PDA

View Full Version : OT: I know better, but ... OPINION: What Is Really Happening In Iraq?


Fritz
07-22-2003, 07:33 AM
http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTIW.HTM

INFORMATION WARFARE: What Is Really Happening In Iraq?

July 21, 2003: What is really happening in Iraq? The media make it sound like another Vietnam is developing, with the Iraqi population sliding towards mass resistance as Iraqi society collapses in violent anarchy. But the reality is a lot different. Attacks on coalition troops are declining, the availability of public services is increasing and public opinion towards the coalition becomes more favorable each day. The gunmen who are attacking coalition troops are being hunted down and arrested, and huge arms caches found and destroyed.

Actually, all of those trends ARE reported, but are buried in the far more numerous gloom and doom reports. This unsavory situation has developed for the usual reasons; bad news attracts more eyeballs than good news. And the news business is all about being a better eyeball magnet. Mass media has operated on this principle for over a century, or about as long as there has been mass media. Along they way, mass media moguls have invented the phantom crime wave (by simply reporting all the normal crime and dubbing it a crime wave), started wars (the Spanish-American War) and stopped them (Vietnam). The mass media have also given us vapid celebrities, sensational (but meaningless) trials and great success at combining "how low can you go" with "can you top this." From a marketing point of view, it works. But as a means of delivering timely, accurate news, it doesn't.

Much of the current reporting on Iraq warps the public perception of the past, as well as the present. The media plays down the fact that resistance from Sunni Arabs was widely discussed in the Pentagon before the war. But that wasn't a sexy story then, even though it is now. The coalition policing efforts have taken nearly a quarter million AK-47s off the streets, as well as huge quantities of RPGs, explosives and other weapons. Again, not interesting enough for prime time. Hundreds of Baath Party members have been arrested, including many senior people. Again, this is considered minor stuff. Every day, more neighborhoods get police and other services. But the reporting still tends to distort in favor of potential disasters that never seem to arrive. For example, power outages in Baghdad are an easy story on a slow news day. Rarely is it pointed out that Baghdad never had enough locally generated power to keep the lights on all the time. But as long as Saddam was in power, other parts of the country had their juice diverted to keep Baghdad lit. This meant Shiites and Kurds were left in the darkness so that Baghdad could sparkle. No more. Each part of Iraq is expected to take care of its own electrical needs now. Imagine the firestorm of protest if the old policies were continued in order to deprive the media of "Baghdad is dark" stories.

A lot of the "combat" is now taking place in the shadows. Special Forces, Delta Force and SEALs are doing what they've been doing since before the war began; sorting out the Iraqi underground. This mélange of criminals, Saddam's secret police and various Baath Party big shots (including Saddam and his sons) terrorized and plundered Iraq and are trying to get back to the good old days now that the war's over. While it was widely reported that the Baath Party stalwarts and secret police were fleeing from the south and north to Baghdad during the war, few journalists asked the question; "where are these guys doing now." Technically, the ones who were on the government payroll are now unemployed. But this is where reporting, real investigative reporting, gets tough. The Special Forces are a notoriously tight mouthed bunch. Same with Delta and the SEALs. These troops have been chasing the bad guys, but aren't talking. And for good reason, as these fellows rely on surprise and superior information to obtain a lifesaving edge in combat. They don't talk because they want to survive their next encounter with the bad guys. However, it's no secret that few of the many intelligence units were sent home. The intel troops are now working on tracking down Saddam's unemployed thugs. The Iraqi opposition has no doubt learned that it is very risky to use any form of electronic communication. Meanwhile, the Special Forces and military intelligence troops have been creating a growing network of informers and anti-Saddam Iraqis. This has forced most of Saddam's supporters in the north and south to either flee or keep their heads down. But in Baghdad, the center of support for the Baath Party's dictatorship, there are still many true believers who want to get back on the gravy train, or at least draw government paycheck again.

An intrepid reporter could have discovered that the Pentagon knew all about the political, ethnic and religious complexities of Iraq. Numerous PowerPoint briefings on the subject have circulated in Washington for over a decade. SOCOM (Special Operations Command) has more Civil Affairs troops than it does Special Forces. And that's no accident. Special Forces has been practicing, for over half a century, to deal with what is happening in Iraq today. If you could get one to talk, they would tell you that they knew what was going to happen and they are on top of it.

