Aside from that spectacle, here's a survey of some of the other headlines after doing a search for "Arrowhead ripper". Arrowhead what you say?:MSN = Nothing
CNN = Nothing up in headlines on their home page. Last article mentioning the offensive is three days old under "Nine U.S. troops die in Iraq" (Of course, you need to read 15 paragraphs into the article to find where they mention that these soldiers died in an operation that killed at least 68 al Qaeda militants.)
BBC = Nothing up in headlines on their home page . Last article on the offensive (you know, so you can keep an update on a critical ongoing operation in which our fellow countrymen are dying) was from the 22nd, 4 days ago.
Fox = Nothing in top headlines, last article was from the 23rd. Geeez, nothing from Fox??? And with their Republicon bias, too. So surprising.
ABC online news = A news story on how Senator Richard Lugar is breaking with Bush on his failed policy in Iraq. Iraq, the one thing ABC isn't giving up to date reporting on. No mention of Arrowhead Ripper, and why should there be when you're a news service that's committed to maintaining a narrative that Iraq is a failure?
CBS News = Top story is "Heavy Rains and Winds Slam Texas". No mention of Iraq at all in the headlines. Must not be anything going on there worthy of reporting.
LA Times = No mention of Iraq. No articles containing phrase "Arrowhead Ripper". Nothing.
The New York Times = Finally! A front page article with a picture even! Though at a closer look it is several days old and not up to date. The title is "For GI's in Iraq a Harrowing Day facing a Trap". No bigger picture of the operation, just a 2 pager on a platoon blowing up boobytraped houses. The jist of the entire article is captured in the last lines:
"Lieutenant Morton, the platoon commander, sought to put the hectic, anxiety-filled day in the arc of a long war. He said, “It is one of those days when you’re not doing anything, but stuff happens.” "
I've already posted the links to the likes of Michael Yon and Michael Totten.
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/operation-arrowhead-ripper-day-one.htm
Is it me here, or is something seriously deficient on how our media is reporting (or not reporting) this war? Michael Yon's observations with regard to the media are disturbing to say the least. With the exception of a few journalists, the media has all but abandoned the region:
"Alexandra Zavis from Los Angeles Times is down in the heat of the battle bringing home information. Michael Gordon from New York Times is still slugging it out.... CNN has joined the fight. AP came but will stay only a few days. Joe Klein from TIME was here on the 21st and his story posted the same day and was accurate."
That's it? But isn't now when we really need the media to report on the region and our ongoing efforts there? So we can really know about progress towards success or failure?
Evidently not.
If a parent phoned me continually asking for progress on how their son or daughter was doing in class, and I continually focused solely on the negatives without ever mentioning the successes, or where they've improved, I'd be willing to bet that parent would think that their child's progress was poor. On a similar note, here's a new poll presented by CNN on how the American public thinks the war is going:
Today's coverage on the war is the invariable anonymous deaths in unknown places for indeterminate reasons. That's it. That's the hopeless headline pounded home to the American public, that's the message they're supposed to absorb when they check on the daily news:
"More Deaths For No Discernable Cause"
There's something more than a bit absurd about CNN providing grossly inadequate and slanted coverage of the war, but then emphasizing the public's "perception" that progress is going poorly on the war, the very war that they don't really do a decent job of informing their subscribers to begin with. And when it does attempt to inform, it's just body-counts devoid of the cause involved, or what the sacrifices are for.
Can the effort to manipulate public perceptions of the war be any more transparent?
Tokyo Rose couldn't do better. Doubt me? Take a poll and ask your average Joe or Sally if they've heard that Paris Hilton was released from jail, and then ask them if they've heard of Operation Arrowhead. If in the rare chance that you get a positive answer, ask them what the specific goals are for the operation, and whether it's succeeding or not. Then get back to me.
13 comments:
(Tom Ryan) (forgot my password)
I don't agree with the war but it is absoulutely disgusting what is being portrayed in the media. The continued one-sided story is beyond comprehension. I had a buddy who just went to Iraq. He talked about how there are many sides to Iraq as a soldiers. He was a convoy man. One of his main jobs while he was over there was to maintain and disarm a group of Iranians that were defecting. I guess I always figured that they were ALL against us (or at least most), I guess that is not the case.
Hi Tom. Schools out; enjoying the summer?
I'm all for coherent arguments that the war was a bad idea, but I think it’s a disgrace that the mainstream media has lost all pretense of trying to objectively report on events over there.
The slanted coverage, though, is comprehensible. Most journalists/reporters say that they joined the profession to “make a difference in the world” or to “change” it, and so along the way they became advocates instead of witnesses. Most journalists/reporters are left leaning democrats, which is fine, if it weren’t for their self-anointed roles as advocates.
