Category: Iraq

Another Smear Against The Troops

The New Yorker has a scathing review of Brian DePalma’s anti-war, anti-American film Redacted. DePalma’s motivation in making this film is made quite clear:

De Palma has announced that his intention in making “Redacted” is to end the war. “The movie is an attempt to bring the reality of what is happening in Iraq to the American people,” he said after a press screening in Venice. “The pictures are what will stop the war. One only hopes that these images will get the public incensed enough to get their congressmen to vote against the war.” It seems unlikely to me that “Redacted” will have that effect, or even that De Palma is serious about wanting it to. The movie encourages you to abandon the very powers of analysis and discrimination that might lead you to write your congressman. De Palma presents soldiers as psychopaths and Iraqis as their nameless victims. The dialogue in the rape scene, with the ringleader babbling about weapons of mass destruction and supporting the troops, is so heavy-handed that it has the opposite effect of making the war’s violence real; instead, it makes you think that you’re watching a highly stylized cinematic rape scene. The same is true of all the “realistic” camera devices: they are so many frames around a director’s incurious and unconvincing fantasy. Every scene, down to the checkpoint where there are mysteriously no Iraqi soldiers, betrays its creator’s indifference to “the reality of what is happening in Iraq.”

This shouldn’t be surprising. The Hollywood community’s ham-handed attempts to portray the Iraq War have almost nothing to do with the actual war and everything to do with the simpleminded caricature that Hollywood wants to push upon the American people. The days in which Hollywood felt allegiance to this country and tried to support the democratic culture that supports them have long since past. The days of great American filmmakers who felt that they could be both Americans and filmmakers—men and women of vision such as Elia Kazan, George Capra and John Wayne have long since passed. Instead, the Hollywood elite have become aligned with the radical left, with only a few exceptions, many of whom keep their beliefs hidden to avoid recrimination.

DePalma’s crude smear against the troops is as patently ridiculous as the racism of Birth of a Nation, except the latter had some cinematic talent behind it. Instead of trying to understand the depth of the Iraq conflict, Hollywood is presenting a series of dumbed-down morality plays that treat American soldiers as brainwashed killbots. From Redacted to In The Valley of Elah to Rendition, Hollywood demostrates that the only worldview they care about is the one they create—and not only that, but they have the sheer audacity to think that the American people will be swayed by their propagandizing.

If one wants to truly understand the complexities of the war in Iraq, on all sides, documentaries like Gunner Palace, Voices of Iraq and The War Tapes present a balanced and realistic view of the war in Iraq—because they were made in Iraq, rather than cooked up in the fevered mind of a Hollywood radical.

There are plenty of incredible stories of human bravery and human depravity in Iraq—stories that not only need to be told, but would get people in the theaters. Instead, Hollywood is interested in producing only more crudely-made propaganda that fits their particular anti-American worldview. The real story of the war in Iraq remains that told in documentary films and by the men and women who have seen the reality of this conflict first-hand. Brian DePalma and the rest want to portray American soldiers in the most negative light possible—and in so doing they only demonstrate the contempt they feel for this country.

The Post Behind The Times

The Washington Post ran yet another anti-war editorial from former Iraq servicemembers. Bob Herbert notices something rather telling about the 12 signatories to the article:

I value the writers’ service and their opinions as soldiers who have served in Iraq, but wouldn’t this editorial have meant more if the Washington Post had managed to find soldiers to write it who had actually been in in Iraq in the last year?

Only two of the 12 captains had been in Iraq as late as 2006, with the rest all departing in 2005 or before. None of them are currently on active duty.

While their opinions are valuable from a historical perspective based upon what they’ve seen while they served, they hardly seem to be best qualified to be able to comment upon the current situation on the ground in Iraq, as it has changed so radically since the last of them departed.

