Return to the Latest on No Left Turns
|
Network Misreporting
Yesterday Coalition spokesman Dan Senor said "[w]e’ve noticed a trend with Al Jazeera and Al Arabia misreporting the facts on the ground." But today the words were much harsher. Mr. Senor, referring to those same networks, stated that "I wouldn’t even call it one side of the story. It is no side of the story." In case this left anything to the imagination, he offered that "several of the news agencies do not engage in truth in reporting."
But the harshest words were offered by new Iraqi National Security Advisor Dr. Mowaffak Al Rubaie, who asked "Where is the objective press?" He complained that too many of the satellite channels supported Saddam even after his removal, and have distorted the news. As an example of what he called the many lies propagated by the media, he offered a story about his decision to resign from the Iraqi Governing Council. The networks reported that his decision to resign was motivated by the recent violence. In fact, it was public knowledge that he was required to resign from the IGC in order to take his new position as National Security Advisor. "Don’t they understand Separation of Powers? . . . This is a new Iraq. This is not Saddam Hussein’s Iraq."
Dr. Rubaie offered a words of caution for the networks: "I am warning these channels . . . they challenge the patience of the Iraqi people." When asked what steps would be taken, he was equally plain: "If Al Jazeera and Al Arabia continue reporting the way they are reporting--inciting violence and sectarian rifts--I have no doubt they will be closed in this country." This raised questions in the room about freedom of press. Dr. Rubaie responded that "we have drawn a very clear line. Inciting violence . . . is not allowed." He noted that CNN would not be allowed to incite violence in London, and that he would not allow networks to do likewise here.
Dr. Rubaie also sought to clarify a few issues which he believed had been distorted. He suggested that "[s]ome of the channels and the western media cannot understand what is going on in Fallujah." In particular, he stated that "[n]o one should have in their mind that this is a battle between the Coalition and the Iraqi people." Rather, he described the action as one between international terrorists and the Iraq people.
It will be interesting to see what happens with these networks. I can tell you from first hand experience that Al Jazeera at the very least has tight connections with terrorists--tight enough that they are told about terrorist attacks before they happen so that they can have cameras on the scene. The general media coverage from Fallujah has also been quite poisonous, with outlets suggesting that the attack is a general punishment of Fallujah for the killing of the contractors--which punishment is described as meted out to women and children. Of course, something more than mitigating the bad reporting is necessary. To echo Dr. Rubaie’s question in a slightly different way, where is the equivalent of Fox News Iraq?
Posted by Robert Alt | Link to this Entry | Comments [3] | 4/12/2004 8:45 AM
|
|
Iraqi army refuses to fight
This may be the worst news coming out of Iraq in a long time.
Thomas A. Ricks reports that "A battalion of the new Iraqi army refused to go to Fallujah earlier this week to support U.S. Marines battling for control of the city, senior U.S. Army officers here said, disclosing an incident that is casting new doubt on U.S. plans to transfer security matters to Iraqi forces.
It was the first time U.S. commanders had sought to involve the postwar Iraqi army in major combat operations, and the battalion’s refusal came as large parts of Iraqi security forces have stopped carrying out their duties." Some argue that it was a "command failure," others that it was just plain fear. There are other possibilities, as noted.
For a more academic analysis (based on iterviews of soldiers in Iraq) of why American soldiers fight, see this paper published in 2003: "Why They Fight: Combat Motivation in the Iraq War".
"The researchers then interviewed U.S. combat troops fresh from the fields of battle to examine their views. What they found was that today’s U.S. soldiers, much like soldiers of the past, fight for each other. Unit cohesion is alive and well in today’s Army. Yet, Dr. Wong and his fellow researchers also found that soldiers cited ideological reasons such as liberation, freedom, and democracy as important factors in combat motivation. Today’s soldiers trust each other, they trust their leaders, they trust the Army, and they also understand the moral dimensions of war." (Thanks to Phil Carter.)
