Austin Bay takes a look at how the troops are appalled by the media coverage in Iraq. It seems as though whenever you talk to someone who has been in Iraq, or someone who knows someone who has, you keep hearing the same basic thing: the media coverage of Iraq doesn’t match the reality on the ground:
After my return from Iraq I received phone calls and emails from military friends as they either came back to the US on leave or finished their tours and re-deployed “Stateside.†The typical phone call went like this: “I’m back. It’s great to be home. What’s up? How are you doing?†Then, the conversation quickly moved on to: “What’s with the press and Iraq?†The press usually meant television. On tv Iraq looked like it was going to Hell in a handbasket of flame and brutality; however, the images of carnage didn’t square with the troops’ experience.
The media has been quick to pronounce Iraq as a “failure”. In fact, they seem positively giddy about the possibility of Iraq descending into a morass of sectarian violence. The group consensus has already been written in regards to Iraq – the mainstream media has already determined that Iraq is a “failure” and their reporting is less about accurately and honestly assessing the situation and more about propagating their chosen meme. For instance, Riding Sun catches Newsweek burying the lede in a story on Iraq:
On the ground, the shrewder analysts say, it’s not entirely clear that U.S. policy has “failed.” The TV news, not to mention Al-Jazeera, doesn’t regularly summarize the stunning changes in Iraq, many of them morally and politically worthy. Saddam Hussein is gone and awaiting trial. Schools, hospitals and other institutions are operating in most parts of the country. Voters have adopted a constitution. And even many Sunnis are gathering in political parties that are maneuvering in advance of the Dec. 15 national elections. After the elections, the plan is that Coalition forces will use the growing number of capable Iraqi units to “clear, hold and build” a peaceful Iraq.
The part about the “shrewder analysts” might qualify for the understatement of the year. The fact is that the media’s reporting on Iraq is relentlessly ideological, and focuses almost exclusively on suicide bombings while ignoring the ongoing political process and reconstruction. The car bombings and other attacks by the “insurgents” does not represent the totality of events in Iraq. Attacks like that do not mean that Iraq is a “failure” by any stretch of the imagination.
Ralph Peters has a scathing piece on the consequences of failure in Iraq. It is quite clear to a reasonable person that handing al-Qaeda their greatest victory ever would be the most idiotic thing this country could do. Unfortunately, many members of the Democratic Party aren’t reasonable people when it comes to this war. Someone like Rep. John Murtha would have the US leave Iraq, creating a massive power vacuum, give al-Qaeda their greatest victory, and destabilize the Middle East for years on end. Al-Qaeda’s wide strategic picture involves more than just getting the US out of Iraq. From there that gives them a perfect base of operations to topple the Saudi monarchy and starve the West of oil and create the base for their future pan-Islamic caliphate. It is deeply and fundamentally irresponsible to allow that to happen, and while Congressman Murtha may be a decorated and honorable war veteran, it doesn’t make his argument any less defeatist, stupid, or wrong.
Victory in Iraq is not optional, nor is it impossible. The “exit strategy” in Iraq hasn’t changed – we need to train an indigenous force to provide security and protect the reconstruction process. We can’t, nor should we, take the place of the Iraqi army or police forces. Great progress has been made in creating the kind of espirit de corps that is essential for an effective military organization. The media loves to trumpet the idea that Iraq has become a training ground for terrorists – what they completely ignore is that it’s also a training ground for antiterrorist combat as well. We don’t have a great number of Arabic speakers who can pass for terrorists. The Iraqis have plenty. Training an effective native antiterrorist force is the only way to be truly effective in infiltrating terrorist networks. Furthermore, the combat between the terrorists and the coalition is completely one-sided. With each capture or killing of even a mid-level terrorist leader, that diminishes the capacity of that terrorist network. Even when someone else takes the place of that individual, they have to rebuild that network – all while trying to avoid the fate of their predecessor. The argument that al-Qaeda can simply manufacture new leadership on a continuous basis isn’t a particularly good argument.
