Lazy, Stupid or Willfully Ignorant?
Right now, all the talk in DC is whether there has been any progress in Iraq. No one can wait till September. They need to know now. Primarily, it appears, because they need to kill the war for their own domestic political reasons before it kills them. Most people, of course, already have the answer they want.
But how come, if this is the pressing issue of the day, we’ve seen no serious effort whatsoever among our leading news organizations to tell us or our political leaders what is actually happening?
We’ve seen how the New York Times deals with Iraq. Pathetically inadequate. We talked about the AP. Shamelessly biased. Both of NYT and AP, along with the Washington Post, as the most influential U.S. news organizations, deserve to be more closely examined on exactly what they are contributing to our understanding of this situation.
Where is the comprehensive look at the execution of George Bush’s counterinsurgency strategy, this thing that everyone keeps disparaging?
Here’s the Washington Post’s listing of recent articles on Iraq. You won’t find it there. The Washington Post is attending press conferences and reading the tea leaves in DC. One visit to a tragic bombed village.
NYT’s Michael Gordon, who’s gotten some praise from Yon for being there, has this from June 30, 12 days ago, on GIs working with Sunnis against al-Qaeda, some of the same people and places Yon is talking about. Good work.
But NYT’s list of recent Middle East articles leading up to this much-anticipated week in mid-July offers nothing but the same DC bickering and Green Zone press conferences.
Maybe I’m missing something. Maybe they hid it somewhere else. Maybe it’s tucked in with all the other award-winning series in some special section.
The AP doesn’t offer a simple link to a comprehensive list. I just scrolled through the last couple of days’ worth with the access my newspaper gives me, and didn’t find it there, either. The elusive effort to understand what is happening in Iraq. I read what the AP sends us every working night, and scan it on my off days. You’ll have to take my word for it. This is as good as it gets. Despite the fact that the AP, these days, prides itself on putting together series and conducting special projects and in-depth looks just like a real newspaper. It’s been all over the problems war widows and the war wounded face, for example.
But the AP, as the primary source of international news for most American newspapers, deserves a closer look at its efforts on the ground in Iraq. The AP probably shapes more readers’ views about what is happening in Iraq than any other organization, and its performance there remains abysmal.
Here’s one from the AP yesterday about a contested village north of Baquba. The story is all about failure. The failure to control this village. The failure of Iraqi forces to provide follow-on security in areas U.S. troops have cleared. It tells us, “Fleeing insurgents appear to be trying to capture more territory farther north in Diyala, where Iraqi security forces are fewer.”
It doesn’t say why. Because they have been run out of Baquba, after being run out of Baghdad and Anbar. The three-week operation to clear Baquba has been highly successful, with the loss of one soldier, according to Michael Yon. Can this possibly be true? One soldier killed in three weeks of what is routinely described as bitter fighting in Baquba, fighting that has run al-Qaeda out of the much-vaunted IED-saturated stronghold where al-Qaeda was executing people in the city square. How is that not a screaming headline?
Simmins at Terrorist Death Watch helpfully updates with the MNF-I press release on that village. Turns out it was a disaster. For al-Qaeda.
The AP elsewhere questions whether the focus on al-Qaeda is some kind of propaganda ploy designed to bolster the war in Iraq back home. That’s not what Iraqis are telling Yon. Hey, check this out: Yon took a photo of the AP’s Robert H. Reid in Baquba, there with every opportunity to see what Yon sees and speak to the ones he speaks to. But what does Reid report about al-Qaeda in Iraq? Success prompts failure:
Bergner said the U.S. command expected al-Qaida in Iraq fighters “to lash out and stage spectacular attacks to reassert themselves” after U.S. troops’ gains in their stronghold of Baqouba, located northeast of Baghdad.
A number of private security analysts have questioned the U.S. military’s emphasis on “al-Qaida in Iraq,” saying it is one of many Sunni and Shiite groups threatening Iraq’s stability. Some have suggested that the emphasis on al-Qaida is to link the fight in Iraq to the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks in the United States at a time when the American public is turning against the conflict.
But Bergner insisted “al-Qaida in Iraq” and its allies were the main focus because they were the “main accelerant in sectarian violence and the greatest source of these spectacular” suicide attacks “that are killing Iraqis in such large numbers.”
U.S. officials maintain that violence in Anbar province, long the focal point of the Sunni insurgency, dropped by 50 per cent after local Sunni tribes joined U.S. and Iraqi forces in fighting al-Qaida last year.
Words like “maintain” and “insist,” by the way, are often journalistic code for “I believe the speaker to be full of shit.” I don’t know if that’s the case here. I also don’t know who or where are the “private security analysts” to whom Reid refers. I take that to be journalistic code for “people I agree with.” I’m wondering where in Reid’s reportage I can find the people who live and fight in and around Baquba?
