2006 November 17
On re-reading this I decided it was time to update this with comments in this color.

original at http://216.26.163.62/2005/ss_iraq_01_18.html

World Tribune.com

Media's coverage has distorted world's view of Iraqi reality
By LTC Tim Ryan

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM

Tuesday, January 18, 2005

Editors' Note: LTC Tim Ryan is Commander, Task Force 2-12 Cavalry, First Cavalry Division in Iraq. He led troops into battle in Fallujah late last year and is now involved in security operations for the upcoming elections. He wrote the following during "down time" after the Fallujah operation. His views are his own.

All right, I've had enough. I am tired of reading distorted and grossly exaggerated stories from major news organizations about the "failures" in the war in Iraq. "The most trusted name in news" and a long list of others continue to misrepresent the scale of events in Iraq. Print and video journalists are covering only a fraction of the events in Iraq and, more often than not, the events they cover are only negative.

OK, you feel unappreciated. Other people do not see things the way you see things. Welcome to adulthood.

The inaccurate picture they paint has distorted the world view of the daily realities in Iraq. The result is a further erosion of international support for the United States' efforts there, and a strengthening of the insurgents' resolve and recruiting efforts while weakening our own. Through their incomplete, uninformed and unbalanced reporting, many members of the media covering the war in Iraq are aiding and abetting the enemy.

I haven't heard this allegation since the major news organizations told us the truth about Vietnam.

And I have not heard much of this allegation since then as the silly claim that media is not reporting the reality has been covered by intensive interviews with the troops themselves saying it is true.

The fact is the Coalition is making steady progress in Iraq, but not without ups and downs. So why is it that no matter what events unfold, good or bad, the media highlights mostly the negative aspects of the event? The journalistic adage, "If it bleeds, it leads," still applies in Iraq, but why only when it's American blood?

Perhaps of America would go back to Vietnam style body counts there would be Iraqi blood to report. Should they report Iraqi rumors about body counts and be damned the more?

As a recent example, the operation in Fallujah delivered an absolutely devastating blow to the insurgency. Though much smaller in scope, clearing Fallujah of insurgents arguably could equate to the Allies' breakout from the hedgerows in France during World War II. In both cases, our troops overcame a well-prepared and solidly entrenched enemy and began what could be the latter's last stand. In Fallujah, the enemy death toll has exceeded 1,500 and still is climbing. Put one in the win column for the good guys, right? Wrong. As soon as there was nothing negative to report about Fallujah, the media shifted its focus to other parts of the country.

And the press was permitted to enter Fallujah and see for themselves? Or were they correctly warned it was too dangerous to enter Fallujah? And the body count is 1500 AND still rising. Why put it in the win column until the shooting stops?

Just for the fun of it let me point out it was report two months ago, September 2006, that the city was back in the hands of the insurgents.

More recently, a major news agency's website lead read: "Suicide Bomber Kills Six in Baghdad" and "Seven Marines Die in Iraq Clashes." True, yes. Comprehensive, no. Did the author of this article bother to mention that Coalition troops killed 50 or so terrorists while incurring those seven losses? Of course not. Nor was there any mention about the substantial progress these offensive operations continue to achieve in defeating the insurgents. Unfortunately, this sort of incomplete reporting has become the norm for the media, whose poor job of presenting a complete picture of what is going on in Iraq borders on being criminal.

Did the Marines actually count bodies? Why is he bragging at only a 7:1 exchange ratio between the best America has to offer and a bunch of untrained, ragtag dead-enders? Does he really want that reported?

Much of the problem is about perspective, putting things in scale and balance. What if domestic news outlets continually fed American readers headlines like: "Bloody Week on U.S. Highways: Some 700 Killed," or "More Than 900 Americans Die Weekly from Obesity-Related Diseases"?

He has been out of country too long. They do run such headlines.

Both of these headlines might be true statistically, but do they really represent accurate pictures of the situations? What if you combined all of the negatives to be found in the state of Texas and used them as an indicator of the quality of life for all Texans? Imagine the headlines: "Anti-law Enforcement Elements Spread Robbery, Rape and Murder through Texas Cities." For all intents and purposes, this statement is true for any day of any year in any state. True yes, accurate yes, but in context with the greater good taking place no! After a year or two of headlines like these, more than a few folks back in Texas and the rest of the U.S. probably would be ready to jump off of a building and end it all. So, imagine being an American in Iraq right now.

