Is this how combat will be covered in the future? I’m speaking of Michael Yon and his coverage of Deuce Four in Mosul — a freelancer with a paypal button who knows the military. Yes, I’ve contributed, and if you want expert coverage of the War in Iraq, you should too. It simply amazes me that the best coverage has come from so called amateurs – Steve Mumford and Michael Yon. Sure, there has been some great professional coverage of the war, but it tended not to be sustained, and too much appears to have been lost somewhere between the reporter in the field and the delivery in your paper or TV.
Archive for category The War on Terror
The Gates Of Delirium
Aug 26
What News Is
Aug 22
I’m not the only person unhappy with the coverage the Western press provides on the war on terror. As Army Capt. Sherman Powell told Today Show host Matt Lauer in in response to his question how troop morale could be so high, given the problems in Iraq:
“If I got my news from the newspapers also, I’d be pretty depressed as well. Those of us who’ve actually had a chance to get out and go on patrols and meet the Iraqi army and the Iraqi police and go on patrols with them, we are very satisfied with the way things are going here.”
What does the coverage consist of? Headlines about how many coalition force or Iraqi civilians were killed today or silence if none were killed, or recently how the effort to forge a new Iraqi constitution is about to unravel if there is kind of heated debate, posturing to make a later deal, or rhetorical point scoring at the sacrifice of progress, or silence if the effort is going smoothly. American operations are only mentioned in the context of (1) the casualties they bring to coalition soldiers and (2) how the enemy is so flexible and always adapting. Listening to news reports provides the inescapable conclusion that the only thing coalition forces are doing in Iraq is dying.
A large part of the problem is the divergent aims of terrorist groups in Iraq and the coalition forces – one is simply out to kill and terrorize and intimidate; the other is out to build a new civil society. The former is much easier to cover and so leads and dominates the coverage. The latter is much harder because it is so much more varied, much more widespread, and considered “normal” and thus not news. How can killing terrorists, finding and destroying arms caches, building infrastructure like power or sewage treatment plants, and holding elections all be a single aim? By and large for the press, if it can’t be covered simply, it isn’t covered at all.
So this morning my local paper’s WOT terror coverage consisted of an article about how 4 US soldiers were killed in Afghanistan and how the things are getting worse there. Where is the story about how US and Afghan forces killed 105 terrorists in the same area that the 4 US soldiers were killed — I guess that somehow wasn’t news.
Keep Trucking
Aug 19
I read a thoughtful entry at Crooked Timber yesterday, and lo and behold Armed Liberal provides the answer I didn’t have time to. Now that’s the kind of discussion we should be having.
Doesn’t Speak For Me
Jul 19
Since I get my marching orders from Hugh Hewitt, I have to say Congressman Tancredo’s remark that we should retaliate by bombing Mecca if we’re attacked by Nukes by Islamic terrorists is wrong and unhelpful, and well, shameful.
Terrorists Attack London
Jul 7
Terrorists attacked London this morning, with four bombs going off in the transportation network, killing at least 33 people, and injuring up to a thousand. As always with breaking news like this, there are a lot of speculation and error being passed off as news. My deepest sympathy to all those affected.
The Mirror has reactions from many world leaders, but I’m going with the mayor of London, Red Ken Livingston:
“I want to say one thing: This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty or the powerful, it is not aimed at presidents or prime ministers, it was aimed at ordinary working-class Londoners, that isn’t an ideology, it isn’t even a perverted faith, it’s mass murder. We know what the objective is. They seek to divide London. Black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindus and Jews, young and old. It was an indiscriminate attempt to slaughter, irrespective of any considerations for age, class, religion whatever.”
It’s Clobbering Time
Jun 30
Jason Van Steenwyk makes an excellent point:
You will never have a perfectly surviveable system. And you cannot turn Humvees into tanks. You will bankrupt the country.
…
The insurgency will not be defeated by putting an extra armor on our vehicles. The insurgency will be defeated by dismounts. Dismounts out there engaging with the Iraqi people and collecting real-time intelligence.And THAT is the effort the Media should focus on. THAT is the effort that Congress should focus on.
I guess some people never heard the expression that the best defense is a good offense.
My Take
Jun 29
My impressions of the President’s speech:
His speech writers are much better at writing a speech than he is at delivering one.
