Is the media hurting the war?

Hi Taylor.The first thing to point out is that the media is in Iraq to sell commercials/newspapers/magazines. Their job is not to report the news, but to make money.What is an IED? I'll tell you what it is and what it isn't. It is not a weapon that stops CF (Coalition Forces) tactically or strategically. Not one IED has ever stopped a unit from accomplishing its mission. An IED is a statement. It is designed to erode the popular support for the campaign (Iraq is a campaign in the Global War on Terror) in order to facilitate CF withdrawal so that Al Qaeda can claim victory.If there were no media to report these events, there would be no insurgency, for they would have no way to get their message out.That being said, a free press is an integral part of our freedom and they must be allowed to do their jobs because they perform their part in keeping the government in check. I do happen to agree with your neo about the Press comparison during WWII and today. I would think that the discrepancy is due to the fact that good news SOLD during the WWII era, and it doesn't sell today.The Press is a business. Its reason for existance is to maximize owner wealth, just like any other business.Edited by Tal, : No reason given.

---

News Media: Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory 1 negative report at a time.

Yes, this is my 3d Combat Tour, second in Baghdad, you're welcome, and I celebrated July 4th with a Fish Sandwich. Well, let me address the civil war issue. 90ish% of the violence in Iraq happens in a 30 square mile radius of Baghdad. I know first hand. My BCT (2d Brigade Comat Team, 82d Airborne) works the Adhamiyah and Sadr City neighborhoods. If I were to tell you that 90% of the violence in Texas happened in the Dallas/Fort Worth area, I don't think you would conclude that Texas is in a civil war. At least I don't. The Shia and Sunni tribes don't just wake up in the morning intent on killing each other. Sunni extremists (former Bathists for the most part) work with AQI to kill Shia with car bombs, or executions, or whatever they can. The bloodier the better, because that generates headlines. Shia extremists are backed by the Hezbos and Iran to broaden their influence by either killing CF or Sunnis. Since these acts generate alot of press, it causes backlash from both communities, and in the past has locked each faction in mutually reenforcing cycles of violence.Now what you didn't hear much about was the latest attack on minerets of the Golden Dome in Samarra a few weeks back. Last year, when AQI blew the dome up, there was a huge backlash of violence; which was covered extensively in the Western and Arab media. This year, there was a demonstration in Sadr City which resulted in no violence.I'm sure you didn't hear that in the news, yet this is a HUGE story because it shows that the Goverment and people (in the "worst" neighborhood) handled things much differently this go around.

---

News Media: Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory 1 negative report at a time.

I wouldn't say AQI is manipulating the news, but instead are taking advantage of the way the system works to get their message out and ultimately claim victory for forcing the US to withdraw. What do you mean by the "war's conduct?" Thank you for putting your opinion in there at the end. I like that alot more than the "there were NO WMD" chant. Allow me, if I may, to tell you my opinion, and why.Yes, President Bush said on many occasions that we knew Saddam Hussein possessed chemical and biological weapons. Why did he say it? He said it because it was the best judgement of the career intelligence analysts who serve our nation. George W. Bush said it, just as President Clinton said it before him, and just as Vice President Gore said it. Senator John Kerry said it as well in a speech on the Senate floor in 2002. According to the arms inspector David Kay, France in the 1990s concluded Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and so did Germany.If we said all that, what happenned? Where are these weapons of mass destruction? There are 4 possibilites. One is Saddam moved them out of Iraq before the war. Two is Saddam destroyed them and left no evidence. Three is that he hid them somewhere inside Iraq and we haven't found them. Four is that Iraq didn't have any weapons and we were all wrong.I'm sure we all remember David Kay, the former UN chief weapons inspector and head of the Iraq Survey Group reported that he had not found any stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. His statement dominated the headlines. But as alwasy, there was more to the news than the headlines. Here's what else David Kay said when he submitted his report to Congress in 2003:"We have discovered dozens of WMD-related prgram activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the UN during the inspections that began in late 2002." These included "a clandestine network of labratories and safehouses maintained by the Iraqi intelligence service. 'Reference strains' of biological organisms, concealed in a scientist's home, including a live strain of deadly botulinum, and new research on Brucella, Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever, ricin, and aflotoxin. In the cheimcial and biological weapons area we have confidence that there were at a minimum clandestine on-going research and development activities that were embedded in the Iraqi Intelligence Service," Kay reported.On January 28, 2004, when David Kay, the man who said we hadn't found any WMD, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, he said, "If you read the total body of intelligence in the last twelve to fifteen years that flowed out of Iraq, I quite frankly think it would be hard to come to a conclusion other than Iraq was a gathering, serious threat to the world with regard to WMD...I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and removal of Saddam Hussein. I have said I actually think this may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous that we thought."The Bush Administration may have been wrong about Saddam's actual capabilities, but they weren't wrong about his intentions.My assessment is that they were moved.Edited by Tal, : No reason given.Edited by Tal, : Add my reason

---

News Media: Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory 1 negative report at a time.