The press is causing troops to suicide.

From where I sit in Iraq, things are not all bad right now. In fact, they are going quite well. We are not under attack by the enemy; on the contrary, we are taking the fight to him daily and have him on the ropes. In the distance, I can hear the repeated impacts of heavy artillery and five-hundred-pound bombs hitting their targets. The occasional tank main gun report and the staccato rhythm of a Marine Corps LAV or Army Bradley Fighting Vehicle's 25-millimeter cannon provide the bass line for a symphony of destruction. As elements from all four services complete the absolute annihilation of the insurgent forces remaining in Fallujah, the area around the former insurgent stronghold is more peaceful than it has been for more than a year.

Where does he sit? 21 months after mission accomplished and major military actions ended he is hearing this and counts it as success. The fighting in Fallujah, that slam dunk operation, is now in its third month and that is a success. Fallujah is only a minor military action but it is continuing into its third month with no end in sight -- excuse me. The same end that was in sight two months ago is still in sight today.

As above Fallujah is now back in the hands of the insurgents. I was right. He was wrong. Next question.

There is a reason why the military leaves propaganda to the professionals.

The number of attacks in the greater Al Anbar Province is down by at least 70-80 percent from late October before Operation Al Fajar began. The enemy in this area is completely defeated, but not completely gone.

The number of attacks went from zero to some high number between May 2003 and October 2004. Whatever that high number was it has now decreased significantly. The first 18 months were a failure followed by 3 months of success.

And today the number of attacks is on the order of 1000 per day. Things have gotten worse since the LTC's whining article. Al Anbar Provence has been abandoned to the insurgents. What is his point? I was right. He was wrong. I have never been wrong.

Final eradication of the pockets of insurgents will take some time, as it always does, but the fact remains that the central geographic stronghold of the insurgents is now under friendly control. That sounds a lot like success to me.

Letting them get started was a success? Or just reducing the number of their attacks (not attackers, just their attacks) by 70-80% is counted as completely defeating them. What English language words will be tortured to describe completely defeating the remaining 20-30%?

Final eradication means that two years after a plea that eradicating pockets will take some time the pockets have returned to control of Fallujah. It means the pockets have taken control of Anbar Provence and has been abandoned by the US. Final eradication means they will more than double in their number of attacks per day.

In what world did this idiot live?

Given all of this, why don't the papers lead with "Coalition Crushes Remaining Pockets of Insurgents" or "Enemy Forces Resort to Suicide Bombings of Civilians"? This would paint a far more accurate picture of the enemy's predicament over here. Instead, headlines focus almost exclusively on our hardships.

Why doesn't the military let the press tell them how to do their job? He knows how to write headlines? As to his former headline, he just said 20-30% are still active so where does he get "crushes"? As to his latter, suicide bombing is not considered a last resort. And last I read the civilians are collaborating with Americans.

As to why they did not lead with "Coalition Crushes Remaining Pockets of Insurgents" it is good they did not as that was not happening. They were incredible enough as it was.

What about the media's portrayal of the enemy? Why do these ruthless murderers, kidnappers and thieves get a pass when it comes to their actions?

Perhaps the reason is related to the reason the Polish and French resistance was praised during WWII? Would he prefer the Iraqis be praised for their success against such odds?

I never read anyone giving them a pass. I have read of US troops being given a pass for murder, kidnapping and theft. Murder of entire families who were completely innocent. Kidnapping of people to Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. And theft of personal property is reported after damned near every search of a home without a warrant or probable cause.

What did the the media show or tell us about Margaret Hassoon, the director of C.A.R.E. in Iraq and an Iraqi citizen, who was kidnapped, brutally tortured and left disemboweled on a street in Fallujah? Did anyone in the press show these images over and over to emphasize the moral failings of the enemy as they did with the soldiers at Abu Ghraib?

As a matter of fact they did. Perhaps he only gets censored news in Iraq.

Did anyone show the world how this enemy had huge stockpiles of weapons in schools and mosques, or how he used these protected places as sanctuaries for planning and fighting in Fallujah and the rest of Iraq? Are people of the world getting the complete story?

