The War is going better than we are told.
The media is beginning to act as if we are LOSING. The questions from most reporters are either SOOOO ignorant or just plain leading. I'm talking about ingnorance to the degree of: "Sir, will the taking of 5-10 hostages afftect or hinder the overall operation?". My God....
The other day, Leslie Stahl asked Colin Powell why the "rear" of US formations was unprotected. He said "it's not!". "Yes", said Stahl, "but the guerilla tactics being used...." Powell: "So?......we are TRAINED to deal with that". Stahl went on and Powell pretty much flattened her. EVERY question was negative. Every one. At one point she referenced ANALYSTS that thoguht the force wasn't large enough. This was a reporter referencing friggin' pundits.
But this isn't a one-woman show. Every network is painting this as a failure. We are one week into this as of today, and 6 days since ground operations began, and we are now 200 miles into Bagdhad. We have taken several MAJOR cities, secured Umm Quasar, started bringing humanitarian aid, destroyed thousands of military targets, spared as many civilians as possible, hell...we have even fought in sandstorms. WE HAVE ALMOST TOTALLY DISCONNECTED THE IRAQI LEADERSHIP FROM ITS TROOPS. More than a thousand Iraqi troops have been killed and more than 3,500 have surrendered. Oh did I mention that we have had less than 50 casualties?
The real story comes through when the troops themselevs are interviewed. They say things like "It isn't even a fair fight". One Marine said "This isn't like a game in which the score is 3-2. This is more like 199-0" (the soldier was referencing past engagements within the week). Yes, they also say that there is more "fierce" resistence than expected. They have also said, however, that such resistence is sporadic and totally unorganized.
The real BS is in the liberal papers about how the Iraqi people don't want to be liberated. The media might as well just turn into Bagdhad TV for their coverage. They show and repeat evey Iraqi claim, from blown up houses to marketplaces to whatever. We all know how credible Al-jazeera and Iraqi TV are....
The one thing I will say is I think the Pentagon made too much of the 'Shock and Awe" campaign and may have driven exepectations. Thoughts?
The other day, Leslie Stahl asked Colin Powell why the "rear" of US formations was unprotected. He said "it's not!". "Yes", said Stahl, "but the guerilla tactics being used...." Powell: "So?......we are TRAINED to deal with that". Stahl went on and Powell pretty much flattened her. EVERY question was negative. Every one. At one point she referenced ANALYSTS that thoguht the force wasn't large enough. This was a reporter referencing friggin' pundits.
But this isn't a one-woman show. Every network is painting this as a failure. We are one week into this as of today, and 6 days since ground operations began, and we are now 200 miles into Bagdhad. We have taken several MAJOR cities, secured Umm Quasar, started bringing humanitarian aid, destroyed thousands of military targets, spared as many civilians as possible, hell...we have even fought in sandstorms. WE HAVE ALMOST TOTALLY DISCONNECTED THE IRAQI LEADERSHIP FROM ITS TROOPS. More than a thousand Iraqi troops have been killed and more than 3,500 have surrendered. Oh did I mention that we have had less than 50 casualties?
The real story comes through when the troops themselevs are interviewed. They say things like "It isn't even a fair fight". One Marine said "This isn't like a game in which the score is 3-2. This is more like 199-0" (the soldier was referencing past engagements within the week). Yes, they also say that there is more "fierce" resistence than expected. They have also said, however, that such resistence is sporadic and totally unorganized.
The real BS is in the liberal papers about how the Iraqi people don't want to be liberated. The media might as well just turn into Bagdhad TV for their coverage. They show and repeat evey Iraqi claim, from blown up houses to marketplaces to whatever. We all know how credible Al-jazeera and Iraqi TV are....
The one thing I will say is I think the Pentagon made too much of the 'Shock and Awe" campaign and may have driven exepectations. Thoughts?
Comments
As far as the media, they seem right now to go with whatever the most sensational story is, or can be made to seem, from both sides. If it gets more eyes to focus on the negative, they will.
Originally posted by SDW2001
The real BS is in the liberal papers about how the Iraqi people don't want to be liberated.
The the only thing that matters is the number of Iraqis that will oppose Hussein's regime and are willing to act to overthrow it. Like, intel needs to be given, fedayeen need to be revealed, and arms, munitions, weapons need to be flushed out. If that number isn't high enough, it doesn't matter how successful we are in military confrontations.