I haven't read the book, but I would if one were around. By all means if you find something in the book that piques your interest toss it up here and I'll give it a read. However, he is a reporter. His job is to sell commericals, or in this case, books. But if you find anything interesting post it up. A friend of mine wrote a good piece on why the media misreport when in a combat zone, but I can't access his site at work. I'll hit it up when I get to my pod and post it as an edit. Al Qaeda mostly. They collaborate with the former Bathists (Sunnis) to exhaust U.S. national will, aiming to win by undermining and outlasting public support by using high profile attacks against Iraqi Civilians, kidnappings, beheadings, or blowing up Mosques. They are the main "pot stirrers" if you will. If we pulled out, Zawahiri or UBL himself would soon make a video proclaiming victory, much like Nasrallah (head of the Hezbos) did after Israel invaded Lebanon. Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah said Monday that his guerrillas achieved a "strategic, historic victory" against Israel”a declaration that prompted celebratory gunfire across the Lebanese capitalThe Average Iraqi certainly wouldn't claim victory.On the other side of the puzzle is Iran, who is helping the Shia extremists by providing them with training, weapons (EFPs), and material support using the Hezbos as a proxy to fight the US.In the middle are various groups on both sides (JAM, Jaysh Al Mahdi, or the Mahdi Army lead (sometimes) by Mookie Sadr) who have fought us on the past, but then join the political process and fight AQI. In the case of JAM, its still touch and go, as he doesn't really control all of his organization. Al Anbar was recently thought to be a lost cause by the media. I'm sure you heard all about it when the violence was high. Now that the locals are fighting AQI, and the province has done a 180, what have you heard from it lately? Al Anbar as reported recently by TimeEdited by Tal, : No reason given.Edited by Tal, : No reason given.Edited by Tal, : edit

---

News Media: Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory 1 negative report at a time.

Your first quote is dated "as of late October." The Times story I linked was dated 23 May 07.Your second reply and link are what the subject of the OP is all about. You read about car bomb attacks from 2 days in April and conclude that we aren't winning and it is a lost cause, which is the goal of the insurgents.From your seattle times link: I know it certainly seems like it, even to us at times. We (US Army) are doing 2 things differently this go around:1. We are taking away the insurgents' Center of Gravity (COG). A COG is like the inside circle of a spoked wheel. If you take the circle out, the entire wheel collapses. The 2 main COGs for the insurgents (AQI/Iranian supported Shia) is Baghdad and Al Anbar. How are we doing that? See 2.2. We aren't commuting to work anymore. We've set up COPs (Combat Outpots) and JSSs (Joint Security Stations) in all parts of the city in our (82 Airborne) area of operation. We've moved in. Either we are going away, or the bad guys are going away. It is a new Clear/Control/Retain policy.

---

News Media: Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory 1 negative report at a time.

I think the numbers are inflated. It is accurate, although I'm not up on the Iraqi council set up by anyone. I can speak to the other 2 items.De-baathification thinking came from the WWII model of Germany. After we won in Europe, we got rid of everything Nazi and that was the reasoning Bremer used. We told a bunch of people, "You no longer have jobs, and oh by the way don't apply for any jobs in the new goverment." Coupled with the disbanding of the Iraqi Army, you have the pool of motivated people that would start fighting the new Goverment in which they had no future. The Iraqi Army, not the Republican Guard (they were Saddam's men), were looked up to by average Joe Iraqi and was a solid, if underfunded/trained organization.If those 2 things would not have happenned, I don't think there would have been an insurgency. The political will and military infrastructure would have been in place to better handle AQI moving in than building it all from scratch like we are doing now.Edited by Tal, : grammer

---

News Media: Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory 1 negative report at a time.

Link? Source? One of my instructors was a weapons inspector in Iraq. They didn't have complete access. You'll note I cited Kerry and Gore too, and I can cite every major democrat in 90s.Mr. Blix in Feb 04. BBC NEWS | Middle East | Profile: Hans BlixThat still doesn't refute David Kay. Second suspected mobile weapons lab found in IraqAgain, you use phrases like "all evidence." Please post a link.You are right I guess. There weren't any to move.Oh...there were those 500 chemical weapons with sarin and mustard agent. 500 Chemical WeaponsAnd that is just what the Senator got declassified. Bomb said to hold
deadly sarin gas explodes in IraqHere's some more of those weapons that don't exist. Polish Troops Find Sarin WarheadsChemical Munitions have been used against US Forces many times. This go around we've had several instances of chemical weapons in IEDs.

---

News Media: Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory 1 negative report at a time.

No Sarin in the warheads. I hadn't read that story, thank you. Why would they be recruiting former WMD experts?

---

News Media: Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory 1 negative report at a time.

That's the point. That's why they were here in the first place. I highly doubt they were here flipping burgers. Saying WMD Experts were/are in Iraq to do anything other build WMD is like watching a guy in a mask with a gun walk into a bank and then assume he's only there to cash a check.

---

News Media: Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory 1 negative report at a time.

Edited by Tal, : Pics addedEdited by AdminAsgara, : fixed page width

---

News Media: Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory 1 negative report at a time.

Egypt, Canada, Argentina, Australia, etc. etc. etc. didn't use WMD on their own people or invade another country in last 30 years.

---

News Media: Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory 1 negative report at a time.

No.

---

News Media: Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory 1 negative report at a time.

If those WMD that don't exist were easier to indentify and handled properly, then (insert pic) would not have occurred.Think I found my new sig.

---

News Media: Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory 1 negative report at a time.

Maybe the "There were no WMD!" crowd would think differently if that was their arm?Edited by Tal, : No reason given.

---

If those WMD that don't exist were easier to identify and handled properly, then this would not have occurred. -Chiroptera

Your name was removed.

---

If those WMD that don't exist were easier to identify and handled properly, then this would not have occurred.