The folks in the news industry have an interest in portraying Iraq as bad as possible, and that interest is in who wins the 2008 presidential election.
Because Goldstein is the offspring of pigs and monkeys and lives within the protection of the Chimperial United States of Terror, he's able to continually make me laugh at the otherwise maddening "objective journalism" that enjoys so much popular viewership.
Here...
Overheard in a Baqubah bunker, Monday, June 25
First militant: “Point of clarification, Tahir. What, precisely, is, an ‘arrowhead ripper’, anyway?”*
Second militant: “What does it matter, Brother? Just make sure your weapons are loaded, and that you are prepared to die for the greater good of Allah’s will.”*
First militant: “Oh, of course. That’s a given. Allahu akbar, Death to America, blah blah blah. I’m just wondering what is meant by this strange phrase — one that, from the look of things, will be sending me off to my virgin reward –”*
Second militant: “– Gah. I can practically smell the Paper Tiger’s surge forces all around us. The stink, it is of pork rinds and Pepsi Cola and plastic women pleasuring each other to jazzy bass riffs. Steel yourself, my friend. Prepare to wield Allah’s mighty sword!”*
First militant: “– ‘Arrowhead ripper.’ Such a strange name for an offensive. I mean, why couldn’t we die holding back, say, ‘Operation Arab Slaughter’? At least that would give our deaths a kind of dignity, you know? But ‘arrowhead ripper’? That is just silly and meaningless.”
Second militant: “The barbarians are at the gate, my friend. Raise your weapon!”
First militant: “You know what? Fuck this. I’m not going to fight unless the Americans begin putting some thought into their symbolism.”
Second militant: “But your honor, Brother –”
First militant: “Oh, honor schmonor. At least we show the courtesy of framing this conflict as a clash of civilizations. And for our troubles we get ‘Operation Arrowhead Ripper’? May as well die for ‘Operation Foreskin Removal,’ for all the gravitas such an image invokes.”
First militant: “Christ, how I hate these perpetually unserious Americans.”
What I meant to say was that I laugh with Goldstein, despite the maddening blah, blah blah.
It's late and I'm still working on Photoshop files.
What's your excuse?
Let me tell you.... I'd post a sign up that kept a body count of the Islamofascists, insurgents, AQ and Sadr brigades who've been killed so far, if I actually lived in a neighborhood/city/state (take your pick) which truly lived by the often-spoken-about-virtue-of-tolerance-but, alas, there isn't any tolerance of anything resembling patriotism that supports the violent death of the enemies of the U.S. so... I'd be at least harassed, at worst attacked if I did such a thing.
On the other hand, if I'd posted one of those morally vacuous "3556" signs on my lawn, I'd be glad handed and praised by my community for my activism, wisdom and compassion.
All you "I don't agree with the war" folks can, for each of the 23 whereas clauses .... give me fifty pushups for every time you've publicly or privately said "I don't agree with the war" while simultaneously ignoring 22 of those clauses in your argument.
Niall Fergusson argued that the U.S. is an empire in his book "Colossus". I didn't agree with his analysis, but I do agree with his point that we'd make an effective, beneficient hegemon if we could keep from allowing the national attention deficit order from taking hold.
Iraq? Oh, that's soooooo 2003. Done. Lost.
I'm all about the "Audacity of Hope" and "Climate Change" and "Saving Darfur"... I just love "new ideas".
Great comments.
I was just reading an AP piece on the excavation of the remains of US Marines on Iwo Jima, 60 years after the fact. I came across this backgrounder paragraph in the article:
"The U.S. officially took the volcanic island on March 26, 1945, after a 31-day battle that pitted some 100,000 U.S. forces against 21,200 Japanese. Some 6,821 Americans were killed; only 1,033 Japanese survived. Of 82 Medals of Honor won by Marines in World War II, 26 were won on Iwo Jima."
I believe every soldier wounded or killed in Iraq is a necessary tragedy. Still, remember this passage, or say, the battle at Antietam, where in ONE DAY the Union suffered 12,401 casualties with 2,108 dead, and Confederate casualties were 10,318 with 1,546 dead, the next time the press in all their perspectiveless wisdom sees fit to describe another "grim milestone" in the Iraq war.
http://billroggio.com/archives/2007/06/operation_fahrad_al.php
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-06-03-1.html
(Tom Ryan)
Been working summer camps with little kids for the last week. Going to the beach next week, that's when my summer really starts. Hope the people don't mind my European style bathing suit! Great historical references on Iwo Jima (wasn't it just renamed?) and Antietam. I know you guys are talking about the media coverage in Iraq, another big problem is the media coverage in Afghanistan. If Iraq is second page news, Afgahnistan is page 30. When I say I don't agree with the war, I mean to say I didn't necessarily agree to go in the first place. Now that we did what we did (which was positive on many accounts) we need to stay and fininsh the job. There have been many solutions to the Iraq question. Question: What are the downfalls of splitting Iraq into 3 separate countries? One of the US senators (forgot his name) had a proposal a few months ago and it had some merit.
