleeing, have been returning home. By the end of 2005, in the most conservative estimate, the number of returnees topped the 1.2-million mark. Many of the camps set up for fleeing Iraqis in Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia since 1959 have now closed down. The oldest such center, at Ashrafiayh in southwest Iran, was formally shut when its last Iraqi guests returned home in 2004.

A second dependable sign likewise concerns human movement, but of a different kind. This is the flow of religious pilgrims to the Shiite shrines in Karbala and Najaf. Whenever things start to go badly in Iraq, this stream is reduced to a trickle and then it dries up completely. From 1991 (when Saddam Hussein massacred Shiites involved in a revolt against him) to 2003, there were scarcely any pilgrims to these cities. Since Saddams fall, they have been flooded with visitors. In 2005, the holy sites received an estimated 12 million pilgrims, making them the most visited spots in the entire Muslim world, ahead of both Mecca and Medina.

Over 3,000 Iraqi clerics have also returned from exile, and Shiite seminaries, which just a few years ago held no more than a few dozen pupils, now boast over 15,000 from 40 different countries. This is because Najaf, the oldest center of Shiite scholarship, is once again able to offer an alternative to Qom, the Iranian holy city where a radical and highly politicized version of Shiism is taught. Those wishing to pursue the study of more traditional and quietist forms of Shiism now go to Iraq where, unlike in Iran, the seminaries are not controlled by the government and its secret police.

A third sign, this one of the hard economic variety, is the value of the Iraqi dinar, especially as compared with the regions other major currencies. In the final years of Saddam Husseins rule, the Iraqi dinar was in free fall; after 1995, it was no longer even traded in Iran and Kuwait. By contrast, the new dinar, introduced early in 2004, is doing well against both the Kuwaiti dinar and the Iranian rial, having risen by 17 percent against the former and by 23 percent against the latter. Although it is still impossible to fix its value against a basket of international currencies, the new Iraqi dinar has done well against the U.S. dollar, increasing in value by almost 18 percent between August 2004 and August 2005. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis, and millions of Iranians and Kuwaitis, now treat it as a safe and solid medium of exchange

My fourth time-tested sign is the level of activity by small and medium-sized businesses. In the past, whenever things have gone downhill in Iraq, large numbers of such enterprises have simply closed down, with the countrys most capable entrepreneurs decamping to Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf states, Turkey, Iran, and even Europe and North America. Since liberation, however, Iraq has witnessed a private-sector boom, especially among small and medium-sized businesses.

According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, as well as numerous private studies, the Iraqi economy has been doing better than any other in the region. The countrys gross domestic product rose to almost $90 billion in 2004 (the latest year for which figures are available), more than double the output for 2003, and its real growth rate, as estimated by the IMF, was 52.3 per cent. In that same period, exports increased by more than $3 billion, while the inflation rate fell to 25.4 percent, down from 70 percent in 2002. The unemployment rate was halved, from 60 percent to 30 percent.

Related to this is the level of agricultural activity. Between 1991 and 2003, the countrys farm sector experienced unprecedented decline, in the end leaving almost the entire nation dependent on rations distributed by the United Nations under Oil-for-Food. In the past two years, by contrast, Iraqi agriculture has undergone an equally unprecedented revival. Iraq now exports foodstuffs to neighboring countries, something that has not happened since the 1950s. Much of the upturn is due to smallholders who, shaking off the collectivist system imposed by the Baathists, have retaken control of land that was confiscated decades ago by the state.

Finally, one of the surest indices of the health of Iraqi society has always been its readiness to talk to the outside world. Iraqis are a verbalizing people; when they fall silent, life is incontrovertibly becoming hard for them. There have been times, indeed, when one could find scarcely a single Iraqi, whether in Iraq or abroad, prepared to express an opinion on anything remotely political. This is what Kanan Makiya meant when he described Saddam Husseins regime as a republic of fear.

Today, again by way of dramatic contrast, Iraqis are voluble to a fault. Talk radio, television talk-shows, and Internet blogs are all the rage, while heated debate is the order of the day in shops, tea-houses, bazaars, mosques, offices, and private homes. A catharsis is how Luay Abdulilah, the Iraqi short-story writer and diarist, describes it. This is one way of taking revenge against decades of deadly silence. Moreover, a vast network of independent media has emerged in Iraq, including over 100 privately-owned newspapers and magazines and more than two dozen radio and television stations. To anyone familiar with the state of the media in the Arab world, it is a truism that Iraq today is the place where freedom of expression is most effectively exercised.