Did not the resistance do the same during WWII? Why would anyone have a problem with it?

The answer again is no! What the world got instead were repeated images of a battle-weary Marine who made a quick decision to use lethal force and who immediately was tried in the world press. Was this one act really illustrative of the overall action in Fallujah? No, but the Marine video clip was shown an average of four times each hour on just about every major TV news channel for a week.

Did the Nazis expect good press for anything they did? Did the Russians in Afghanistan? The invader is automatically at fault no matter what he does. He would not be making quick decisions that cost lives if he were not the invader. The invader is never forced to invade. The invader is never forced to stay. The invader cannot plead necessity.

This is how the world views our efforts over here and stories like this without a counter continually serve as propaganda victories for the enemy.

Damn the press for reporting the facts in Vietnam. The facts support the enemy. The boy doesn't realize what a free pass he is getting.

Al Jazeera isn't showing the film of the CARE worker, but is showing the clip of the Marine. Earlier this year, the Iraqi government banned Al Jazeera from the country for its inaccurate reporting. Wonder where they get their information now? Well, if you go to the Internet, you'll find a web link from the Al Jazeera home page to CNN's home page. Very interesting.

Al Jazeera was banned for not slanting the news in the desired direction. More to the point, how does a link translate to a source? Is this boy ignorant of normal web practices? Or does he want CNN banned from Iraq?

The operation in Fallujah is only one of the recent examples of incomplete coverage of the events in Iraq. The battle in Najaf last August provides another. Television and newspapers spilled a continuous stream of images and stories about the destruction done to the sacred city, and of all the human suffering allegedly brought about by the hands of the big, bad Americans. These stories and the lack of anything to counter them gave more fuel to the fire of anti-Americanism that burns in this part of the world.

The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things. What were they supposed to report?

Those on the outside saw the Coalition portrayed as invaders or oppressors, killing hapless Iraqis who, one was given to believe, simply were trying to defend their homes and their Muslim way of life.

Never forget America is absolutely, positively, definitely fighting Muslims.

What does he think Americans are if not invaders? What do they think people imposing their will on others are if not oppressors? What does he think they were trying to do if not kick out the Americans who have in fact stated the intention to impose a liberal democracy at gunpoint?

And we see that has been a total failure as the government is now supporting the elimination of the Sunnis or at least payback for wrongs by them going back to British rule in the 1920s. I do not think that is a good idea but I can't blame them either. Nor can I object to Sunnis trying to restore the status they have held for 80 years.

Reality couldn't have been farther from the truth.

And what is truth asked the doubting Pilate and turned before he could receive an answer.

The truth since then has been shown to be worse than the gentleman was complaining about being shown. His truth was clearly not related to the reality of Iraq.

What noticeably was missing were accounts of the atrocities committed by the Mahdi Militia Muqtada Al Sadr's band of henchmen. While the media was busy bashing the Coalition, Muqtada's boys were kidnapping policemen, city council members and anyone else accused of supporting the Coalition or the new government, trying them in a kangaroo court based on Islamic Shari'a law, then brutally torturing and executing them for their "crimes."

Can't have them imposing the rule of law according to the traditional Muslim way of life now can we. Supporting the coalition is collaborating. The current government is collaborating. The French and Poles and Vietnamese and Afghans killed people for collaborating. Doesn't everyone? I would.

Could I paraphrase this as, "Don't they see our trigger-happy kids have their best interests at heart?"

What the media didn't show or write about were the two hundred-plus headless bodies found in the main mosque there, or the body that was put into a bread oven and baked. Nor did they show the world the hundreds of thousands of mortar, artillery and small arms rounds found within the "sacred" walls of the mosque. Also missing from the coverage was the huge cache of weapons found in Muqtada's "political" headquarters nearby. No, none of this made it to the screen or to print. All anyone showed were the few chipped tiles on the dome of the mosque and discussion centered on how we, the Coalition, had somehow done wrong. Score another one for the enemy's propaganda machine.

I heard of it. I don't recall the Army permitting the story to be verified by independent media people. So there was not much coverage of an unverified press release. I have to ask if this guy verified it or if he just passes along the rumor.