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [3] | 4/11/2004 8:03 PM
|
|
Blair on Iraq
Tony Blair writes a very good letter to the Guardian outlining why we must continue our work in Iraq. It is excellent. Good man, that Blair. Newsweek reflects briefly on why Blair and John Kerry seem unable to schedule a meeting. It implies that it is not in Kerry’s interest to do so. I rather think it is the reverse; note that a few weeks back Blair ordered that the usual Labour Party delegation will not make the trip to this year’s Democratic Party convention in Boston.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [2] | 4/11/2004 7:59 PM
|
|
The Aug 6, 2001 DPB
Here is the text of the famnous Aug 6, 2001, intelligence briefing for the President on al Qaeda. This was released on Saturday. I am struck by how banal the thing is. I do not think it is impressive in itself, and certianly doesn’t have any useful information for Bush’s enemies, Ben-Veniste’s ravings to the contrary notwithstanding. It does make clear that the CIA was not exactly useful in trying to find ouit what binLaden was up to; that is what should be the story. And yet here is the Washington Post’s slant; not an editorial, but a news story. And I mean slant, start with the title: "Bush Gave No Sign of Worry In August 2001." Read the rest for yourself, and be angry. This isn’t reporting. But, hey, that’s OK because Richard Clarke’s book is going to be made into a
movie. The terms of the deal were not released. Perfect.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments | 4/11/2004 7:43 PM
|
|
Attack on the 1486th
Here is a story from the Mansfield News Journal about an attack on the 1486th Transportation Company of the Ohio National Guard here in Iraq. I received confirmation from the Public Affairs Office (PAO) that the unit came under fire on Thursday near Baghdad International Airport. The PAO confirmed that three soldiers were wounded, with one suffering an injury to his shoulder, another suffering an injury to his arm, and the third suffering an injury to his thumb. The PAO has stated that they will provide me with more details when they are available.
Posted by Robert Alt | Link to this Entry | Comments [4] | 4/11/2004 10:48 AM
|
|
Status Report
There is not a great deal new to report today. Having just attended the press briefing, I can tell you that the cease fire continues in Fallujah, with intermittent shooting by the insurgents. The Coalition continues to take positions outside the cities of Karbala and Al Najaf to permit the pilgrims to celebrate Arba’een, despite the presence of Al Sadr forces in those cities. From my own first hand accounts, I can tell you that there were a series of explosions in Baghdad this morning, but the streets appear calm now. In fact, the main street by the hotels is open today for the first time in several days, which made travel this afternoon considerably easier.
As for Schramm’s post about what’s going on in Iraq, I have a few thoughts. First, the thing that has struck me most is that the press seems completely unaware that they are being used by the insurgents. When reporters were released by the kidnappers, they expressed that they did not understand why they were released. Pleeeeease. When attack after attack is waged by insurgents even though there is no hope of military success, the press still fail to ask "why?" While the insurgents could be trying to drum up violent support among Iraqis, this does not appear to be happening to any significant degree. Rather, the attacks seem to be aimed at one group--the media--which increasingly reports without reflection.
My second point is that if you feel deprived of information in the states, you should have been in Baghdad for the past few days. Much of the action with Al Sadr and Sistani is in Al Najaf. But with the pilgrims and the potential for violence, that city is virtually untouchable right now. As for Fallujah, I have personally been trying to be embedded with the Marines there for over two weeks, and have not been able to get there because of a combination of a backlog of requests and security concerns. As one reporter who has also been delayed in his request to embed in Fallujah complained to me today, it is at times easier to get access to the insurgents than to the military. Even Baghdad has been very difficult to get around in the last few days, with numerous streets closed, and increased safety concerns in traveling during the day--let alone after dark. To add insult to injury, when the streets are closed, the businesses--including the internet cafes--close, thereby reducing the number of hours during which I can communicate. So please be patient with those of us who are trying to give you some perspective on what is going on over here.
Posted by Robert Alt | Link to this Entry | Comments [2] | 4/11/2004 10:26 AM
|
|
Easter in Baghdad
I asked a representative at the Press Center yesterday about Easter Services here in the Green Zone. There were services, but they were in the Palace, which is generally off-limits to those who are not Coaltion employees--a category which includes reporters. I got the distinct impression that I was the first reporter to have asked this question, which demonstrated a certain cultural gap between the soldiers, who tend to be quite religious, and the reporter class, among whom religion is at best not a spoken topic. To give but one poignant example of the religious character of the troops, a few weeks ago I spoke with a brave young man who had been patrolling in the Sunni Triangle when a mortar exploded near him. He sustained a serious injury to his leg, and while I met with him the Army was preparing to move him from the Combat Support Hospital up to Germany for more treatment. As they readied him for the Medevac chopper, a nurse handed him the personal effects which were in his pockets when he arrived at the hospital. He surveyed the ziploc bag and noticed that something was missing: his Bible. You see, he normally carries it in his back pocket. He reflected that the day he was hit was the first time that he was not carrying his Bible. The sentiment struck me not as superstition, or the desire to keep something of a good luck charm on your person. Rather, the soldier’s statement spoke of his faith, and his desire to keep God’s word close to him when surrounded by those who would do him harm. This faith is repeated time and again on the battlefied, in images such as the now famous AP photo from Fallujah, showing Marines praying over their fallen comrade.