Here’s what Reid wrote when he was in Baquba a few days ago. He quotes exactly one person. Petraeus, whose tour he was accompanying.
The turning of the Sunni tribes against al-Qaeda is one of the great successes of the past year. What you will learn from reading the AP: Helping them is a bad idea. It will make things worse when we abandon them.
Here’s what could be a moderately useful article from a couple of weeks earlier. He spoke to a couple of other generals. It would appear they’re making great progress, because the concern isn’t whether they have managed to drive out al-Qaeda. It’s whether the Iraqi forces can hold the ground they take. The lede tells us to settle in for another Bush strategy failure. The key quote, the one that might help influence perceptions, the one that tells us this is a problem that might be successfully addressed by Congress, is gthe one that is left for last:
“A lesson learned is … do not draw down too quickly when we think there’s a glimmer of success,” Brig. Gen. Dana Pittard, a former battalion commander in Diyala, told reporters this week.
Pittard, who heads the day-to-day effort to train Iraqi security forces, estimated that it will take “a couple of years” before the Iraqis are ready to take full control of their own security.
So, the way to ensure American lives are not wasted is to show some commitment to people who are relying on us. One must be very patient and willing to slog through a lot of Bush-bashing to learn that.
Back to this question of comprehensive war coverage at such a critical time, and where the heck a concerned reader might find it.
It may be that some other prominent newspapers, the LA Times, the Chicago Trib, are doing it. If so, it hasn’t come my way and I’m sorry, but I don’t have the time to scroll through all of them. I can assure you the Boston Globe isn’t doing it. They pulled out of Baghdad years ago and have now shuttered all their foreign bureaus. My own paper has never had the resources to do more than parachute into foreign trouble spots for a couple of weeks or a couple of months at a time, and these days, we aren’t doing that any more. That may well be true of your local newspaper, too. Which makes the work of organizations like the Associated Press, the New York Times and the Washington Post that much more important.
So please let me know if you find it: An actual, meaningful, in-depth look at the execution of the counter-insurgency strategy in Iraq by someone who has taken the time to understand what its goals and methods are, and isn’t just interested in kicking the crap out of it from a distance. An effort to understand and report fairly on what may be the last chance to prevent a bloody humanitarian disaster on a scale not seen since Cambodia, quick, before the opportunity is thrown away.
I was going to wrap this rant up right there, but I read back over it and still can’t believe it. Our leading news organizations have chosen not to cover this war. They have provided no meaningful war coverage at this time, when it is the most burning issue of the day. It is absolutely stunning in its absence. A screaming vacuum. I wonder how it is this possible.
Do the Washington Post, the New York Times and the Associated Press really need someone like me to tell them how to report on what’s happening in Iraq? With cadres of news editors and phalanxes of reporters at their disposal, on the biggest story of our time they can’t figure out how to do more than the most superficial and distorted reporting. That’s pretty embarrassing. Are they going to fall back on that “it’s too dangerous to travel” thing? Their own people, like the NYT’s Chris Hedges liked to mock “war correspondents” who prefer press conferences to actual war. I don’t have much time for Chris Hedges, who decided to take a powder in the middle of the war against Islamic extremism to launch his own jihad against the true threat to western civilization … Christianity. But hotel vs. frontline war coverage is one thing he is right about.
Clearly, it’s possible to move around with troops and talk to locals. Yon is doing it. Roggio is doing it. With your support. News reporters have done it by the hundreds when they and their organizations chose to do it. I can’t think of a good reason why these leading news organizations are not doing it in large numbers. It is well-established that embedding is a practical, comparatively safe way to get unfiltered information. The critics, like Hedges back in 2003, have been shown to have grossly misjudged the goodwill of the United States military and the incredible access embedding provides.
Nor is there really any good excuse for not understanding the goals and methods of this strategy, for serious news reporters, editors, politicians and even everyday readers who want to.
So the question is, are these leading news organizations lazy, or stupid, or is it that they just don’t want to know?
Links:
Confederate Yankee: Uh, Jules, they’re doing it … make that not doing it … on purpose.
MVDG, re Friedman, with the damned-if-we-do view from Europe of precipitous withdrawal. Next step, Michael, talk your fellow Euros into stepping up to the plate. It’s a small world, after all. Michael continues operations on Friedman here.
Gateway: Dems like numbers. Here’s some.
Surber on the Byrd-Clinton Capitulation Plan. It’s a renege.
Ignatius at RCP: Bush may have broken it, but Congress owns it, too. There will be a warrant issued if the Dems try to bolt for the door now. How about we all sit down and work this out like grownups.
Tigerhawk and Dadmanly on wishful thinking.
Welcome Dr. Sanity’s Sunday loonies, Newsbusters, Pajamas, the Moderately Voiced, Gateway and ConfYank readers, etal. Related links: Dearly Departed. Premature Obit. But if, like me, you’ve had about as much of this nonsense as you can manage, take a breather, celebrate an ‘appy occasion with Mrs. bin Laden. Hey, what are those women doing in uniform! Feel the need to make a statement? Say it with (Islamic) Rage (Boy)!