The media is desperate to preserve the narrative on Iraq. Despite the concerted effort of the media, left-wing groups like MoveOn.org, and the Democratic Party to “end the war” the battle for Iraq has not been abandoned. Despite the attempts to argue that the situation in Iraq is not improving, even the Post is admitting that the numbers are improving. Despite the attempts to paint a picture of a losing war it appears that al-Qaeda is the one fighting a losing battle in Iraq.

With all due respect to the 12 American soldiers who sacrificed their time for this war, their information is out of date and contradicted by the current situation on the ground. For example, they argue that the “surge” is causing alienation between US troops and the Iraqis. If that is true, then why has the Anbar Awakening been such a success? Iraqi leaders like Sheikh Abu Sattar al-Risha have worked closely with American troops to rid al-Anbar of AQI terrorists. If there are “swayed allegiances” in Iraq those allegiances are swaying against al-Qaeda and towards a free Iraq.

The media narrative has always been one of defeat in Iraq. The truth is far more complex. It’s far too soon to declare victory in Iraq, but the signs of progress are unmistakable. The first step towards fixing Iraq has always been to restore security and allow for the Iraqis to develop their own political institutions from the ground up. We are making demonstrable progress on that front, and even the Post has been forced to admit that numbers paint a far different picture than their chosen narrative.

What They Didn’t Report

Jack Kelly has a charged piece noting the media’s self-serving coverage of a recent speech by retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez:

LtGen. Sanchez, who commanded U.S. troops in Iraq from June, 2003 to June, 2004, is the highest ranking Iraq war veteran to publicly criticize the war, so his comments were newsworthy, despite being long on adjectives and short on specifics. But this column is less about what LtGen. Sanchez had to say and more about what the journalists who covered his speech chose to report.

All the news organizations which covered his speech emphasized the caustic things he had to say about the Bush administration.

That wasn’t the sole target of Lt. Gen. Sanchez’s ire, however. The full text of his speech makes it quite clear that his position on the media is just as hostile:

Almost invariably, my perception is that the sensationalistic value of these assessments is what provided the edge that you seek for self aggrandizement or to advance your individual quest for getting on the front page with your stories! As I understand it, your measure of worth is how many front page stories you have written and unfortunately some of you will compromise your integrity and display questionable ethics as you seek to keep America informed. This is much like the intelligence analysts whose effectiveness was measured by the number of intelligence reports he produced. For some, it seems that as long as you get a front page story there is little or no regard for the “collateral damage” you will cause. Personal reputations have no value and you report with total impunity and are rarely held accountable for unethical conduct.

Given the near instantaneous ability to report actions on the ground, the responsibility to accurately and truthfully report takes on an unprecedented importance. The speculative and often uninformed initial reporting that characterizes our media appears to be rapidly becoming the standard of the industry. An Arab proverb states – “Four things come not back: the spoken word, the spent arrow, the past, the neglected opportunity.” Once reported, your assessments become conventional wisdom and nearly impossible to change. Other major challenges are your willingness to be manipulated by “high level officials” who leak stories and by lawyers who use hyperbole to strengthen their arguments. Your unwillingness to accurately and prominently correct your mistakes and your agenda driven biases contribute to this corrosive environment. All of these challenges combined create a media environment that does a tremendous disservice to America. Over the course of this war tactically insignificant events have become strategic defeats for America because of the tremendous power and impact of the media and by extension you the journalist. In many cases the media has unjustly destroyed the individual reputations and careers of those involved. We realize that because of the near real-time reporting environment that you face it is difficult to report accurately. In my business one of our fundamental truths is that “the first report is always wrong.” Unfortunately, in your business “the first report” gives Americans who rely on the snippets of CNN, if you will, their “truths” and perspectives on an issue. . . .

All are victims of the massive agenda driven competition for economic or political supremacy. The death knell of your ethics has been enabled by your parent organizations who have chosen to align themselves with political agendas. What is clear to me is that you are perpetuating the corrosive partisan politics that is destroying our country and killing our servicemembers who are at war.