That an experienced observer of Iraq with a sense of history can point to so many positive factors in the countrys present condition will not do much, of course, to sway the more determined critics of the U.S. intervention there. They might even agree that the images fed to the American public show only part of the picture, and that the news from Iraq is not uniformly bad. But the root of their opposition runs deeper, to political fundamentals.

Their critique can be summarized in the aphorism that democracy cannot be imposed by force. It is a view that can be found among the more sophisticated elements on the Left and, increasingly, among dissenters on the Right, from Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska to the ex-neoconservative Francis ***uyama. As Senator Hagel puts it, You cannot in my opinion just impose a democratic form of government on a country with no history and no culture and no tradition of democracy.

I would tend to agree. But is Iraq such a place? In point of fact, before the 1958 pro-Soviet military coup detat that established a leftist dictatorship, Iraq did have its modest but nevertheless significant share of democratic history, culture, and tradition. The country came into being through a popular referendum held in 1921. A constitutional monarchy modeled on the United Kingdom, it had a bicameral parliament, several political parties (including the Baath and the Communists), and periodic elections that led to changes of policy and government. At the time, Iraq also enjoyed the freest press in the Arab world, plus the widest space for debate and dissent in the Muslim Middle East.

[Bronx33]

To be sure, Baghdad in those days was no Westminster, and, as the 1958 coup proved, Iraqi democracy was fragile. But every serious student of contemporary Iraq knows that substantial segments of the population, from all ethnic and religious communities, had more than a taste of the modern worlds democratic aspirations. As evidence, one need only consult the immense literary and artistic production of Iraqis both before and after the 1958 coup. Under successor dictatorial regimes, it is true, the conviction took hold that democratic principles had no future in Iraqa conviction that was responsible in large part for driving almost five million Iraqis, a quarter of the population, into exile between 1958 and 2003, just as the opposite conviction is attracting so many of them and their children back to Iraq today.

A related argument used to condemn Iraqs democratic prospects is that it is an artificial country, one that can be held together only by a dictator. But did any nation-state fall from the heavens wholly made? All are to some extent artificial creations, and the U.S. is preeminently so. The truth is that Iraqone of the 53 founding countries of the United Nationsis older than a majority of that organizations current 198 member states. Within the Arab League, and setting aside Oman and Yemen, none of the 22 members is older. Two-thirds of the 122 countries regarded as democracies by Freedom House came into being after Iraqs appearance on the map.

Critics of the democratic project in Iraq also claim that, because it is a multi-ethnic and multi-confessional state, the country is doomed to despotism, civil war, or disintegration. But the same could be said of virtually all Middle Eastern states, most of which are neither multi-ethnic nor multi-confessional. More important, all Iraqis, regardless of their ethnic, linguistic, and sectarian differences, share a sense of national identityuruqa (Iraqi-ness)that has developed over the past eight decades. A unified, federal state may still come to grief in Iraqhistory is not written in advancebut even should a divorce become inevitable at some point, a democratic Iraq would be in a better position to manage it.

What all of this demonstrates is that, contrary to received opinion, Operation Iraqi Freedom was not an attempt to impose democracy by force. Rather, it was an effort to use force to remove impediments to democratization, primarily by deposing a tyrant who had utterly suppressed a well-established aspect of the countrys identity. It may take years before we know for certain whether or not post-liberation Iraq has definitely chosen democracy. But one thing is certain: without the use of force to remove the Baathist regime, the people of Iraq would not have had the opportunity even to contemplate a democratic future.

Assessing the progress of that democratic project is no simple matter. But, by any reasonable standard, Iraqis have made extraordinary strides. In a series of municipal polls and two general elections in the past three years, up to 70 percent of eligible Iraqis have voted. This new orientation is supported by more than 60 political parties and organizations, the first genuinely free-trade unions in the Arab world, a growing number of professional associations acting independently of the state, and more than 400 nongovernmental organizations representing diverse segments of civil society. A new constitution, written by Iraqis representing the full spectrum of political, ethnic, and religious sensibilities was overwhelmingly approved by the electorate in a referendum last October.