New this weekend: Chickenjihadi, Latest Crusader Outrage, About Those Benchmarks.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 1:34 am on Thursday, July 12, 2007
52 Responses to “Lazy, Stupid or Willfully Ignorant?”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
rx pills online natural tenuate where to buy purchase levitra online cialis cheap Triarese ed pharmacy order diazepam visit your doctor online cheapest valium price buy viagra klipal mail order purchase xanax online female lorazepam cream which works better oxazepam or oxazepam women does zyban work cialis soft tabs women buy cheap viagra oils for female viagra female uk cialis buy discount levitra online uk levitra discount viagra soft tabs online porn movies mexico pharmacy generic viagra soft tabs generic levitra cheapest purchase cialis herbal cialis soft tabs drugstore canada online pharmacy viagra on line cialis natural levitra buy online pharmacy viagra cialis order best price for generic cialis soft tabs viagra soft tabs female opinion order viagra prescription
July 12th, 2007 at 1:47 am
It is a pressing issue today because the Senate is debating the FY2008 Defense bill today.
That bill has in it $96 billion for the Iraq war for next year.
I think the Senate would like a progress report on Iraq before they decide to hand over the check.
July 12th, 2007 at 2:55 am
The thing is alphie, it doesn’t seem like the Democrats care whats in the progress report. They’ve already made up their minds (I’ve lost count of how many times Harry Reid has declared the surge a failure).
They want to hurry up and declare defeat before the real progress report in September because they know it will show some significant military progress, and maybe even some mild political progress like the oil law etc…
And Jules, I wouldn’t be so hard on Lee Keath of the AP. He DID report today that that “contested village” north of Baquba has been retaken by Coalition and Iraqi forces.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6772331,00.html
…although he did bury the news in paragraph 13…
July 12th, 2007 at 4:07 am
Truly sickening.
I’ll pick willfully ignorant.
It is an absolute crime to keep these actual storis from the public. People would be fascinated to learn about counterinsurgency if it were made available to them. The MSM is sensoring the military progress.
Unfortunately, in today’s leftist college environment where courses on race and gender are pushed in excess students are starved for military history. Qualified teachers are rare but when course are offered they fill up immediately. The public would be greatly served to understand how are operations of “kinetic” and “non-kinetic” counterinsurgency fit into rebuilding Iraq. This is integral to understanding the forces that will shape the new century. And also to century’s past.
The AP (Associated with Terrorists Press) is a despicable operation. The stringers that have won pulitzers for them were surely associates of terrorists. Michelle Malkin has documented this flawlessly.
Here the AP tries to say that a suicide truck bomb was detonated in Baghdad with their headline.
Suicide bombings kills 73 people in Baghdad
(AP)
7 July 2007
TUZ KHORMATO, Iraq - A string of suicide bombings killed at least 73 people and wounded dozens in Shia villages north of Baghdad, including a large truck bombing Saturday that ripped through an outdoor market and buried victims in rubble, officials said.
Saturday’s blast, at around 8:30 am, destroyed several mud homes in the village of Armili, and victims had to be transported in farmers’ pickup trucks to the nearest health facility, in Tuz Khormato, 45 kilometers (27 miles) to the north, said Capt. Soran Ali of the Tuz Khormato police. Police said one man fled the truck before it detonated with another man still inside.
AS BILL ROGGIO NOTES:
Yet despite the location of the attacks, the Associated Press identified the attacks as occurring in Baghdad (See “Suicide bombings kills 73 people in Baghdad.”) Northern Salahadin and Diyala provinces quite distant from Baghdad.
July 12th, 2007 at 4:35 am
I don’t think the AP writes the actual headlines that their stories appear under in various newspapers that publish them, 4somecountrysfuture.
I think people like Jules do that.
July 12th, 2007 at 8:03 am
[…] Crittenden has a good post up, in which he wonders why the different media are not offering “an actual, meaningful, […]
July 12th, 2007 at 8:37 am
Why would we expect the media to do this job right when they are only interested in reporting on Paris or Britney from Hollywood.
They did a terrible job reporting the run up to the war and the job has continued with budget cuts and cuts in reporters overseas.
Like it or not, the security situation in Baghdad is such that not many reporters will venture outside the Green Zone and if they do they have to go with military units who do not necessarily take them where they need to go.
The truth is a slippery thing and most people on either side of the spectrum don’t really want to hear it. They already know all they need to form a permanent opinion and it’s not based on truth.
Moynihan said it best, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they’re not entitled to their own facts.”
Even if they do their jobs they will be accused of bias by whichever side has it’s truth challenged.
July 12th, 2007 at 8:43 am
It would appear to be all three (lazy, stupid, and willfully ignorant).