It is my opinion that this helps explain why the press has such a hard time relating to the soldiers. You see, the soldiers subscribe to a set of rules and values which make no sense to the elites. The soldiers on average believe in God. They have a strong sense of patriotism--a love of their country and what their country stands for. They believe that there are things that are absolutely right and absolutely wrong. And they believe that there are things worth dying for, and worth killing for. For this, they are considered simple-minded by the far more sophisticated members of the press. Fine. They can keep their post-modern sophistication, but I prefer the simple faith and values of the soldier. May God keep them and protect them on this Easter day, and every day.
Posted by Robert Alt | Link to this Entry | Comments [1] | 4/11/2004 9:52 AM
|
|
What’s going on in Iraq?
Perhaps those of us who are trying mightily to follow events in Iraq should be excused if we don’t have deep opinions on the game affot. We don’t know enough. One of the genuine problems is that the establishment media’s reporting is either non-existent, or stupidly biased (I exclude some of the print media from this, see last paragraph). On the first point: All we are told is that someone has been killed, someone taken hostage, part of a city has been retaken, or that another mortar has landed somewhere, and so on. This tells us almost nothing. There is virtually no genuine analysis based on some facts (or even probabilities). Why are we not told of the relationship or lack between Sadr and Sistani? Why do they not talk about all the Iranian inlfuence and money going to Sadr? Why doesn’t the media explain what Sadr’s relationship with some Iranian ayatollahs is? (I know not all of it favorable.) Why don’t we have an explanation of why Sistani is not (it would appear) being run by the Iranians? Why don’t we hear about the fundamental distrust between the insurgents in Fallujah and Sadr’s gang? And then we are told that there are negotiations by the Governing Council in Fallujah, and so operations have stopped. Which guys on the Governing Council have more authority, which ones have (unlawful) militias loyal to them? Not enough information, and not enough thinking.
This is made worse by the bias of the media. I am amazed by the bias. Everything happening in Iraq is either another Mogadishu or another Vietnam, and is most certainly a quagmire. The so called chaos there means that we don’t have enough troops, that we are utterly unprepared for the mischief that has arisen, that we have have two left feet as we walk. So they keep showing a few pictures (repeated over and over) of a truck being blown up, of an Iraqi holding an American pair of boots high in the air (front page of today’s New York Times), or photos of Sadr being removed from walls, etc. Big deal, this is not useful. And if this isn’t enough, the elite media is attempting to collapse the 9/11 hearings (the public part, that is) with the so called chaos in Iraq. The administration was incompetent then, and it is incompetent now; the only difference is that before 9/11 they didn’t want to fight, and now that’s all they want to do. But it is a quagmire, we are told. The administration doesn’t understand that their policy is in shambles, that Iraq is spinning out of control and the President is on vacation at the Ranch! The elite media is banging their drums, demanding to be heard, demanding that someone pay attention to them. In the meantime, the public is not being well served by this drum beat.
Things are messy in Iraq; this is true. But, frankly, it’s not as if the mess is new. This is both war and nation-building, both conducted at the same time. A ramarkable effort, when you think about it. It is also possible that the lid has been blown off, and that it can’t be put back on until the water stops boiling. But let’s think through the difference between what is going on now and what that has to do with the short-run consequences, and what might happen (and be made to happen) in the long-run. There is a difference. The al Sadr led violence may well reveal that this is his last grasp at power (we should have dealt with him months ago, by the way), that if he doesn’t succeed now he will not, ever. Sadr has always been a political outlaw; it is not in Sistani’s interest that Sadr succeed, and never has been; they have fought. Besides, note that Sistani’s paramilitary forces are not fighting (and he has a more serious organization, (technically illegal, by the way) a couple of them, than that of Sadr. That Sadr has taken refuge in Najaf--Sistani’s stronghold--is quite smart, in the short term. We will not go in there to get him; yet, he will end up in Sistani’s control. Sistani is holding the cards already, and he may have more cards to play before this is over. But that may not be entirely a bad thing. From what we know about him, he does not seem to be interested in waging a civil war, or, even a war against the Coalition. Yet, and no surprise here, he doesn’t want to seem as if he is controlled by the Americans.