My assessment is that your profession, to some extent, has strayed from these ethical standards and allowed external agendas to manipulate what the American public sees on TV, what they read in our newspapers and what they see on the web. For some of you, just like some of our politicians, the truth is of little to no value if it does not fit your own preconceived notions, biases and agendas. (Reformatting and spelling corrections mine.)

The news stories reporting on Lt. Gen. Sanchez’s speech unsurprisingly didn’t bother to mention those words. Neither did they bother to report on his equally harsh rebuke of Congress. Nor did they feel it was important to note that Lt. Gen. Sanchez does not believe that America can afford to engage in a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. All they wanted to do is report on his criticisms of the President.

Kelly is correct: the media’s own coverage of Lt. Gen. Sanchez’s speech proved his argument about the agenda-driven reporting of the mainstream media. They only covered the portions of the speech that served their interests and ignored the rest. The political agenda of the mainstream media—an agenda which is unabashedly against the war and against the Bush Administration—has ensured that the political inconvenient portions of the General’s speech have been virtually suppressed.

For all the talk about how biased and agenda-driven Fox News is, the rest of the media is hardly immune to demonstrable bias in their reporting. The “so-called liberal media” is hard to deny when evidence like this comes to light.

Sanchez’s criticisms of the war are worth listening to, although ultimately the progress in places like al-Anbar, Diyala, and Salah-al-Din show that our current strategy is working. However, it’s his criticisms of the politicization of military policy and the media that are the most worth examining closely.

Yet the media evidently doesn’t want people asking those probing questions—which is further evidence of why the mainstream media is failing its fundamental duties to the American people.

More From Ramadi

Michael Totten has yet another amazing piece taking a firsthand look at the Anbar Awakening from the former AQI “capital” of Ramadi. What he finds is a dramatically different story from the media narrative of an Iraq that is damned to civil war and constant terrorism. What happened in Ramadi was not an accident — it took both the brutality of al-Qaeda in Iraq and the steadfastness of American and Iraqi forces to take Ramadi from one of the worst places in Iraq — or in the world for that matter — and turn it into a city that is slowly becoming livable again.

Why is this war worth it? Totten quotes one American soldier’s answer:

This place has made an amazing turnaround,” he said. “Everyone knew about Ramadi. It was another Fallujah, but it was worse than Fallujah. I did not want to come here. I was supposed to have an easy deployment in Karbala. Most guys coming out here were looking forward to combat. Not me. I had already done it. If you told me a few months ago what it would be like now I wouldn’t believe it. A little while ago we went to a soccer game. Lieutenant Tierney put it together. They have sixteen soccer teams now. We bought them uniforms, balls, water for the field, everything. They had a huge opening ceremony. Hundreds of people were there. It was incredible. Just incredible. It was a real storybook turnaround. This is why we fight. This is why what we do is worth doing. This is what makes the sacrifices, like Lieutenant Hightower having metal enter his body, worthwhile.”

Lieutenant Hightower was standing right next to us when Lieutenant Welch said that. He was hit with an IED a few months ago. Pieces of shrapnel tore up his leg. He nodded at what Lieutenant Welch said, agreeing that getting “blown up,” as Welch put it, was worth it.

“That is the most encouraging thing,” he said, “seeing American Soldiers at soccer games at a stadium that recently was used as a graveyard.”

In the end, that’s also how successful counterinsurgencies are won. We have to fight al-Qaeda in Iraq, and the way to do that is to work with the locals. The reason why we can’t fight this war from Okinawa is because troops a world away can’t build soccer stadiums. They can’t provide the people with services. They can’t do the things necessary to ensure that people like the citizens of Ramadi don’t end up forced to side with al-Qaeda for their mere survival.

The argument goes that it’s really the Iraqis who are responsible for the turnaround in al-Anbar, not the “surge.” In fact, that’s not at all untrue. The Anbar Awakening wasn’t something planned by the US military — it was an organic uprising of Iraqi Sunnis who had enough of al-Qaeda. At the same time, the US has been an instrumental part of that success — the Iraqis drove al-Qaeda out, and we’ve been stomping on them as they flee. It is an example of what we’ve needed for this whole war: a partnership between Iraqi and America standing against terrorism and tyranny.