I have never paid much attention to local newspapers. They always seem to be full of bad writing, and it’s bad for your writing to read bad writing. Not to mention painful and annoying. For several years I took the Wall Street Journal, which had quite a bit of good writing. At the time I read it daily, the great Tom Petzinger was writing his column on small business, which led to his lovely book The New Pioneers. But as time went on I found that reading the Journal put me in a strange vicegrip of cognitive dissonance; the editorial pages seemed to be written from too far to my right while the news seemed to be written from too far to my left. Once I started reading blogs and got the hang of following links to learn more, it seemed like a much better way of getting information.
I live in the Boston area and I had no idea there were people like you, Mr. Crittenden, at the Herald. I find it heartening (if ironic ) that reading blogs has led me to realize that there are indeed newspaper people who are smart, good writers who care.
Longwinded self-absorbed comment leading to this: you ask us to tell you if we find it: “An actual, meaningful, in-depth look at the execution of the counter-insurgency strategy in Iraq by someone who has taken the time to understand what its goals and methods are… An effort to understand and report fairly on what may be the last chance to prevent a bloody humanitarian disaster on a scale not seen since Cambodia, quick, before the opportunity is thrown away.”
I find it here. And I thank you for your seriousness, your attention to what matters, your strong voice, your humor, and your wisdom. I thank you for caring and I thank you for your hard work.
It’s so easy to get discouraged. What’s hard is to keep one’s head, to press on with the mission of telling the truth as best one can, getting angry at what’s wrong in the world but using that anger to fuel something constructive. Like great writing about what matters.
Many, many people are noticing your work, Mr. Crittenden. We are hungry for it. The lame excuses of the panderers, the cowards, and the appeasers are increasingly being ignored and mocked, while the true stories and impassioned rants are being sought, and found on blogs like this one.
I just hit the paypal button, putting my money where my mouth is. Seems like the site gets a bit slow these days–all those hungry readers. Let’s pile on with the paypal and maybe our new favorite blogger will be able to upgrade his server. Mark my words, he’s gonna need it!
July 12th, 2007 at 8:55 am
One thing that I’ve found supremely ironic in the last 5 years or so is the constant refrain from the left side about administration and/or ‘neocon’ lies. Almost without exception, (and I’m being honest here using almost) the ‘lies’ are demonstrable truth clear enough in meaning or event that the left simply finds inconvenient to their interest. Spin it 180 degrees into convenient talking points and the lies become truth and the truth the lie.
Problem is, it works. Distort the meaning of words or events long enough and loud enough and people tend to accept it as truth. The left seems to be not just willing but eager to propagate as many lies as possible hoping they’ll take root as popular memes. We see practiced constantly here in these threads by jihad boy and a few others. It’s easy enough to dismiss the light weights like jihad boy and the rest of the ‘reality based community’ morons as the liars they are, but witnessing the constant assault of the more cunning and pervasive sort from the MSM and legislature as they pimp for the left does get discouraging sometimes.
July 12th, 2007 at 9:09 am
Mr. Tyme
If you insert ‘right’ where you have ‘left’, your comments would be equally valid.
Mr. Bush and the right has had it their way since we entered Iraq. They did it on the cheap, or so they hoped, and they did it incompetently.
Right now put in 50,000 more troops to secure more of the country and stop the infiltration of new fighters into the country and stop the exfiltration of fighters leaving Baghdad and then we can get something going on.
Alas, the political capital has been spent and so has the real capital and the troops are run down and their equipment is worn out from too many years on the line.
We squandered a great opportunity and to correct it would take better leadership than what is apparent.
July 12th, 2007 at 10:23 am
What I’m really trying to illustrate is the intentional manipulation of the truth by what is often quite subtle distortions. The article 4iraqisfuture cites is an example of that. The examples Jules gives are in the same vein where the distortions are accomplished by adroit word smithing.
You won’t get any argument from me over the battle in Iraq having been mismanaged. But you mention political capital, and that’s begs for clarification. The transnational progressive wing of the left set themselves against any resolution of terrorism or prosecution of the GWOT within a month or two after 9/11 that was not in accordance with trans-progressive diktat. This is spite on the fact that every prior attempt to manage US diplomacy under those rules when dealing with terrorism was not just a catastrophic failure - Iran, Arafat’s PLO, AlQ, etc etc - but perceived as accommodation through weakness. Many other power groups on the left aligned themselves with trans-progressivism to promote their own interests - pure BDS, myoptic political oneupmanship, 90s type angst., what have you - and many of those power groups have taken there own road since, but that was the start of it. Political capital was being spent prolifically in the battle with trans-progressivism long before the battle in Iraq. Coalition building and UN appeasement cost a lot more than just time.
If one takes the view that available political capital during a war is part of the military logistics equation, then this administration actually exhausted it’s political capital on one front against a fifth-column made up of State, the MSM, and the rabid left, with nothing left to send to the other fronts in the war.