The Special Forces doesn't allow embedded reporters and usually operates at night. These practices do not encourage journalists to go after the story. Indeed, the story of Special Forces in Afghanistan two years ago has yet to be told. There, less than 200 Special Forces troops, working with the Northern Alliance, were all that it took to run the Taliban out of power. Iraq is not Afghanistan, but the Special Forces have studied both countries for decades and have a good idea of who is who, what is what and how it's all going to turn out. And then there's the tendency of Special Forces troops to halt journalists at gunpoint when the reporters get too close to an underway operation. Still, there are more accurate and newsworthy stories out there than those that try to turn Saddam's thugs into victims.

NoMyths
07-22-2003, 08:29 AM
hehe...an interesting editorial, but...

"What is really happening in Iraq? The media make it sound like another Vietnam is developing, with the Iraqi population sliding towards mass resistance as Iraqi society collapses in violent anarchy. But the reality is a lot different."

Not sure the word of the "How to Make War" website--esp. without citing any sources--is unbiased enough for my taste. :)

Drake
07-22-2003, 08:38 AM
Nice article, Fritz!

Drake
07-22-2003, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by NoMyths
hehe...an interesting editorial, but...

"What is really happening in Iraq? The media make it sound like another Vietnam is developing, with the Iraqi population sliding towards mass resistance as Iraqi society collapses in violent anarchy. But the reality is a lot different."

Not sure the word of the "How to Make War" website--esp. without citing any sources--is unbiased enough for my taste. :)

Probably about as unbiased as your average "if it bleeds, it leads" news organization. ;)

NoMyths
07-22-2003, 08:48 AM
I'd take pretty much any major news organization's reporting over the evidence-free opinion of some random guy with a webpage just about any day of the week. :)

I mean, really: "Special Forces has been practicing, for over half a century, to deal with what is happening in Iraq today. If you could get one to talk, they would tell you that they knew what was going to happen and they are on top of it."

Half a century, eh? Guess they should have practiced some Vietnam stuff too. ;)

Fritz
07-22-2003, 08:50 AM
from their "about page"

StrategyPage provides quick, easy access to what is going on in military affairs. We cover armed forces world wide, as well as up to date reporting on wars and hotspots wherever they may be. All the news you need, written so that it fits into the time you have for it. The information is organized logically, with categories for different weapons systems (armor, artillery, naval aviation, etc.). We also cover the software of war, often ignored items like leadership, peacetime operations, intelligence, information warfare and the like. And we keep the information online, with archives going back to the early 1980s. A search capability gives you quick access to whatever you need. We put it all in context with military history, maps, country background and useful links.

---

NOTE ON SOURCES: StrategyPage makes use of a wide variety of news and information sources. Even in this age of the internet wire services remain the frontline of reporting. Reuters, AP, and UPI are key sources for breaking news. Agence France Press (AFP) does a particularly fine job covering Africa (and given France's deep involvement in west and central Africa, that focus should follow). StrategyPage also draws on several web-based sources. For example, the Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR)does a bang up job on the Balkans. Radio Free Europe's (RFE) various web updates (which cover stories RFE broadcasts) do the same for eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. The Economist definitely leads the news magazines on quality of international coverage. StrategyPage mines the "defense and military" press, Janes, Army, Parameters, Armed Forces Journal - that list goes on to include several nation-specific publications from non-NATO states. When it comes to air and missile tech, Aviation Week is still Aviation Leak. The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, The Sunday London Times, and other major international newspapers occasionally provide good leads on military issues. The Washington Times military reporting is very useful, as is the Stars and Stripes. The Miami Herald's beat is the Caribbean and South America. The South China Morning Post is a window on China. The "information net" can draw even finer. For example, The San Antonio-Express News is a regional U.S. newspaper particularly valuable for coverage of Mexico and Central America. The proliferation of websites -from terrorist groups to NGOs to news networks- offers the analyst a wealth of information. Even when the info is contradictory it can still be a useful guide to evaluating aims and strategies of participants in conflicts. Finally, there's "our gang." Over the years we have assembled an interesting cadre of friends and acquaintances. A number of them have military or foreign service experience. Many of these people started out as wargamers- an excellent background for getting a handle on a developing crisis. These sources are quick with advice and quick with critique. They've also proven to be reliable. When they miss, they don't miss by much. And with the proliferation of internet access and cell phones, we often get reports from our gang while the bullets are still flying.