AQI will try to take back Ramadi. They will fail. They’ve lost the people, and ultimately, they’ve lost the war. There have been minor swings of fortune throughout this conflict, but never something this fundamentally profound. Counter-insurgency wars are won when the people decisively swing to one side — an insurgent force cannot survive without broad popular support. AQI has lost that support, irretrievably.

Even better, this new “Awakening” movement is spreading. There is word that Shi’ite tribal leaders are also joining forces with the US to combat Iranian influences. The idea that sectarianism was stronger than nationalism in Iraq was never true. Iraqi Sunnis and Shi’ites were not all that different for most of Iraq’s history. Most Iraqi tribes were mixed Sunni-Shi’ite. Most Iraqi families were as well. The sectarian violence was being caused by the few, not the many. Now that the conditions are changing, Iraqi unity is shining through.

To be honest, I’m proud of what our Iraqi allies have achieved. Their government is still dysfunctional, sectarian, and nearly worthless. They still have a long way to go in terms of political and social development. At the same time, would you or I have the strength to resist al-Qaeda after years of brutal oppression? Before we start criticizing the people of Iraq, we should at least try to take a few steps in their shoes and realize just how profound their struggle has been.

In solidarity with our Iraqi allies, we will defeat terrorism. Iraq will be free, strong, and proud. The murderers and the savages of al-Qaeda will go into Iraq and find their grave. Iraq will struggle, but it will develop from a weakly federal system based on compromises to a government that can provide for its common defense. It took us over 80 years — Iraq has had only 4. At that point in our political development, we were still a nation divided along sectarian lines living in a weakly federal system under the Articles of Confederation. We learned, and so will they.

The Iraq War is largely viewed as a mistake in the polls. Looking at the pictures of those Iraqi children, knowing what their lives would be like had the US and the Iraqis not stood against the barbarians who were systematically raping Ramadi to death, it’s hard to make the argument that it wasn’t worth it. If there is to be a free Middle East, it will start in places like Ramadi, and if there is to be a Middle East that continues to be rife with conflict and death, it too will start in Ramadi. The choices we make now will have effects far larger than the next election — they will decide what kind of future those children and ours live in. We owe it to the future not to leave the world to the barbarians, but to free men and women. That is why we fight in Iraq, and that is why we must not give up until the enemy can be defeated.

Blowback

The assassination of Sunni tribal leader Sheikh Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha has led to a declarations of revenge by Iraqi Sunnis rather than the intimidation that al-Qaeda intended. By killing the Sunni leader, al-Qaeda in Iraq appears to have burned their last bridge with Iraq’s Sunni community:

“We will take our revenge,” the mourners chanted along the 10 kilometer, or six mile, route to Sattar’s family cemetery, many of them crying. “We will continue the march of Abu Risha.”

Sattar was buried one year after he organized 25 Sunni Arab clans under the umbrella of the Anbar Awakening Council, an alliance against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, to drive terrorists from sanctuaries where they had flourished after the U.S. invasion in 2003.

Al Qaeda’s front in Iraq took responsibility in a Web statement Friday for the slaying of Sattar. “Allah enabled your brothers … to track down and assassinate the imam of infidelity and apostasy … one of the dogs of Bush,” said the statement by the Islamic State of Iraq. It described the murder as a “heroic operation that took over a month to prepare.”

Wisely, the Iraqi government is using this opportunity to develop inroads with the Sunni community by holding an investigation into the death of Shiek Sattar. The sectarian divisions in Iraq are being covered up by a universal hatred of AQI — the one force that is commonly against all sides, Sunni, Shi’a, and even American.

What has always needed to happen is for their to be a grass-roots nationalism that transcends Iraq’s sectarian divisions. It is quite possible that AQI has just created just such a phenomenon. By taking such an action, it has ensured that the Sunni population views them as an enemy rather than an ally — meaning that the progress made by Iraqis and US forces in places like al-Anbar, Diyala, and Salah-al-Din will only continue.