The wheel of media coverage is merely turning to reflect that possibility. They probably need something to sensationalize after a couple days of no action too. I still give it 2 weeks for the mainline military confrontations to be over; Baghdad, Basra - Iraq - to be under marshall law. But that doesn't mean it's over, not by a long shot.
its the press. that is what they do. it seems many times the press tries to tick off whoever they are interviewing..usually as long as they aren't celebrities(unless you are stuttering jon)
I'm really annoyed with the way this is being covered. Gulf War 1 made cable news what it is, CNN in particular, and now every news network sees this as their big chance. We shouldn't fool ourselves - the news networks absolutely LOVE this war. More than any other party. That ticks me off.
I think it's going to get much worse before it gets better, though. Baghdad has a real chance of being hell. I read an analysis that said Sodom wants to win the war in Baghdad. His strategy will be to do whatever it takes to cause casualties in Baghdad, turn American and world opinion against the war, and then we'll leave like in Vietnam.
Originally posted by giant
http://www.us-iraqwar.com/
password?
CNN had some embedded guy on the video phone with them LIVE, and the whole report was "Oh, I just heard another missle fly overhead.......There's another one. We're hearing several missles flying overhead, going north."
When I get a blow-by-blow of missles flying overhead, that's when I turn to Teletubbies or something. Only a week into this whole thing, about the only news stations I can watch where all that's concerned are CNN Headline News, and the broadcast networks' evening newscasts. What I want to hear is, "Troops are generally here, here, and here. Coalition forces took over *this* today. *This* many people were injured, died, or taken prisoner on both sides today. The Pentagon, overall, says..."
Basically, sum the war up for me in a half-an-hour. I'll let the troops deal with the rest. Insensitive? I don't think so. I keep praying for ultimate peace in the world, but I also have a life to live.
Big picture: I can see that we're doing all right.
Originally posted by SDW2001
More than a thousand Iraqi troops have been killed and more than 3,500 have surrendered. Oh did I mention that we have had less than 50 casualties?
The real story comes through when the troops themselevs are interviewed. They say things like "It isn't even a fair fight". One Marine said "This isn't like a game in which the score is 3-2. This is more like 199-0" (the soldier was referencing past engagements within the week). Yes, they also say that there is more "fierce" resistence than expected. They have also said, however, that such resistence is sporadic and totally unorganized.
In all honesty I don't think the fighting has really begun yet. From figures I've seen the Iraqi army has approximately 230,000 troops in total, (17 divisions of 10,000 men in the regular army, 50,000 men in the Republican Guard and 10,000 men in the Special Republican Guard). The 5,000 or so that have been killed or surrendered (approximately 2% of the Iraqi army) is neither here nor there. Even assuming chemical or biological weapons aren't used by Saddam, I think the war is still in its very early phases.
Originally posted by Randycat99
My impression is that the news media needs to inject its own brand of drama into the war coverage to remain remotely interesting. Otherwise, all we have is a wildly successful campaign that is moving lock-step on schedule. Now how is that going to draw ratings?
Exactly. The worst, I think, is the NYT. Just read some of this:
Fourteen people died and 30 others suffered injuries when two cruise missiles struck a residential area in Baghdad on Wednesday, Iraqi defense officials said. It was the worst single reported instance of civilian deaths since the U.S. bombing campaign began a week ago.
---no mention of US denial until sixth paragraph
But faced with slower-than-anticipated progress in securing southern Iraq and intensifying international criticism of the war, Mr. Bush sought for the fourth time in less than a week to tamp down any expectation that the conflict will go quickly and smoothly, even as he played the commander in chief's traditional role of rallying the troops.
---almost cynical. the headline read "Bush Says War May Be Long".....no, he didn't.
There are, in fact, two parallel battles underway. One is the intense assault American forces are mounting to set themselves up for a drive to Baghdad to overthrow the Saddam Hussein regime. The other, and equally critical, is the struggle to secure the support of Iraqi citizens. The military has a name for its campaign to win over the Iraq population It is called. "I.O" for "information operations." The problem is that during the initial days of the war Mr. Hussein's "I.O." has been beating the allied "I.O."
--I suppose some people actually believe this.
Americans say the war in Iraq will last longer and cost more than they had initially expected, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. The shift comes as the public absorbs the first reports of allied setbacks on the battlefield.