(Dizzyd - loginless...)
Tom, I think it was Joe Biden because I believe he's been advocating a three-state solution for years -- not sure I agree with his position, but he's one of the few Democrats to publicly take a serious look at Iraq and propose a solution other than "get out" .
I think the negatives are that it could contribute to more instability (who gets the oil resources? what happens with the winner-take-all culture? will one faction still try to take the whole game?) Also, Iraqis have consistently polled as wanting to remain a united country though those polls may have changed or be in flux (sorry, too lazy to look it up right now).
However, some observers have noted that a lot of Iraq has become de facto tripartite as people make individual decisions to move their families to where they feel safer, generally their own ethnic enclaves. Kurdistan is fairly distinct and functions relatively well already, so it's more a question of what the separation of Shia and Sunni would look like, and how hard Kurdistan would have to defend itself against possible Shia and Sunni incursions. Again, sorry I can't remember all my sources, but I know David Brooks and Tom Friedman have been writing about these ideas and their merits and flaws since at least a couple of years ago.
Japanese Propaganda and American Mass Media
June 29, 2007: U.S. troops have been mystified at how differently the war they fight in Iraq is portrayed by the U.S. media back home. Most just shrug it off as "politics," and yet another reason to not trust what the mass media presents as reliable reporting. But recently, the troops have been passing around an interesting discovery. Namely, that the Japanese psychological warfare effort during World War II included radio broadcasts that could be picked up by American troops. Popular music was played, but the commentary (by one of several English speaking Japanese women) always hammered away on the same points;
1 Your President (Franklin D Roosevelt) is lying to you.
2 This war is illegal.
3 You cannot win the war.
The troops are perplexed and somewhat amused that their own media is now sending out this message. Fighting the enemy in Iraq is simple, compared to figuring out what news editors are thinking back home. A few times, the mass media has been bold, or foolish, enough to confront the troops about this divergence of perceptions. The result is usually a surreal exchange, with the troops giving the journalist a "what planet are YOU from" look. Naturally, this sort of thing doesn't get much exposure. When pressed, a journalist or editor will dismiss the opinions of the troops (of all ranks), because they are "too close" to see "the big picture." For the same reason, reporters who send back material agreeing with the troops, find their stuff twisted into an acceptable shape, or not used at all. Historians will have a good time with all this.
What If...'
By Peter J. Wallison
Given the problems and US casualties in Iraq, polls show a large majority of the American people believe the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. Yet, if we imagine what the world would look like today if Saddam Hussein had not been deposed, it seems clear that almost no outcome in Iraq would be as adverse to the interests of the United States as today's world with Saddam still in power.
It is important to recall that Saddam had thrown the UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq in 1998, and only allowed them to return in 2002 because of the credible threat of a US attack. In addition, the sanctions regime was collapsing—Saddam had learned how to extract billions of dollars for weapons out of the humanitarian exceptions to those sanctions--and our European friends, and perhaps UN officials themselves, were complicit in this. Under these circumstances, Saddam could not have been "contained" or rendered harmless, and Iraq could not have been indefinitely subject to UN inspections. At some point, Saddam would have been able to throw out the inspectors again, with no further action by the UN. It was clear that the UN itself would do nothing to enforce its own resolutions.
We also know from the reports of the weapons inspectors that Saddam and his scientists were working to develop nuclear weapons, work that certainly would have continued if Saddam had remained place. Saddam had already demonstrated that he would use chemical weapons, and there is no reason in logic that he wouldn't also restore his chemical weapons stocks once the inspectors had left. He had the largest army in the region, and had shown a determination to use it for expanding his control beyond Iraq. It's not far-fetched, therefore, to consider what economists call a counterfactual—what things would look like today if the US had not invaded Iraq.
First, US troops would still be in Saudi Arabia. Our troops were there because of the Saudis' fear of an Iraqi attack. We should recall that one of the principal reasons bin Laden cited for attacking us—not only on 9/11, but for many years before—was that US troops were supposedly defiling the Muslim holy places in Saudi Arabia. As absurd as this seems to us, it apparently resonated with the Mohammed Attas of this world. With Saddam still in power, American arms would be necessary to protect Saudi Arabia, and our presence there would still be a continuing irritant among militants and a source of al Qaeda-inspired terrorist attacks against the United States around the world.