In terms of geopolitical strategy, getting rid of al-Qaeda in Iraq is priority number one for the United States. To see Iraq as a place where terrorism has little to no purchase is the key objective of this conflict. Yes, a democratic Iraq remains crucial, but democratic development is something that can happen organically without the need for a significant US presence in Iraq. If the Iraqis can push groups like al-Qaeda out, there is little need for a significant US troop presence in the country.

This is the first time since al-Qaeda began their campaign to create a civil war in Iraq that there is a “light at the end of the tunnel” for US forces. The sectarian conflict in Iraq was largely the product of a conscious al-Qaeda strategy, kicked off by the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra. The worst thing that can happen is for the Iraqi people to united against al-Qaeda — which seems to be happening.

The events of this week could signal a significant shift in the Iraq conflict, and a major case of blowback for al-Qaeda in Iraq. AQI’s failed attempt to intimidate the Sunnis into accepting their rule has driven a massive wedge between the Sunni population and AQI — one that could well prove fatal for AQI’s ambition of using Iraq as the germ of a new Islamic caliphate.

Bush’s Iraq Speech

I watched President Bush’s speech on Iraq tonight, and was rather underwhelmed. I don’t disagree with the President — we cannot allow Iraq to fall into chaos. We have a moral obligation to help our Iraqi allies. The war in Iraq is a crucial part of the war on terrorism.

The problem is that the President didn’t give us the clear answers to why we’re in Iraq that the American people are demanding. It is not that there aren’t clear and cogent answers, it is that the President doesn’t seem to be able to communicate them.

It is welcome news that the security situation in Iraq is improving. It is welcome news that some of our troops can go home. What we need is a clearer explanation of why we’re in Iraq and how we can get out without causing further problems in the region.

The President has a powerful bully pulpit, and had he used it more effectively this war would be far less controversial than it has been. The American people need to know why we’re fighting in Iraq and why we need to win. They didn’t get clear answers from the President tonight, and men like General Petraeus and Senator McCain have done a much better job of explaining the situation.

The President did not have the right tone tonight. He didn’t give the clear answers that the American people have been looking for. Even though the situation in Iraq is improving, the political situation at home remains tenuous for the pro-victory caucus. That is because the man who is the leader of the country and the Commander in Chief hasn’t done as well as many bloggers have done in defending this war.

I have a great deal of respect for the President, and I find most of the puerile attacks against him to be disgusting. At the same time, a President must first and foremost be a leader. The President has not been the kind of leader he needs to be, and the American people need strong and forthright leadership at this critical junction in history. President Bush can inspire a nation, as he did six years ago in the wake of the September 11 atrocities. He didn’t reach those heights today, and that means that the political stalemate in Washington will continue for some time.

An Iraq Patriot Felled

Sad news as the world learns that Anbar Awakening leader Sheikh Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha has been killed in a car bombing. Undoubtedly his high-profile stance against al-Qaeda has made him a high-priority target.

Sheikh Abu Risha was one of the first to break with al-Qaeda in al-Anbar Province, part of a group of Sunni tribesmen who had become sick and tired of the constant violence leveled against Iraqi Sunnis by the terrorist group. He and other tribal leaders decided that it was time for Iraq’s Sunni to be free of the foreign-led invaders, and they came to form a group called the Anbar Awakening, an alliance of tribes dedicated to working with the US and Iraqi forces in defeating al-Qaeda.

The progress that Sheikh Abu Risha has begun will not stop with his death. Al-Qaeda thought that they could bully Iraq’s Sunnis into accepting their radical Islamist rule. They were wrong then, and they are still wrong. The avalanche has already begun — Iraqi Sunnis have seen what al-Qaeda has wrought and they know that the only path to freedom, peace and security is to see al-Qaeda gone from Iraq. The death of one man will not stop the Awakening, and inshallah Iraq’s Sunnis will rid their lands of the foreign-led invasion and be able to forge a better future in which they need not fear al-Qaeda, Shi’a, or anyone else.