---

I find Strategy page to be a good place to keep up things that I am intereted in. The site's reporting can be both critical and objective. I did label the article posted as opinion.

Fritz
07-22-2003, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by NoMyths
I'd take pretty much any major news organization's reporting over the evidence-free opinion of some random guy with a webpage just about any day of the week.

And Bukowski is just some idiot with a pen.

NoMyths
07-22-2003, 09:03 AM
Never did trust Bukowski's war reporting much.

Drake
07-22-2003, 09:10 AM
Fritz is right on this one. www.stragetypage.com is one of the best sites in the world for organized, coherent, cogent news reporting on military events. It's military news from people who know about the military.

In my opinion, mainstream news coverage is reporting on the military from people who don't know the military. There are positives and negatives to either approach (i.e. bias), so it's always a good idea to try to balance the two perspectives, but I think anyone who wants to be informed on U.S. (or other) military actions would be making a mistake if they ignored StrategyPage out of hand.

cuervo72
07-22-2003, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by NoMyths
Never did trust Blutarski's wart removing much.

JPhillips
07-22-2003, 09:31 AM
I think the reality in Iraq is far more complicated than idealogues on either side admit. Its not Vietnam, but it isn't Nirvana either. There are problems that we need to solve soon, as the recently released report stated. We can't assume that things will get better. Its going to take a lot of work and a lot of money to get Iraq stable.

Soldiers are being killed and wounded daily. While this isn't a threat operationally, it is a major concern politically. No matter how much better off the Iraqis are, if sons and daughters of American parents keep getting killed, there will be a strong push to get us out of Iraq before the job is over. btw- Rush trying to make the point that 3400 people drown a year so these casualties don't matter makes me sick.

I've actually been pretty impressed with Bremer. I think the Iraqi council could turn out to be the best thing we've done since the war ended. I think its important to put an Iraqi face on every pronouncement, and the council may do that.

My big concern is hearing Bremer say over and over that the Iraqi people will determine how long we are in Iraq. I really hope that's just PR. Now that we are there, we need to commit to at least five years. I don't want us looking for a way to pull out as soon as the Iraqi's hold the first election. I've always thought that the second election is really the measure of democracy. Anyone can get voted into office, but not everyone is willing to be voted out. I would hat to see us leave only to have the current President of Iraq refuse to relinquish power four years later.

ice4277
07-22-2003, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by JPhillips
I think the reality in Iraq is far more complicated than idealogues on either side admit. Its not Vietnam, but it isn't Nirvana either. There are problems that we need to solve soon, as the recently released report stated. We can't assume that things will get better. Its going to take a lot of work and a lot of money to get Iraq stable.

Soldiers are being killed and wounded daily. While this isn't a threat operationally, it is a major concern politically. No matter how much better off the Iraqis are, if sons and daughters of American parents keep getting killed, there will be a strong push to get us out of Iraq before the job is over. btw- Rush trying to make the point that 3400 people drown a year so these casualties don't matter makes me sick.

I've actually been pretty impressed with Bremer. I think the Iraqi council could turn out to be the best thing we've done since the war ended. I think its important to put an Iraqi face on every pronouncement, and the council may do that.

My big concern is hearing Bremer say over and over that the Iraqi people will determine how long we are in Iraq. I really hope that's just PR. Now that we are there, we need to commit to at least five years. I don't want us looking for a way to pull out as soon as the Iraqi's hold the first election. I've always thought that the second election is really the measure of democracy. Anyone can get voted into office, but not everyone is willing to be voted out. I would hat to see us leave only to have the current President of Iraq refuse to relinquish power four years later.

OMG somebody took a balanced viewpoint on this board :eek:

Drake
07-22-2003, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by JPhillips
<snip><snip>

Outstanding post.

Abe Sargent
07-22-2003, 10:34 AM
What Is Really Happening In Iraq?


An orgy?


-Anxiety

JonInMiddleGA
07-22-2003, 11:26 AM
You're right Fritz, you knew better ;)