By the way, in saying all this I am not suggeting that the situation cannot get worse. Of course it can. The Kurds could take up arms. Sistani can take up arms. Now that would be serious.
Here are a few articles from the press that, it seems to me, shed light on some of these matters. I include them here not because I agree with each one, but because, each in its own way is informative. The AP reports on the cease fire in Fellujah. Los Angeles Times reports on how some of the Iraqi Governing Council are disenchanted with our policy in Fellujah. Washington Post reports on our tactics in Fellujah, and also on how are military efforts are doing elsewhere around the country. An idiot in Newsweek calls this Iraqi uprising an Intifada. Reuel Marc Gerecht, in contemplating a Shiite war, has some good analysis of the current fog. And Larry Diamond argued two days ago that we should arrest al Sadr, as soon as possible. And Yitzhak Nakash argues for letting Sistani broker a cease fire. David Brooks argues against negotiations. Victor Davis Hanson reflects on this odd sort of Western cannibalism wherein we are eating one another, while forgetting that we are at war. he advises us to get a grip. Good advice.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [3] | 4/10/2004 7:07 PM
|
|
Shia voting
Note this story of five days ago from the London Guardian. It outlines elections in Tar (about 15,000 population). Note that the religious parties did not do well at all in this overwhelmingly Shia area. "Seventeen towns have voted, and in almost every case secular independents and representatives of non-religious parties did better than the Islamists." (Thanks to Andrew Stuttaford at NRO.)
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [1] | 4/10/2004 6:49 PM
|
|
Turning up the bass
Two more large explosions sounded beyond the Green Zone, followed by a large plume of smoke. Because the explosions just happened, I have not been able to confirm any details as to target or casualties.
UPDATE: The two rounds hit inside the Green Zone, in the motor pool just behind the Combat Support Hospital. The explosions damaged one of the hospital’s generators. I have not been able to confirm if there are any casualties as a result of this attack.
UPDATE II: I have been informed that everyone is alright. The attack was not serious. We can all be thankful.
Posted by Robert Alt | Link to this Entry | Comments | 4/10/2004 7:36 AM
|
|
Fighting in Adhamiyah
Reuters is reporting that fighting erupted in the Adhamiyah region of Baghdad this morning. I was embedded a couple of weeks ago with an Army unit there. The region is the last place that Saddam was seen in public prior to being found in the spider hole. For years, it has been a place where bad elements from Ramadi and Fallujah would congregate in Baghdad, so it is not terribly surprising that there would be unrest in Adhamiyah given the activity in Fallujah.
Posted by Robert Alt | Link to this Entry | Comments [1] | 4/10/2004 7:18 AM
|
|
Relatively Quiet Morning in Baghdad
It has been relatively quiet this morning in Baghdad, other than one mortar blast somewhere near the Green Zone. General Kimmitt offered a bilateral cease fire effective at noon with the insurgents in Fallujah. As of the time of this writing, it was unclear whether they would comply with this offer.
I revisited my friendly banker this morning. He offered words of caution. "With the kidnappings, you must be careful, my friend. . . ." Recognizing me as American, he said, "You must be careful. You are my brother."
Posted by Robert Alt | Link to this Entry | Comments [1] | 4/10/2004 7:10 AM
|
|
Condi, the press, and the polls
Howard Fineman writes about the Rice interview in front of the 9/11 Committee. Here is his point: "Stylistically and tactically, she was serviceable." And then: "But the larger picture she painted of herself, her president and the administration certainly won’t help George W. Bush’s re-election chances." Thanks Howard, that’s some serious thinking.
CNN conducts a poll right after her testimony, and uses this headline: "Poll: Rice testimony yields mixed results for White House. What does the poll show? "Forty percent of the 1,000 Americans polled said that the administration, based on the information it had, could have done more to stop the terrorist attacks, compared with 54 percent in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll conducted March 26-28." And then this: "Rice won the credibility race against former counterterrorism aide Richard Clarke -- who testified that the White House had ignored warnings about Osama bin Laden’s terrorist organization. Forty-three percent of the poll’s participants said they were more likely to believe Rice, as opposed to 36 percent naming Clarke." Good headline, don’t you think?