Imagine, also, trying to persuade Iran to abandon the development of nuclear weapons when Iraq—which had attacked Iran—was actively engaged in doing exactly that. We hope now to change Iran's course through economic sanctions—a difficult prospect to be sure—but that would be a hopeless quest if its leaders and population believed they needed nuclear weapons to deter Iraq. Once it became clear that Iran would develop nuclear weapons, many Sunni Arab nations would want a nuclear deterrent, and Israel's position would be hideously complicated.
Then there's Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories. Before he was deposed by the US invasion, Saddam was bidding for leadership of the Arab world in its opposition to Israel and US policy in the Mideast. We can now see the resources he would have brought to bear in that effort. Saddam was a Sunni leader of a Shi'ite country. As he watched the Islamic world becoming more fundamentalist, he too became more overtly religious. Undoubtedly, he saw himself as the new Nasser, the one person who could unite the Arab and perhaps the Islamic world against the West and Israel. If he had remained in power, he would now be contesting with Iran for sponsorship of Hezbollah and Hamas. With these two regional powers competing in their militancy against Israel, there would be little chance of a Mideast peace any time soon. Gaza, now under Hamas control, would become a protectorate of Iraq, and the effectiveness of the West's financial boycott would have been nullified.
Saddam's interest in driving the US out of the Middle East would be coincident with those of al Qaeda and he would have the weapons of mass destruction that al Qaeda has been seeking. We could never be sure that if we opposed Saddam—say, in another Iraqi invasion of Kuwait—he would not make weapons of mass destruction available to al Qaeda.
In short, it would be difficult to construct a scenario in which the ultimate outcome of events in Iraq today would be as negative for the United States as a world in which Saddam remains in control of Iraq. So, while we are justifiably dismayed about what is happening today in Iraq, we should not allow this to obscure the central point—that the world is a better and safer place because Saddam is out of power. Looked at this way, we have already achieved a lot; what remains now—as the President and Senator McCain have said—is to steady ourselves and see it through.
Dan Collins at Protein Wisdom write on the same topic:
Media: Our Surge Is Working! [Dan Collins]
From CBS:
A CBS News poll shows Americans are increasingly dissatisfied with the Iraq war, President Bush and the Congress, as well as the overall direction of the country.
More Americans than ever before, 77 percent, say the war is going badly, up from 66 percent just two months ago. Nearly half, 47 percent, say it’s going very badly.
While the springtime surge in U.S. troops to Iraq is now complete, more Americans than ever are calling for U.S. forces to withdraw.
Further down in the story one finds that “Congress also fared poorly in the poll. Its approval rating was also at 27 percent — a 9-point drop from last month.”
So, you know–bang the drum. Absent from these findings, of course, is any consideration of how Americans view the media at this point in time. The author and editors have also found a clever way to insinuate that the surge is over, since the MSM fails to distinguish between the troop numbers and the strategy, both indicated by “surge.”
Yesterday, Bob Owens posted on more media reportage of Iraqi atrocities cited by anonymous police sources far from the locations where the atrocities are rumored to have occurred. I don’t want to say that they cannot learn, but it is evident that they do not.
You cannot find this kind of news in the MSM:
In Baghdad, clearing operations have focused on the Rashid District in the west and New Baghdad (or Sadr City) in the east. In the Rashid neighborhood of Amil, U.S. forces found a cache of Iranian-made rocket parts, which included “several empty 107mm cases with the same lot numbers as those seized June 17, one rocket launcher, materials to build more than 50 launchers, 13 60mm mortar rounds, one 81mm mortar, rocket-propelled grenades, a large quantity of homemade and plastic explosives,” and small arms and ammunition. Also, two weapons caches were found in mosques in Rashid. Seven insurgents were killed and 17 captured since June 27.
In the Risalah neighborhood, three insurgents were killed and seven captured on June 28. “An alleged IED cell member with known connections to Jaish Al-Mahdi leaders” and a “financier of a local terrorist cell” were among those captured. In Sadr City, Coalition soldiers captured five insurgents and uncovered three small weapons caches.
You have to rely on non-traditional sources such as Yon and Roggio, because the MSM spend about as much time with military sources as Democratic congressional leaders spend at Pentagon congressional briefings, which is to say, hardly any. In the MSM’s version, there are no accomplishments–only setbacks, mistakes, miscalculations and atrocities. And some congresscritters want to bring back the fairness doctrine?
Post a Comment