What needs to be stressed when considering the exhaustion of political capital in the GWOT is what it says about the agendas of the power groups that demanded it be spent on resisting them and what that in turn says about the outcome of the war they’re not just willing to accept, but actively work to promote..
July 12th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Jim, as a supporter of the war in Iraq, it’s hard to quibble with what you’ve written. Yet it does nothing in the way of suggesting a forward plan. Any thoughts on that?
July 12th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Jeffersonian
Just what I said, if Bush thinks he now has the plan, then damn them all and do it. It’s time to see the threat and deal with it and in some way articulate it to the people. I’m pretty liberal, domestically, and I see the threat. I’ve seen just what happens when you don’t stand and fight. Reagan in Lebanon, George H.W. Bush and Clinton in Somalia, Clinton in Afghanistan and on and on. Iraq will be the mother of all debacles if we pull out like this.
The American people must feel like they are in a war. Bush rallied the people after 9/11 by telling them to go shopping. Good grief.
Start rebuilding and increasing the size of the military. Stop buying Cold War hardware and prepare for wars of insurgency.
There is no way forward in Iraq without more troops.
Mr. Tyme
I’m sorry but I don’t know what you’re talking about. Mr. Bush and the right has had it all for the last six years and has failed across the board. Before this war is over he will have spent $1 trillion dollars and now they say al Qaeda is stronger than ever.
Those helicopters aren’t black.
July 12th, 2007 at 11:01 am
[…] 12th, 2007 by mvdg Jules Crittenden has a good post up, in which he wonders why the different media are not offering “an actual, meaningful, […]
July 12th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Who says al Qaeda is stronger than ever?
July 12th, 2007 at 11:04 am
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19717961/site/newsweek/
The new NIE is out today. This is tone source.
July 12th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Web Reconnaissance for 07/12/2007
A short recon of whats out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
July 12th, 2007 at 11:27 am
[…] Jules Crittenden looks at the coverage of the Surge and asks, “Lazy, Stupid or Willfully Ignorant?” […]
July 12th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Jim,
“Right now put in 50,000 more troops”
The active Army has a total of 42 combat brigades(up from 33 in 2003). 21 are currently either in Iraq or Afghanistan. 50,000 “Outside the wire” type troops would be another 12 Combat Brigades. The only way to get 50,000 more “outside the wire” troops is to either go to “For the duration” deployments or a draft. I think the draft idea got all of 2 votes in congress.
To sustain the ’surge’ past April ‘08 means reaching deep into the National Guard.
Gee, I wonder why Lugar is calling for a reduction in force before April…could it be that the Indiana National Guard is scheduled to deploy in April ‘08?
The Republican Senator from Ohio has become the latest to join the Draw Down Now crowd….the Ohio National Guard is scheduled to deploy in early ‘08 as well.
What happened when the Army, in an act of political blindness sent the Pennsylvania National Guard to Ramadi? The Senior Congressmen from Pennsylvania, Jack Murtha became a poster child for the anti-war crowd didn’t he?
Bush blew his political capital going deep into the Reserves and National Guard in order to transform the Army from 33 to 42 Combat Brigades.
July 12th, 2007 at 11:46 am
‘I’m sorry but I don’t know what you’re talking about.’
I know.
Succinctly, you have at best an incomplete picture of the purpose and utilization of political capital during wartime. Talking about exhausting political capital as if it was frittered away is simplistic and myopic and at odds with your statement that the right has had it all for the last six years. The right has not had it all their way for the last six years and the political capital you first mentioned has spent every day of the those 6 years fighting a very powerful coalition. That coalition is aligned on the other side in a battle just as important to the outcome of the GWOT as the military battle in Iraq.
Taking it further, your solution in in response to jeffersonian’s query is not a solution and does not addresse the problem the thread’s post is highlighting. It’s called throwing more monkeys of different colors at a problem. The military has their end covered in this war and that includes the battle in Iraq now that the management of that particular battle is on the right track and they know it. What they need to win is the time to utilize what they have in place, not a change in the force equation that won’t pay off for 5 years. If we lose the war, it’ll be because we lost the a different battle to a coalition of forces that has no intention of giving the military that time.
My answer to jeffersonian’s question, though he didn’t ask it of me, is that as much support needs to be thrown at resisting that coalition as possible domestically to buy the 6-9 months the military needs. And Bush knows it.
July 12th, 2007 at 11:56 am
President Bush has done more to fight Islamic terrorists than all the administrations that preceded his put together (by far), and he’s done it in the face of endless opposition by the Democrat Party (Party o’ Traitors), our so-called allies (like the French), most of the media, and the scum of the earth on the left side of the political spectrum as embodied by human fecal matter like Cindy Sheehan or Noam Chomsky.