I vacillate on his giving it before a military audience: On the one hand, it smacks of using them as props, on the other, they’re the people who are actually being killed and wounded. I would rather he gave the speech direct into the camera and then privately schmoozed the soldiers, but team Bush may have decided he does much better in front of a live audience.
As long as it was a live audience, I’m glad they were under orders not to applaud because I hate how much longer that makes a political speech and how that destroys the pacing.
I was disturbed by that proto-smile on his face during a lot of the speech – but I guess that was his thinking to himself “How many times do I have to explain this to you.”
I found the irony rich: the smirky Bushitler having a clear grasp of a winning strategy, both for the war on terror as well as the battle for Iraq, while his oh so much smarter opponents keep mewling about how Saddam didn’t have anything to do with 9/11 and whose strategy seems to be if we ignore it, it will just go away striking.
Since I was already persuaded by the arguments advanced, I can’t tell if anyone was persuaded for or against by the speech. I do think the strategy and rationale was clearly layed out and I’m dismayed by how many people don’t seem to get it.
I did find the end of the speech effective. Yes, choked by emotion can all too easily be overdone, but I do think it was genuine, and came across as such. He could barely get out the “May God Bless You All”.
On a side note, who would you rather write about politics, this guy or this guy? I don’t know what Mr. Maguire does for a living, but I much prefer to reading his slyly cogent take on matters than Mr. Millbank’s snarky superficiality.
Speaking of people I agree with and who write well, Tom Maguire has opened surrender negotiations with the NYTs.
The Miasma All Around
Jun 23
I have to like the title of this article: CIA says Iraq is now a terrorist training ground. Hello, McFly, as opposed to when Saddam was terrorist-in-chief of the place?
The lead sentance grabs your attention: “The CIA believes the Iraq insurgency poses an international threat and may produce better-trained Islamic terrorists than the 1980s Afghanistan war that gave rise to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, a U.S. counterterrorism official said on Wednesday.”
At least you only have to go to paragraph 3 to see when this international threat will materialize: “Once the insurgency ends, Islamic militants are likely to disperse as highly organized battle-hardened combatants capable of operating throughout the Arab-speaking world and in other regions including Europe.”
That’s right, after the terrorists get beat in Iraq, then they’ll disperse and be an interational threat. Um, so we have the Islamic radicals that went to Afganistan in the 80’s and fought for the winning side being less lethal than the Islamic radicals who are going to Iraq and fighting for the losing side? Am I missing something here? There were a lot of Islamic radicals after Afganistan because they were on the winning team; more were attracted following the war there to be Islamic radicals because they were on the winning team, and then they followed it up with successful actions in Chechnya. Losing two wars, in Afganistan and in Iraq, is not a winning strategy for long term success.
I also have trouble with “Iraq has become a magnet for Islamic militants similar to Soviet-occupied Afghanistan two decades ago and Bosnia in the 1990s, U.S. officials say.” Again, the difference is that the militants are dying in far greater numbers and proportions in Iraq than they did in Afganistan two decades ago – it’s not more than a magnet, it’s a mass graveyard for militants.
Once the insurgency ends, the Islamic milititants are most likely dead; it will be much harder to recruit people to be suicide bombers as a mass murderer in the name of Allah will have lost a lot of zest. And let’s not forget the flip side to this — there will be two countries, Afganistan and Iraq, that will have anti-terrorist forces that will be well motivated and working with us to continue to beat forces they’ve already won victories over. If I had to pick, I’d pick the winners over the losers as allies in this long struggle. But I guess that doesn’t make good copy.
A tip of the hat to Take Back The News for the article.
I’ll say one thing for Dick Durbin – at least he didn’t claim he was just trying to make joke. But that’s the only positive thing I can say about his absurd and damaging claim that:
If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime–Pol Pot or others–that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
I can only shake my head at such breathtaking ignorance, and his subsequent attempt to shift the blame from himself, where it squarely belongs, to the media and right wingers is pathetic. There are two problems with his remarks: He makes this inflammatory, bound to be used by our enemies, wrong statement; and by doing so he destroys the discussion over the point I hope he was trying to make. Hugh Hewitt takes a long, full look at the Senator’s remarks and concludes, well, that would be telling, wouldn’t it.
UPDATE:
Senator Durbin has apologized for his remarks. I thought his apology insincere (he waited until Mayor Daley of Chicago let him have it) and the crying was over the top, but apology made, and in the words of Smash: Apology accepted. Show’s over, folks. Move along.