The percentage of Americans who said they expected a quick and successful effort against Iraq dropped to 43 percent on Monday night from 62 percent on Saturday. And respondents who said the war was going "very well" dropped 12 points, to 32 percent, from Sunday night to Monday night, an erosion that followed an increase in allied casualties and the capture of several Americans.
---Cough. And support for the war is 74%.
Nonetheless, support for both the war and for the president, who has kept a low profile after announcing the invasion last week, remains high; Mr. Bush's job approval rating is now 60 percent. Still, Americans said Mr. Bush had failed to give them enough information about how long the war might last, how much it might cost and how many Americans might die in the effort. They also said Mr. Bush had failed to detail how the administration would manage a postwar Iraq.
Flat-out lie. His approval was 67% yesterday.
Oh, and I just saw Kofi Annan on TV saying "A cruise missle struck a civilian target....I urge all beligerants to respect international law...".
--Oh My God.
And now finally: Hans Blix
"The discovery of Iraqi soldiers carrying Cipro (anthrax anti-bitotic) and [the anedote to VX gas] is not sufficient evidence of chemical weapons.....they could have been given the materials to make it LOOK LIKE they has them. they need to find a smoking gun".
HOLY SHIT, HANS!!!! How about the FRIGGIN HOSPTIAL with Chemical suits in it!!!!!
i hear conservative reports of 25,000 iraqi's dead, and if there are 50 US dead, thats a 1/500 ratio...that is amazing, and not only that, look how fast the US has moved across iraq, that is the fastest ever i believe
...it seems that when u find out within hours of when someone has died, and the papers add it up, it seems to be more then it is. you can't expect no casualties
Originally posted by New
Relax, you won't loose.
I'm sure. But wouldn't it just top it all off if this was another Johnson-like delusional administration. Compared to Gulf War I, there are significantly less troops there and this is a significantly more difficult objective. I also get the impression that many of these people are much more ideological and less, uh, rational than Bush's 41's group. I wouldn't put groupthink past them.
Originally posted by BRussell
But wouldn't it just top it all off if this was another Johnson-like delusional administration.
Yeah, wouldn't that just be a riot if we got bogged down in a quagmire war where tens of thousands of people died on both sides?
Wouldn't that just be a hoot?
Politik is ugly.
Originally posted by ast3r3x
the number of casualties is trvial for a war with professional armies, not with the taliban
i hear conservative reports of 25,000 iraqi's dead, and if there are 50 US dead, thats a 1/500 ratio...that is amazing, and not only that, look how fast the US has moved across iraq, that is the fastest ever i believe
...it seems that when u find out within hours of when someone has died, and the papers add it up, it seems to be more then it is. you can't expect no casualties
I see your overall point, but 25,000 dead? I haven't heard that. Secondly, don't characterize it by saying "conservative" reports. Who says it is conservative?
I've been disappointed in some of the NY Times coverage at times, ignoring what I considered significant news (Basra uprsing got a small and late billing in the paper and at the online site), other times, it's shown a lot more depth than other sites, mainly with regard to humanitarian issues. Fox News has been presumptuous on a few occasions, surprisingly complete/fair with coverage of the US military at other times. CNN is just for summary news at this point, though their early use of in-the-field reporters on videophones was compelling. Anyway, I could go on....
As far as the Sock and Awe campaign, I think the mistake some make was that there was no "plan B" and that the Us was betting on it more than they were. The early smart bomb hit on Saddam's bunker lended itself to this expectation among both the media and the public (I think the media truly were reflecting the averageAmerican's temperament at the time), and on top of this, I think the fact that so many of these journalists were caught in the thichk of things, mmny who have only seen these types of events either after the fact or from a distance, affected the shock and dismay of how difficult the experience is, even for the American soldiers. I think that's reflected in some of the reporting, especially from younger journalists who haven't been through anything like Beirut '82.
Originally posted by SDW2001
And now finally: Hans Blix
"The discovery of Iraqi soldiers carrying Cipro (anthrax anti-bitotic) and [the anedote to VX gas] is not sufficient evidence of chemical weapons.....they could have been given the materials to make it LOOK LIKE they has them. they need to find a smoking gun".
HOLY SHIT, HANS!!!! How about the FRIGGIN HOSPTIAL with Chemical suits in it!!!!!
If the suits were full of chemical's we'd have the smoking gun ... as is, though, all we have are suits.
Perhaps they worry that the US will use chemical weapons.
Get Colombo and the CSI team over there, pronto!