Thanks to President Bush, two state sponsors of terrorism have been crushingly defeated, tens of thousands of Baathists and Talibaners have been killed or captured, as well as thousands of their terrorist auxilliaries, including famous terrorists like Abu Abbas, who used to be able to kill Americans (and other folks) with impunity, and then run back home to safe bases in Iraq to plan their next terrorist attack.
Not anymore, ’cause that old boy is permanently dead.
Good work, President Bush. There’s a lot more needs doing, but you got the ball rolling.
July 12th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Soldiers Dad
I do know that, but that’s what I would have done up front. I would have followed the advice of the military before we went into this war and made sure the plan was in place. You shouldn’t expect our men to police a country of 25,000,000 people with only 132,000. The work the military has been asked to do and then accomplish is incredible.
Our military is in bad shape and will take years to make it right.
Mr. Tyme what is there that Bush wanted to do that he did not have the power to do.
He lost this war with his total incompetence and 6-9 months will just delay the inevitable. This is a disaster and to place that blame on anyone but Bush is just flat out wrong. He has had a blank check and the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq is now worse than it was on 9/10. Live with it.
July 12th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
“This is a disaster…”
Yeah, for guys like Saddam Hussein, and America-hating leftist traitors.
Big win for decent people.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
[…] Jules Crittendon. Along with Dem talking point mouthpieces WaPo and the NYT, he particularly scewers the AP: But […]
July 12th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
‘He lost this war with his total incompetence and 6-9 months will just delay the inevitable. This is a disaster and to place that blame on anyone but Bush is just flat out wrong. He has had a blank check and the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq is now worse than it was on 9/10.’
Several observations to be made here.
Iraq is a battle, or more precisely a campaign in the global war on terror, not the war itself. Ditto Afghanistan. Campaigns prosecute overall strategy. They aren’t the strategy itself nor does their success or failure dictate strategy or changes in strategy. This is not nit-picking either. It’s vitally important to understand this. There are and have been other campaigns and strategic initatives in this war that are not as amenable to MSM sound bites and so ignored (the ostensible crippling of part of the anti-terrorism financial campaign by the NYTs being one of several exceptions to that).
The overall global strategy of the US for fighting the GWOT was laid out in a policy speech given by Bush in the fall of 2001. Someone else stressed this on another blog a couple of years back, and I looked it up (didn’t make enough impact on me at the time it was given I guess). Bush has not deviated from that policy except in adapting it to coalescing issues that weren’t anticipated at the time. It hasn’t failed and you can’t use metrics from 9/10/01 to assess the failure or success of resisting, containing, and defeating terrorism when US policy radically changed after 9/11/01.
Iraq and Afghanistan are not failures according to current US policy on terrorism but rather already successes. The situations in the two countries today are far better, not worse, using the metrics that necessarily fall out of the global strategy on fighting the WOT the post-9/11 US policy requires. This is where you trip up along with a great many other people. The question is not whether Iraq and Afghanistan represent successful strategic initiatives - they do - but whether that success can maintained without unsustainable US involvement.
Look up that speech. It was given to a joint session of congress on 9/21/01. One thing it makes very clear. The US strategy on combating terrorism laid out in that speech has us in it for the long haul. Bush’s domestic opponents for reasons of ignorance or vested interest require that US policy be proven unworkable in order to lose the GWOT on Bushes watch. The way they do this is to recast US policy in an ongoing effort to morph it into something they can point to as having been a failure all along.
AlQ, Iran, Syria and others understand this and appreciate the alliance with the US fifth column. Their strategy is not to defeat the US militarily - they haven’t a chance of that singly or in concert by direct force or terrorist attacks against the military - but to keep the US engaged long enough for it’s domestic opponents to shift the perception of what constitutes long term success in favor of the perception of short term failure. With all due respect, you’re doing the same thing though coming from a different direction.
To be very blunt, I consider politicians like Pelosi, Ried, and a bootfull of others nothing more or less than traitors because they DO understand US policy and are willing and working to see it fail for partisan political gain no matter the long term cost to US lives and interests.
July 12th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
The fact that AlQaida is said to be regrouping in its hidey hole on the Pakistan Afghanistan border does not mean it is stronger than ever. These people are not going to just go away overnight.
As for Bush’s socalled incompetence…I think he has accomplished a great deal considering what he has had to contend with. The fact that people who may or may not be able to balance their checkbooks and match their socks feel differently really does not mean a hell of a lot.
One thing about the internet, it has given the arm chair generals etc a new and better place to strut their stuff.
I don’t care if it is Malkin on the right raising hell about Dubai when she obviously has no experience or knowledge of port terminals or Kos on the left yammering away about American imperialism, it has given all sorts of people a forum.
That can be good or bad. Overall the reporting on the war has been biased and agenda driven.
July 12th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
By the way:
That ‘bootfull of others’ I mentioned at the end of my last comment are mostly aligned on the left, but it includes plenty of far right enablers.