Iraqs new democratic reality is also reflected in the vocabulary of politics used at every level of society. Many new wordsaccountability, transparency, pluralism, dissenthave entered political discourse in Iraq for the first time. More remarkably, perhaps, all parties and personalities currently engaged in the democratic process have committed themselves to the principle that power should be sought, won, and lost only through free and fair elections.

These democratic achievements are especially impressive when set side by side with the declared aims of the enemies of the new Iraq, who have put up a determined fight against it. Since the countrys liberation, the jihadists and residual Baathists have killed an estimated 23,000 Iraqis, mostly civilians, in scores of random attacks and suicide operations. Indirectly, they have caused the death of thousands more, by sabotaging water and electricity services and by provoking sectarian revenge attacks.

But they have failed to translate their talent for mayhem and murder into political success. Their campaign has not succeeded in appreciably slowing down, let alone stopping, the countrys democratization. Indeed, at each step along the way, the jihadists and Baathists have seen their self-declared objectives thwarted.

After the invasion, they tried at first to prevent the formation of a Governing Council, the expression of Iraqs continued existence as a sovereign nation-state. They managed to murder several members of the council, including its president in 2003, but failed to prevent its formation or to keep it from performing its task in the interim period. The next aim of the insurgents was to stop municipal elections. Their message was simple: candidates and voters would be killed. But, once again, they failed: thousands of men and women came forward as candidates and more than 1.5 million Iraqis voted in the localities where elections were held.

The insurgency made similar threats in the lead-up to the first general election, and the result was the same. Despite killing 36 candidates and 148 voters, they failed to derail the balloting, in which the number of voters rose to more than 8 million. Nor could the insurgency prevent the writing of the new democratic constitution, despite a campaign of assassination against its drafters. The text was ready in time and was submitted to and approved by a referendum, exactly as planned. The number of voters rose yet again, to more than 9 million.

What of relations among the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurdsthe focus of so much attention of late? For almost three years, the insurgency worked hard to keep the Arab Sunni community, which accounts for some 15 percent of the population, out of the political process. But that campaign collapsed when millions of Sunnis turned out to vote in the constitutional referendum and in the second general election, which saw almost 11 million Iraqis go to the polls. As I write, all political parties representing the Arab Sunni minority have joined the political process and have strong representation in the new parliament. With the convening of that parliament, and the nomination in April of a new prime minister and a three-man presidential council, the way is open for the formation of a broad-based government of national unity to lead Iraq over the next four years.

As for the insurgencys effort to foment sectarian violencea strategy first launched in earnest toward the end of 2005this too has run aground. The hope here was to provoke a full-scale war between the Arab Sunni minority and the Arab Shiites who account for some 60 percent of the population. The new strategy, like the ones previously tried, has certainly produced many deaths. But despite countless cases of sectarian killings by so-called militias, there is still no sign that the Shiites as a whole will acquiesce in the role assigned them by the insurgency and organize a concerted campaign of nationwide retaliation.

Finally, despite the impression created by relentlessly dire reporting in the West, the insurgency has proved unable to shut down essential government services. Hundreds of teachers and schoolchildren have been killed in incidents including the beheading of two teachers in their classrooms this April and horrific suicide attacks against school buses. But by September 2004, most schools across Iraq and virtually all universities were open and functioning. By September 2005, more than 8.5 million Iraqi children and young people were attending school or universityan all-time record in the nations history.

A similar story applies to Iraqs clinics and hospitals. Between October 2003 and January 2006, more than 80 medical doctors and over 400 nurses and medical auxiliaries were murdered by the insurgents. The jihadists also raided several hospitals, killing ordinary patients in their beds. But, once again, they failed in their objectives. By January 2006, all of Iraqs 600 state-owned hospitals and clinics were in full operation, along with dozens of new ones set up by the private sector since liberation.

Another of the insurgencys strategic goals was to bring the Iraqi oil industry to a halt and to disrupt the export of crude. Since July 2003, Iraqs oil infrastructure has been the target of more than 3,000 attacks and attempts at sabotage. But once more the insurgency has failed to achieve its goals. Iraq has resumed its membership in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and has returned to world markets as a major oil exporter. According to projections, by the end of 2006 it will be producing its full OPEC quota of 2.8 million barrels a day.