The reality is that the situation in Iraq is hardly a “failure”. The Iraqis are becoming more and more invested in the political process. The Iraqi police and military are becoming increasingly capable and by next year there will be over 270,000 Iraqi troops patrolling the country. The central government has been cracking down on sectarian violence, and many areas of Iraq are relatively peaceful.
The only way we can lose in Iraq is if we choose to do so – and the media seems to have already made that choice. Yet every poll has shown a majority of Americans rejecting withdrawal without victory. To allow al-Qaeda another safe harbor in the middle of the Arab world would be a suicidal mistake. Those who advocate such a policy deserve deep and vitriolic criticism. Failure in Iraq is not an option, and we must continue to build up Iraq until it can stand against terrorism on its own and continue to take the fight to the enemy.
Please note that posting someone else’s work without attribution is both plagiarism and violation of copyright. The offending comment has been removed.
“Iraqi police and military are becoming increasingly capable and by next year there will be over 270,000 Iraqi troops patrolling the country.”
Good. With that many native boots on the ground, I think we should be able to start majorly reducing our troop levels over there… which is what General Casey is now suggesting. Funny that when a Democratic congressman suggests cutting our troop levels, he’s screamed at, but when a general does…
The difference is that Murtha wants a withdrawal no matter what, while Casey is advocating withdrawing only as Iraqi units prove themselves capable of keeping the peace.
I do think we’ll start withdrawing troops slowly throughout 2006 as the Iraqis take on a wider role, but we’ll probably have some peacekeepers in Iraq for a long time – just like Germany, Japan, Korea, etc…
“Austin Bay takes a look at how the troops are appalled by the media coverage in Iraq”
Insurgent attacks qualify as news. Rebuilding schools and hospitals, by and large, does not…at least in the context of wartime progress. The media should probably have put more importance on the two more-successful-than-expected Iraqi elections in the past 12 months, but saying that the media should custom-fit news for the benefit of troop morale is a quaint idea that forever died on the altar of the information age.
“It seems as though whenever you talk to someone who has been in Iraq, or someone who knows someone who has, you keep hearing the same basic thing: the media coverage of Iraq doesn’t match the reality on the ground:”
It breaks down almost entirely based on political affiliation. If the individual supports the war, they are sure to schedule visits to Iraqi locations that will provoke a smily face. If they oppose the war, they’ll visit locations that give them first-hand validation of their earlier concerns. The mainstream media tilts left, but war supporters like Tom Friedman wouldn’t be wringing their hands with frustration after every visit to Iraq if things were going as well as the hawks suggest.
“The car bombings and other attacks by the “insurgents†does not represent the totality of events in Iraq.”
The once-a-year homicide doesn’t represent the totality of news going on in Marquette, Michigan, either, but it’s the most newsworthy and you can be sure it will dominate the headlines for several nights when it occurs. Building hospitals is, and by all accounts should be, a footnote in comparison.
“Someone like Rep. John Murtha would have the US leave Iraq, creating a massive power vacuum, give al-Qaeda their greatest victory, and destabilize the Middle East for years on end.”
Murtha’s timeline for withdrawal is far too hasty, but he hits on some of the right themes. The only way to get Iraqi Security Forces the motivation to get their shit together is the prospect of the U.S. military crutch going away.
“The “exit strategy†in Iraq hasn’t changed – we need to train an indigenous force to provide security and protect the reconstruction process. ”
As long as U.S. presence serves as a “welfare army” for the Iraqis, they will still be unprepared for self-sufficiency 25 years from now.
“Great progress has been made in creating the kind of espirit de corps that is essential for an effective military organization.”
No it hasn’t. They’re way behind schedule. And most Americans realize it no matter how much people like you try to tell them the sky is green, not blue.
