NYT Surges
NYT finally attempts some serious war reporting, surging into Baghdad.
NYT’s conclusion: “Modest security gains,” ”progress has been made,” “tenuous.” But that is not what this article is about, so that is dispensed quickly with a couple of statements and statistics as correspondents swandive into the anecdotal evidence.
Sectarian hatred entrenched, fear and discouragement prevalent, war will always be hard, progress always tenuous. Progress in Anbar, elsewhere, is dismissed as a stageset for Bush’s political stunt, because surge was supposed to be about Baghdad. Given that has been an undeniable success, it is also presented as a problem that may have dramatically reduced violence at the cost of possibly, someday, producing a risk of violence. In the event that we backtrack on economic development and abandon the Sunni tribes.
It remains to be seen whether NYT’s own surge into Baghdad will be successful. It is clear NYT’s counter-Bushsurgency strategy will give cover to those who seek to undercut the uncomfortable facts of military progress in Iraq in the coming weeks. As with Bush’s surge last January, NYT today senses a last chance to influence events in a changing political environment.
I have to say, though, if I was heading the newsroom of a leading national newspaper with a sordid history of ignoring genocide and a more recent editorial statement of preference for genocide, I’d be extremely uncomfortable about the potential for enabling genocide with exercises in “yeah but” journalism, nitpicking a difficult work in progress that has, in fact, had dramatic results.
(NYT ed board’s latest, meanwhile, is an attack on the messenger. Claims Dems started backpedaling on withdrawal push in reaction to token Bush pullout hints. In fact, Dems are backpedalling in response to growing evidence of military success, their own plummeting poll numbers, and growing American support for victory. Buying into Bush’s line, whatever it might actually be, will be “political cowardice.” Genocide not only preferred, but expected as a matter of priniciple.)
Anyway, allow me to nitpick a little myself. NYT surge failure frontpager highlights bragging by terrorist thugs, followed by what are presented as U.S. admissions of failure:
A recent American report concluded that Mahdi Army leaders in Shula enjoy “freedom of movement” in part “because of a lack of permanent CF presence,” referring to coalition forces.
Hey, I have an answer to that. More troops, killing Shite militia thugs, as we have seen periodicially. However,
Many Iraqis, Captain Feese said, hesitate to work closely with the Americans because “they know I’m going home.”
Third-worlders who have no faith in America’s staying power, willingness to live up to commitments? Where’d they get that idea?
The thousands of Sunnis trying to join the Iraqi forces include 15 backsliders identified at al-Qaeda. Those Sunnis are self-interested. And,
Almost all predict an intensified civil war once the Americans leave. “We will fight the government until the very last bullet,” threatened one, before dashing inside to try to join it.
Sahar Naeem Suleiman, 27, went further. “If we get into the Iraqi police we can move to Mahmudiya and Yusufiya and south Baghdad to free them and kill all the militias.”
The first guy predicts violence against the current Shiite-dominated government if Iraq is abandoned by the United States. So do I. Sahar, however, sounds more to me like he’s on board with the program than NYT suggests. I thought freeing Iraq from militia thugs was the idea.
Col. Michael Kershaw, commander of the Second Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, denied that the United States was simply arming one side for future conflicts in Iraq, saying that wider factors were at work.
“Are they playing us?” he said. “To some extent we are all playing each other, right? Everybody’s self-interest is at the center.”
“Somewhere they made a political decision that Al Qaeda does not meet their self-interest,” he added. “All Iraqis see that the United States’ time here is numbered. There is a finite amount of time the United States is going to stay here and do this, and they are going to have to figure this out eventually on their own.”
Anyway, it goes on. If violence over all is down, surge successes in one area can be dismissed by the displacement of violence to other areas, and the skepticism of people who keep saying the same thing. Here’s a Sunni in Dora who hates the Shiite-dominated government:
“If you ask anyone in Dora, ‘Do you prefer an American soldier or someone belonging to the Mahdi Army or the Badr Brigades?’ they will say ‘Leave the American and kill the other.’ Because the Americans will leave Iraq but the other people are staying with us.”
Sign that guy up to kill militia thugs for the government, and bring him in to testify to Congress.
Coup de grace is the kicker from a cynical U.S. sergeant dealing with Shiite-dominated Iraqi police.
Asked if things have improved since then, he shook his head emphatically.
“No, they are the same,” he said. “It’s bad and it’s not going to get better. We’re not going to make a difference, not in the short term. Maybe if we stayed here forever.”