July 12th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
People have problems with scale. Things that are very small, very large, very slow, very fast, or very complex don’t fit well into our norms. It is simpler (or lazier perhaps) to force issues into a scale that we are more comfortable with. This is why sound bytes are so powerful and prevalent. They are (dangerously) easier to get your head around.
If you refocus your view, you’ll see our enemy stretching in a boad crescent from North Africa to southeast Asia. Smack in the middle of that you have spiritual (Saudi) and operational (Iran) centers of gravity. From this view I see a brilliant pincer movement that has surrounded the operational center, seperated it from the spiritual center and isolated its storm troopers (AQ).
We did all this with an astounding lack of casulties in a very short time. That doesn’t look like a failure at all. In fact if I was a leader in Iran I’d be doing all manner of wild things to get out of the pincer. Guess what? That;’s what’s going on!
Any honest assessment would grade this a smashing but incomplete success.
July 12th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
PB,
Generally, when you find yourself surrounded by enemies, it’s call a….trap.
July 12th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Thank you OldManTyme for your posts. I agree, and have agreed for some time, with what you say. Your delineation of the forces from within arrayed against the country are spot on. Most people have no clear conception of Transnational Progressivism, nor by what methods they have taken over the most important institutions in the country. Many recognize the dangers of multiculturalism and PC thought control, but do not understand what is behind those atrocities perpetrated against life and liberty because they no longer think in terms of principles because they consider reality to be subjective–which is itself a result of the philosophy behind Transnational Progressivism and is taught in virtually every school in the land. We have very deep problems in this country that go beyond this war, but which may not be resolved because these same problems are the ones which have disarmed us in the battle against Islamism in the first place (something that was not lost on an enemy which has studied us for years and understood that we were disarming ourselves–the enemy are savages, but not stupid).
There are areas, however, where Bush has breached his own stated principles and given in to those within our government with a pathological attachment to the disastrous “road map” (especially at State) in dealing with Palestinian “statehood”, and put us on the wrong side in the various proxy wars being fought by Iran and Syria, not to mention our continued policies dealing with Saudi Arabia. (There is another front being ignored besides that being fought against our efforts in the various theaters of battle around the world: the continued radicalization of our own Muslims via the successful efforts of Saudi Wahabbists infiltration into the various Muslim communities in the U.S.) Bush is now dealing with terrorists all over the world, from Abbas and Iran to the excretable Brotherhood. This undermines his own position as stated in the speech you talk about (which he did right off the bat by allying himself to the likes of CAIR, and other dubious Muslim entities, from the beginning). Nor has the administration made the ultimate goal of all the various factions among Islamists clear to the American people so that they might understand just what it is we are fighting. These are not inconsequential mistakes on his part.
Having said that, I will admit that I wouldn’t want to be in his shoes for anything. I don’t know how anyone in politics today could fight off, not only an avowed enemy attacking us, but also the forces within our own government who are aligned with that enemy.
July 12th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
I apologize for the many strained expressions and otherwise gross mistakes in basic grammar in the above. I simply have no time to edit.
July 12th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
‘…they consider reality to be subjective–which is itself a result of the philosophy behind Transnational Progressivism…’
Not just reality as subjective - there’s a reason that ‘reality based community’ was embraced so fervently by a left oblivious to the irony - but morality and ethics as subjective. And that’s far more insidious in application and dangerous in consequence. Twisted and spun reality merely sets the stage.
‘There are areas, however, where Bush has breached his own stated principles…’
I don’t completely agree with this. I believe he has stuck to both his principles and his plan. But no one will ever get any argument from me that he failed to communicate both over and over again as was and is necessarily required to counteract the spin. Nor will anyone find me disagreeing that he accommodated too many disparate power groups with conflicting agendas including CAIR, Riyadh, and the two ivory tower bastions of trans-progressivism, academia and the UN.
Mistakes were and are being made in the execution and management of what I still think is the right US policy. None of them are irrecoverable mistakes. But they do provide grist for the opposition’s mill.
jihad boy Alphie - the dynamics of the US policy and military strategy of the GWOT is a subject that you’ve proven over and over again you’re not capable of understanding by nature, inclination, or intelligence. Non-sequitor asininity in a discussion like this, especially when motivated by your desire to align yourself with the fifth column coalition exposed by the thread’s post, just makes you appear even more the inane liar than usual - which I wouldn’t have even thought possible.
July 12th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
I think the press/left is scared of being victims of the bully (alQ), and thus must ally with the bully to protect itself from retribution.
July 12th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Alphie, a note on military strategy. Advancing on and crushing the center is a good thing. Sun-Tzu and Clausewitz (to name the obvious ones) could tell you that, or you could just read some military history. Or even play chess.
OldManTyme, well put throughout. Great insights that I hadn’t quite wrapped my head around.
July 12th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
“Advancing on and crushing the center is a good thing.”