The Baathist remnant and its jihadist allies resemble a gambler who wins a heap of chips at a roulette table only to discover that he cannot exchange them for real money at the front desk. The enemies of the new Iraq have succeeded in ruining the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqis, but over the past three years they have advanced their overarching goals, such as they are, very little. Instead, they have been militarily contained and politically defeated again and again, and the beneficiary has been Iraqi democracy.

None of this means that the new Iraq is out of the woods. Far from it. Democratic success still requires a great deal of patience, determination, and luck. The U.S.-led coalition, its allies, and partners have achieved most of their major political objectives, but that achievement remains under threat and could be endangered if the U.S., for whatever reason, should decide to snatch a defeat from the jaws of victory.

The current mandate of the U.S.-led coalition runs out at the end of this year, and it is unlikely that Washington and its allies will want to maintain their military presence at current levels. In the past few months, more than half of the 103 bases used by the coalition have been transferred to the new Iraqi army. The best guess is that the number of U.S. and coalition troops could be cut from 140,000 to 25,000 or 30,000 by the end of 2007.

One might wonder why, if the military mission has been so successful, the U.S. still needs to maintain a military presence in Iraq for at least another two years. There are three reasons for this.

The first is to discourage Iraqs predatory neighbors, notably Iran and Syria, which might wish to pursue their own agendas against the new government in Baghdad. Iran has already revived some claims under the Treaties of Erzerum (1846), according to which Tehran would enjoy a droit de regard over Shiite shrines in Iraq. In Syria, some in that countrys ruling circles have invoked the possibility of annexing the area known as Jazirah, the so-called Sunni triangle, in the name of Arab unity. For its part, Turkey is making noises about the Treaty of Lausanne (1923), which gave it a claim to the oilfields of northern Iraq. All of these pretensions need to be rebuffed.

The second reason for extending Americas military presence is political. The U.S. is acting as an arbiter among Iraqs various ethnic and religious communities and political factions. It is, in a sense, a traffic cop, giving Iraqis a green or red light when and if needed. It is important that the U.S. continue performing this role for the first year or two of the newly elected parliament and government.

Finally, the U.S. and its allies have a key role to play in training and testing Iraqs new army and police. Impressive success has already been achieved in that field. Nevertheless, the new Iraqi army needs at least another year or two before it will have developed adequate logistical capacities and learned to organize and conduct operations involving its various branches.

But will the U.S. stay the course? Many are betting against it. The Baathists and jihadists, their prior efforts to derail Iraqi democracy having come to naught, have now pinned their hopes on creating enough chaos and death to persuade Washington of the futility of its endeavors. In this, they have the tacit support not only of local Arab and Muslim despots rightly fearful of the democratic genie but of all those in the West whose own incessant theme has been the certainty of American failure. Among Bush-haters in the U.S., just as among anti-Americans around the world, predictions of civil war in Iraq, of spreading regional hostilities, and of a revived global terrorism are not about to cease any time soon.

But more sober observers should understand the real balance sheet in Iraq. Democracy is succeeding. Moreover, thanks to its success in Iraq, there are stirrings elsewhere in the region. Beyond the much-publicized electoral concessions wrung from authoritarian rulers in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, there is a new democratic discourse to be heard. Nationalism and pan-Arabism, yesterdays hollow rallying cries, have given way to a big idea of a very different kind. Debate and dissent are in the air where there was none beforea development owing, in significant measure, to the U.S. campaign in Iraq and the brilliant if still checkered Iraqi response.

The stakes, in short, could not be higher. This is all the more reason to celebrate, to build on, and to consolidate what has already been accomplished. Instead of railing against the Bush administration, Americas elites would do better, and incidentally display greater self-respect, to direct their wrath where it properly belongs: at those violent and unrestrained enemies of democracy in Iraq who are, in truth, the enemies of democracy in America as well, and of everything America has ever stood for.

Is Iraq a quagmire, a disaster, a failure? Certainly not; none of the above. Of all the adjectives used by skeptics and critics to describe todays Iraq, the only one that has a ring of truth is messy. Yes, the situation in Iraq today is messy. Births always are. Since when is that a reason to declare a baby unworthy of life?