Patriotism Defined

The Minneapolis Star-Tribune has an amazing piece on Jessica Charyer, the former Minneapolis Aquatennial Queen who not only survived a life-threatening medical condition, but is going to Iraq to be with the other members of her unit:

Despite her determination to recover, she continued to experience intense pain and decided she couldn’t deploy. Because she was scheduled to be in Iraq for a year, her doctors initially offered her a prescription for a year supply of a powerful painkiller. She refused and insisted on more tests.

Charyer, 23, underwent a second surgery early last month, this time to remove scar tissue. Her unit headed to Iraq without her. She made plans to join them later and now expects to leave for Iraq in a few days.

“I’m ready to head over and meet up with my unit,” she said. “Before I even go over there, they teasingly say, I have the battle wounds, but I really think it has made me a stronger person.”

Somehow, I get the feeling she was plenty strong to begin with.

Mrs. Charyer’s dedication to her unit and the service of her country is an example for us all, military or civilian. Our country is incredibly fortunate to have young men and women with the courage of Jessica Charyer.

Why Haven’t We Been Attacked Yet?

Amy Zegart, a guest blogger at The Volokh Conspiracy, tries to take apart two arguments for why al-Qaeda hasn’t managed to attack us since 9/11 (and not for a lack of trying). She first dismisses a key argument out of hand:

Argument #1: “we’re fighting them over there so they don’t attack us over here.” Yes, and the Tooth Fairy is real. This argument takes the prize for being both misleading and stupid, suggesting that Iraq’s civil war and regional instability are offset by that invisible fence in Anbar province that magically corrals the world’s terrorists and keeps them right where we want them.

That’s not a very good counter at all. Al-Qaeda has a fixed amount of resources. They can’t magically create terrorists — in order to pull of an attack like 9/11, you need to train people. Al-Qaeda can devote resources to fighting in Iraq, or resources to fighting in the US. To do both requires dividing their resources. As bin Laden himself has made clear, al-Qaeda has decided to put its chips in Iraq — and that means that resources that would normally be used for attacks against America have to be spent there.

It’s like arguing that the US military is stronger because of the war in Iraq. We have fixed resources too, and we’re stretching them to the limit to keep going in Iraq. Al-Qaeda’s resources are more limited, and they are taking a lot more casualties than we are too.

As to the argument that the war in Iraq is recruiting new terrorists, for one it seems doubtful that there’s enough recruiting to make up for the ones they’re losing in Iraq. Secondly, new recruits aren’t particularly useful unless they’ve been trained. When you’re sending a good portion of your new recruits to blow themselves up, it’s harder to fill the ranks. Given that being a mid-level boss in al-Qaeda is not a good position for those seeking to live to retirement, the same pressure is being felt higher up the food chain.

In the end, the idea that “we’re fighting them over there so that we don’t have to fight them over here” is actually correct. Al-Qaeda cannot abandon Iraq any more than we can. They can’t afford to lose to the Americans, and so they (like us) have to keep devoting resources to that conflict rather than use them elsewhere. The problem they’re facing is that in the last year, Iraq has become markedly less hospitable to them and that’s adding to their pressures. Fighting a war of attrition with the US has worked for al-Qaeda so far. Fighting a war of attrition in which the Iraqi people are actively working against al-Qaeda is much less tenable for them. Yet they cannot retreat now that they have made Iraq their theater of battle. In many ways, al-Qaeda and the US are in the same boat. Neither can walk away from the conflict without catastrophic losses, and so it has been a war of attrition. The difference is that al-Qaeda doesn’t have to worry about political fratricide or bloviating Senators. We have the better military, but also the disadvantages of our democratic political system.