And there you have it. It’s hopeless. After all, we know from the experience of Northern Ireland and Bosnia that it is impossible to stop ethnic and sectarian violence. Fighting and dying to bring stability to some of the world’s most critical, problematic real estate, not worth it. These people are animals. They will never live peacefully with each other. Abandonment, genocide preferred.
Lest anyone suspect I have set ideas on the biases and poor war coverage of our major news organizations, let me assure you, I do:
Lazy, Stupid or Willfully Ignorant and Dumpster Diving for Hidden Treasures
Particularly in contrast to the efforts of PayPal-financed blogging freelancers and Germans.
Sprechen Sie Deutsches Mit Einer Tauben Welt, and More Yon
But, for a better understanding of the complex relationship between media and politics, just go straight to the Rock Garden Press Conference.
What? Call me a troglodye, will you!?!
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 9:51 am Comments (13) on Sunday, September 9, 2007
13 Responses to “NYT Surges”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
September 9th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Don’t read the NYTimes. They are completely predictable and are bad for your blood pressure.
September 9th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
To study the full effects of the troop increase at ground level, reporters for The New York Times repeatedly visited at least 20 neighborhoods in Baghdad and its surrounding belts, interviewing more than 150 residents, in addition to members of sectarian militias, Americans patrolling the city and Iraqi officials.
And yet, failed to note that they were able to do this without being shot at.
Staying true to the narrative to the bitter end.
September 9th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
I see from the list of “journalists” at the bottom of their story that they’re still leaning HEAVILY on “stringers”. I also see a striking lack of facts in their string of anecdotes. I second Jules’ comment, that this was apparently done to help the Dems in their quest for failure more than as an evenhanded attempt to explain the current situation to the homeside crowd. This is just more of the same old Green Zone Snipers working on a self-serving, petty little power play.
September 9th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
So the Iraqi’s that we’ve been fighting in Anbar for the past 4 years, the ones that have been called “The Terrorists”, are now our friends??? What happened to not negotiating with Terrorists?
And I guess I should point out that one of the reasons some are claiming that violence is down, is because we are now very, very selective as to what we consider violence.
If someone is found dead shot in the front of the head, we don’t count it. If it’s Sunni on Sunni, or Shiite on Shiite violence, we don’t count it either.
Every summer, when temperatures hit 130 degrees, violence goes down in Iraq, and also during Ramadan. And this year is no different; but compared to the same period last year, and using last years counting methodology, violence is actually higher.
September 9th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
NYT is not going to find improvement with the surge, ever. Now the Democratic meme (in Congress and foisted by lefty blogs like FDL) is that Petraeus will lie to Congress.
Sometimes I just want to smack these knuckleheads upside the head!
September 9th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
The iraqi civilian death toll for August was a shade over 1800.This was the second highest since the Surge began in March.If this surge is working then why is the death rate increasing instead of declining? A question which I would like the answer to from those who tout the Surge
September 10th, 2007 at 12:18 am
Fugazi, maybe because they are killing the terrorists and terrorist sympathizers?
September 10th, 2007 at 12:34 am
Fugazi – So, you do not care about the 500 defenseless Yasidi killed by Al Qaeda except infofar as their deaths can be used to inflate the monthly death toll and declare the surge a failure? You believe we should, in effect, tell Al Qaeda that the more defenseless civilians they can slaughter, the more likely we will be to turn tail and run? Without that one attack, the monthly death toll in Iraq shows the same steady decline it has for months.
How do people like you sleep at night and, how do you keep from retching your guts up when you look in the mirror in the morning?
September 10th, 2007 at 9:56 am
“Sprechen”, nicht “Sprachen”, bitte.
It has also been noted that, contrary to all expectation, increasing enemy contact and exposing troops to public interaction 24/7 (nearly) CUT American KIA almost in half. Who’da thunk?
As for troop morale, one embedded writer noted that Petraeus has “filled the air with leadership pheromones”, and that soldiers get up in the morning knowing their day will contribute materially to a succeeding project. Hard to beat that to make life worth living.
All outrageous for the Democrats determined to support the military by keeping it away from all that nasty military activity, of course.
September 10th, 2007 at 10:58 am
[...] “But there are undercurrents.” Ah yes, the New York Times. When the news is good, it’s all about the undercurrents. HT: Jules Crittenden [...]
September 10th, 2007 at 11:54 am
[...] yet, spin, spin, spin your way to victory. Or defeat. Depending on whose side you’re actually on. Just remember not to sound too much [...]
September 10th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Thank you Brian. That was my typing, not my Heinrichsprache.
September 10th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
An interesting piece I read somewhere lately said the Western media’s use of Sunni translators and handlers has left our understanding of the war dependent on their filtering. That’s reflected in everything the NYTimes writes.