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [3] | 4/9/2004 4:29 PM
|
|
Status Report
The afternoon briefing just finished. Here is the status report from Iraq, which I’m sure you will find to be very different from what you here on the news this evening. Ramadi, where 12 Marines died earlier this week, was quiet today. In fact, a local shaik came out last night and revealed the names of 11 belligerents in the city, who have subsequently been taken into custody. Al Kut, which was overrun by Sadr’s militia, is expected to be under complete Coalition control by late this evening or early tomorrow morning. There have been only minor casualties to Coaltion forces inflicted by Sadr’s militia, which is using what General Kimmitt described as "shoot and scoot" tactics. There is cessation of offensive operations in Fallujah, which was orchestrated at the request of the Iraqi governing council. The council has sent a delegation to bring food and medicine to the people there, and to see if progress can be made with Fallujah’s leadership to prevent the need for additional Coalition action. The one sore spot remains Al Najaf. Sadr’s forces are dominant in the city, but Coalition forces are well positioned outside. The strategy is to fall back in light of the 1.2 million pilgrims traveling for the Shia holiday. I would not expect this reserve to last long. These are facts confirmed by CJTF-7. And again, this represents a very different picture than the slices of violence that permeate the news.
The sun is fading, and I must make my way back to my hotel, which I understand had another close call with a mortar. Because of security measures, I doubt I will be able to post anything else until tomorrow. Until then, Good Friday.
Posted by Robert Alt | Link to this Entry | Comments [1] | 4/9/2004 11:36 AM
|
|
Japanese hostages & cannibalism
I just thought you’d like to know that Reuters reported that not only did the bad guys threaten to burn the Japanese hostages alive, but they also threatened to "feed them to the fighters" (after they burned them alive). I did not see this reported on CBS, NBC, ABC, or CNN, or anywhere else. Surprise.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments | 4/9/2004 11:19 AM
|
|
Sadr vs. Sistani
Spencer Ackerman explains the relationship between Moqtada Al Sadr, the bad guy, and Ali Sistani. This brief essay is very much worth reading. As far as I can tell, Ackerman is right: Sadr is making a power play to take over the Shiites by calling for a war against the Coalition. Sistani understands this, that’s why he is telling his people not to participate (and that’s why this is not an upring) and will try to prevent him from doing so. Because this is Sadr’s last chance (he has tried it before), he will do everything he must; this explains the violence. Sadr and Sistani also have ideological differences, having to do with the role of Islam in politics; this is what makes Sistani a moderate. There is a reason why Sadr moved into the Imam Ali Shrine, he wants to see if he can wrest moral authority from Sistani. If he can’t do it within the next few days, during their religious holidays with perhaps as many as a million Shiite pilgrims coming into the city, then he will fail. Take a look at this long article on Grand Ayatollah Sistani from the Washington Post, in February. This is what you have to pay attention to.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments | 4/9/2004 10:38 AM
|
|
Good Democrats
Some Democrats, I am heartened to see, are bahving better than Carter. Tom Daschle: "Yesterday’s events will only serve to strengthen America’s resolve and seal America’s unity. The brave people who lost their lives did not die in vain. Americans stand together today and always to finish the work we started and bring peace and democracy to the citizens of Iraq." And Sen. Evan Bayh, Indiana Democrat, said that the United States must "stay the course."
"This is really as much a test of our perseverance as anything else," he said, though he cautioned that Americans must be prepared for the conflict. "It’s going to be difficult. We’re going to have too many days ahead of tragedy like yesterday, unfortunately." Good. Better than Carter, Kennedy, and former KKK member Byrd. There is hope.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [207] | 4/9/2004 10:35 AM
|
|
Carter’s wisdom
The wisdom of Jimmy Carter shows up, again. The war against Iraq is unnecessary and "has turned out to be a tragedy," Carter says. There is more: "Carter, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, also blamed what he called Bush’s pro-Israel policies for engendering animosity against America.
’The prime source of animosity towards the United States is the lack of progress in dealing with the Palestinian issue,’ Carter said, adding that past U.S. administrations since Harry Truman’s have maintained a ’balanced position’ in dealing with the rights of the Arab population within the Jewish nation." There you have it, Carter is now re-writing history. His views were already pro-Palestinian when he was president, as
Steve Hayward’s new book on Carter, The Real Jimmy Carter, makes clear, and they have remained anti-Israeli; his contacts with Palestinian terrorists continue to this day. He is still fond of Arafat. Carter is a motley fool. It’s embarrasing.
Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [2] | 4/9/2004 10:17 AM
|
|