Especially when you’re eating an Oreo.
July 12th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
Great piece Jules. I have an answer for your question. All of the above. I’d also like to ad biased and arrogant though.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:13 am
Ignant,
Sun-Tsu’s side lost their war.
Something for the chickenhawks to consider before quoting him.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:25 am
Quoting OldManTyme:
“Not just reality as subjective - there’s a reason that ‘reality based community’ was embraced so fervently by a left oblivious to the irony - but morality and ethics as subjective. And that’s far more insidious in application and dangerous in consequence.”
The subjectivist metaphysics is ultimately Kantian; i.e., one cannot know actual reality, only its affects on us. This leads to a subjectivist epistemology that states that no one can know “reality as it really is,” and the best we can do is trust the judgment of the collective mind. Of course, there is no such thing. The “collective mind” is always defined by some individual, or by a group of individuals (since there is no actual collective, but only individuals). A subjectivist metaphysics and epistemology can only lead to subjectivist ethics, and just as the subjectivist reality is defined by individuals, and knowledge of reality, subjectivist or otherwise, can only be had by individuals, so subjectivist ethics are so defined.
While all cultures and moralities are to be tolerated by the subjectivist ethics defined by Trans-progressives, Western culture and morality is not only exempt, but distinctly not to be tolerated. Indeed, Western Civilization is uniquely seen as evil beyond all other cultures. This defines what is evil in their ethics. But what defines the good?
When all the rhetorical gymnastics are swept away, we find that the good consists of the self-sacrifice of Western Civilization to the value of “toleration.” To a thinking mind, the question immediately arises: toleration of what. The only answer they give is: other cultures. This is a blank-check on the sacrifice of values. There are many who want to claim the check, but we can see just who is most successful right now filling out the check, and for what amount.
You are right to point to the universities and the UN. It is the philosophy taught in our universities that makes the continued evil that is the UN possible. In fact, it is the philosophy taught in our universities that make all the rest possible. You cannot negate Reality and Reason with impunity.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:29 am
Oops. Messed up on the emphasis. Sorry about that.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:43 am
[…] Yet, there’s nobody there to report it. Jules Crittenden, journalist/blogger, says this in a comprehensive, forceful, must-read post: So please let me know if you find it: An actual, meaningful, in-depth look at the execution of the […]
July 13th, 2007 at 2:18 am
saltydog,
Wow.
jihad boy,
You’re lying again. Sun-Tzu won his war.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:25 am
Just like we’ve “won” Iraq, Oldman?
I didn’t know rose colored glasses could see so far back in time…
July 13th, 2007 at 3:03 am
“Wow.
“jihad boy, You’re lying again. Sun-Tzu won his war.”
I can hardly wait for the leftard to start his lecture on the war between Wu and Chu, and who REALLY won.
Wake me when it’s over.
July 13th, 2007 at 4:38 am
What happened to Wu in the end?
Bueller, Beuller?
July 13th, 2007 at 9:30 am
‘I can hardly wait for the leftard to start his lecture on the war between Wu and Chu, and who REALLY won.’
The Russians if he stays true to form.
July 13th, 2007 at 11:10 am
The ant (AKA jihad boy, AKA Alphtard) doesn’t lecture. That would involve actual work. He just spews unintegrated and disintegrated bits of information.
Have you ever noticed that the number one victim never states what he is a victim of? Frontal-lobe dementia, perhaps?
July 13th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
salty,
The first victim of war is truth…get it?
Or is that too subtle for ya?
July 13th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
And you are truth? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
The eponym beside “first victim” isn’t an instance of subtlety, but does display your usual ham-fisted approach to every subject, as well as exposing your general lack of nuance and ability to finesse the English language.
July 13th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Truth died on 9/12, salty.
I’m beauty.
July 15th, 2007 at 5:51 am
“Right now, all the talk in DC is whether there has been any progress in Iraq. No one can wait till September.”
Good thing these guys weren’t around during the wars against the Indian tribes. They probably would have demanded that we pack it in about 1780, and head back to Europe (God forbid) due to lack of prgress.
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:38 pm
The hotel journalists covering the war in Iraq by staffing the press conferences in the Green Zone and hiring Al Queda stringers are doing the country a disservice. But what’s new? After the great naval triumph at Midway Island following Pearl Harbor, the Chicago Tribune said it was thanks to our ability to read Japanese naval codes. The people involved would have been arrested for treason except the administration, rightly assuming theJaps didn’t read the Tribune, didn’t want to alert them.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
[…] call terrorists and murderers “Mr.” Supposedly the pinnacle of my profession. Never mind the shoddy reporting and shameful editorial positions. It’s hard to pinpoint any one thing, but all the ass-kissing […]
February 6th, 2008 at 11:27 am
[…] thing here, a series worth sticking with. This is another critical arena in which our media, in its woefully inadequate coverage of this war, has been woefully inadequate in its […]