Zegart also is critical of the argument that we’re better at homeland security since 9/11:

Argument #2: “We’ve hardened the target by making dramatic improvements in homeland security, intelligence, and counterterrorism here at home.” This one sounds more reasonable on the face of it. We’ve seen a number of changes since 9/11. Among them: The FBI has doubled its analyst corps, the intelligence budget has increased an estimated 25%, and counterterrorism “fusion” centers are popping up like mushrooms–with more than 40 of them across the U.S.

Two problems here. The first is your view of progress. Government officials love to report about the half full glass. It’s the half empty part that worries me more.

The problem with this response, and it’s a strong one, is that even if it is true that doesn’t mean that the overall argument is wrong. We have gotten better at counter-terrorism in the last 6 years. We still have a very long way to go to get as good as we can be. However, we’re a much harder target now than we were on September 11, 2001. We’re taking security more seriously, and most importantly the public is much more attuned to the threat of terrorism. As much as we decry profiling in this country, if an Arab male puts on a headscarf and starts threatening a plane, that Arab male is going to get the living crap beaten out of him or worse. The 9/11 plot preyed on the traditional notions of an aircraft hijacking. After 9/11, the passengers will not be so complacent — as the heroes of Flight 93 demonstrates when they learned of what fate the monsters on their plane had intended.

We do need to do more. There needs to be less division between intelligence and law enforcement. However, that doesn’t mean we haven’t taken steps in the right direction.

Those two arguments aren’t the only reasons why we haven’t endured another attack since that terrible day more than six years ago — however, they are important reasons, and we cannot forget that the only real strategy combines both a strong national defense at home, but also ensuring that terrorist groups never get the chance to attack the United States.

The Anbar Awakening From Ramadi

Michael Totten has an amazing look inside the former capital of al-Qaeda’s Islamic State of Iraq, an-Ramadi. Ramadi has been devastated by incredible combat over the past few years, but has recently become relatively quiet. Totten notes the change that occurred their in the past year:

“Market Street [the main street downtown] was completely controlled by Al Qaeda,” Lieutenant Welch said. “They rolled down the streets, pointed guns at people, and said we are in charge. They had crazy requirements for the locals. They weren’t allowed to cut their hair. Girls were banned from going to school. They couldn’t shave or smoke. One guy defiantly lit a cigarette and they shot him four times.”…

“Al Qaeda hit a six month old baby with a mortar when they were trying to hit us,” Lieutenant Hightower said when he got off the phone. “They also hit a six year old girl. We went in and medi-vacced the victims, and we made lots of friends that day. It was a clarifying experience for the Iraqis.”

It was a clarifying experience for the Iraqis because they had been raised on virulent anti-American conspiracy theories and propaganda from Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party. They truly believed the Army and Marines were there to steal their oil and women. Americans saving the lives of children wounded by fellow Sunni Arabs who passed themselves off as liberators was not what many Iraqis ever expected to see.

“The six month baby had shrapnel in his head,” Lieutenant Hightower said. “The six year old girl had shrapnel in her leg. It was the most disturbing thing I’ve seen since I got here.” This from a man who saw one of his own men shot in the head by a sniper.

The Anbar Awakening represents a true turning point in the history of Iraq. The Iraqi people rose up themselves and decided that they had enough and that al-Qaeda had to be stopped. What has been accomplished in al-Anbar could not have been done with the US alone. The people of al-Anbar, especially the brave shiekhs who have put their lives on the line to declare war against terrorism, have taken control of their own destiny.

Totten’s journalism is incredible, and the quality of his reporting in a fair world would be spread far and wide. He gives us a look into an Iraq we never see, and simply reports what’s going on rather than trying to add his own spin. We need more reporting like that, and if the quality of mainstream journalism were equal to what these talented amateurs are producing, many of the myths that surround Iraq would never have formed. We as Americans and participants in a democratic system of government need to be able to get accurate information to make informed decisions. The mainstream media is by and large not providing that crucial context. Michael Totten’s riveting dispatches from Iraq provide that context, and it is the sort of thing that is well deserving of the highest awards in journalism.