“The Iraqi police and military are becoming increasingly capable and by next year there will be over 270,000 Iraqi troops patrolling the country.”
I’ll bet you $100 that your projection is too generous by half….unless we set a timeline for withdrawal for the end of next year that gives them a needed kick in the ass.
“To allow al-Qaeda another safe harbor in the middle of the Arab world would be a suicidal mistake.”
Bush likely sealed that fate the day he invaded. Even if we wait 25 years until we leave, one faction of Iraqis will jockey for disproportionate political power when the opening is presented, and either they or their political opposition will latch on to whatever extended hand emerges their way to help achieve that end. If American presence in Iraq hasn’t thwarted the prospect of a bloody civil war by this time next year, I can’t imagine that it would be able to at any time in the future either.
“continue to take the fight to the enemy.”
Talking points like those don’t seem to be working any more. You better get Rove to dream up some new ones.
“The difference is that Murtha wants a withdrawal no matter what, while Casey is advocating withdrawing only as Iraqi units prove themselves capable of keeping the peace.”
Not entirely correct:
http://www.slate.com/id/2130794/nav/tap2/
The problem with Murtha’s plan is that he himself sold it as a withdrawal plan, and the idea that a “rapid-reaction” force could do the job of keeping the peace in Iraq is unworkable.
The fact is that there are about 100,000 Iraqi troops ready right now. There will be around 270,000 by this time next year. We will draw down from Iraq, but only as we can and only when the Iraqis can do the job we’re doing now. Leaving now would be deeply irresponsible, and no “rapid reaction” force can make up for having boots on the ground helping the Iraqis train their forces.
So, the media’s concealing the good news, the Iraqis are free, and everything is going peachy… but we can’t pull our troops out because the region would immediately decend into civil war?
How free do the Iraqis have to be before we can start making plans to pull some troops out? And where’s the consistency in asserting a media biased towards negative coverage of Iraq no matter what and asserting that every single troop over there has to stay or the whole place goes to shit?
Yes, because if we did the security situation would collapse. The security situation is the biggest problem in Iraq at the moment.
It’s less a matter of freedom than strength. The Iraqis need to be able to defend themselves against terrorism. That requires an army and police force that is capable of providing for their common defense.
“The Iraqis need to be able to defend themselves against terrorism”….which didn’t exist before we invaded, so how do you know there will be more terrorism once we leave? Maybe Douglas Feith has some inside information on that. The US military has admitted that much of what fuels terrorism in Iraq is a US presence. We suddenly left from Lebanon and the whole place didn’t implode. It’s hard to imagine Iraq worse than it is.
Jay, I remember you once wrote that we are only there at the behest of the Iraqi government and will leave once we are asked to do so, or words to that effect. Given that the leaders of the 3 major Iraqi ethnic groups now want a timetable for our departure, one of the very few things that unites them, do you still believe we should leave when the Iraqi government tells us to or should we ignore the Iraqi government and stay until we see fit?
The bottom line is this whole thing is unraveling exponentially now and people of all political affiliations are jumping ship. Pretty soon, especially once the lies that led to the war are completely uncovered, the people who lied us into this war and still support it will pay a heavy price. The desperation in the administration grows with every weak “blame someone else” defense or smear tactic.
There was a very good article in the National Journal that sheds some light on how we were sold a bill of goods: http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1122nj1.htm
As long as Iraq has the “welfare army” of America serving as their crutch, there is precious little motivation for the Iraqi Security Force to get its shit together. Funny how the same Republicans who talk about “individual responsibility” and the malaise of “dependency” as it applies to poor people at home are now telling us that we need to permanently hold the hands of Iraqi Security Force until they arrive at perfection. A timeline for withdrawal in 12-18 months is exactly what America and Iraq need to avoid turning Iraq into a permanent military welfare state. It won’t undo the damage the U.S. did by invading the country, but it’s the best outcome we can hope for with the bad hand Bush has dealt us.