Should the military's version be trusted? It has been busted in the case of Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman and many others. Why now?

Now, compare the Najaf example to the coverage and debate ad nauseam of the Abu Ghraib Prison affair. There certainly is no justification for what a dozen or so soldiers did there, but unbalanced reporting led the world to believe that the actions of the dozen were representative of the entire military.

The coverage was of speculation on how high the authorization for torture goes.

And now we have documents showing it went as high as President Bush and the people were wronging convicted for following orders.

This has had an incredibly negative effect on Middle Easterners' already sagging opinion of the U.S. and its military.

The higher it goes the more it does represent the US and its military.

And the President as Commander in Chief is as high as it gets.

Did anyone show the world images of the 200 who were beheaded and mutilated in Muqtada's Shari'a Law court, or spend the next six months talking about how horrible all of that was? No, of course not. Most people don't know that these atrocities even happened.

The argument seems to be Americans are not so bad we can't find someone worse for comparison. That is not really a good argument. Is it better to kill with M-16 bullets or by beheading? It is a terrible argument.

It's little wonder that many people here want us out and would vote someone like Muqtada Al Sadr into office given the chance they never see the whole truth. Strange, when the enemy is the instigator the media does not flash images across the screens of televisions in the Middle East as they did with Abu Ghuraib. Is it because the beheaded bodies might offend someone? If so, then why do we continue see photos of the naked human pyramid over and over?

The answer is the ones that were shown were the least offensive available. The video-clips of Iraqi boys being sodomized will likely never be shown.

So, why doesn't the military get more involved in showing the media the other side of the story? The answer is they do. Although some outfits are better than others, the Army and other military organizations today understand the importance of getting out the story the whole story and trains leaders to talk to the press.

And you, sir, should have gotten some of that training.

There is a saying about media and the military that goes: "The only way the media is going to tell a good story is if you give them one to tell." This doesn't always work as planned. Recently, when a Coalition spokesman tried to let TV networks in on opening moves in the Fallujah operation, they misconstrued the events for something they were not and then blamed the military for their gullibility. CNN recently aired a "special report" in which the cable network accused the military of lying to it and others about the beginning of the Fallujah operation. The incident referred to took place in October when a Marine public affairs officer called media representatives and told them that an operation was about to begin. Reporters rushed to the outskirts of Fallujah to see what they assumed was going to be the beginning of the main attack on the city. As it turned out, what they saw were tactical "feints" designed to confuse the enemy about the timing of the main attack, then planned to take place weeks later.

Then would it not have been reasonable to have invited the press to witness tactical feints?

Once the network realized that major combat operations wouldn't start for several more weeks, CNN alleged that the Marines had used them as a tool for their deception operation. Now, they say they want answers from the military and the administration on the matter. The reality appears to be that in their zeal to scoop their competition, CNN and others took the information they were given and turned it into what they wanted it to be. Did the military lie to the media: no. It is specifically against regulations to provide misinformation to the press. However, did the military planners anticipate that reporters would take the ball and run with it, adding to the overall deception plan? Possibly. Is that unprecedented or illegal? Of course not.

If what they want is an answer and if this is the answer it has been given. If so he is saying the narrowly skirted the law to deceive the press and use it to military advantage. So Iraqis are correct to view them as part of the military and valid targets.

CNN and others say they were duped by the military in this and other cases. Yet, they never seem to be upset by the undeniable fact that the enemy manipulates them with a cunning that is almost worthy of envy.

They are better at it than the US military with all the training on dealing with the press. Perhaps the Army is giving the wrong courses.

You can bet that terrorist leader Abu Musab Al Zarqawi has his own version of a public affairs officer and it is evident that he uses him to great effect. Each time Zarqawi's group executes a terrorist act such as a beheading or a car bomb, they have a prepared statement ready to post on their website and feed to the press. Over-eager reporters take the bait, hook, line and sinker, and report it just as they got it.

Or perhaps Zarqawi is telling the truth as he sees it? Giving the benefit of the doubt this writer is telling the truth as he sees it. What is the difference? Iraqi objectives in Iraq are evil while American objective in Iraq are good?

Did it ever occur to the media that this type of notoriety is just what the terrorists want and need? Every headline they grab is a victory for them.

Who made them our enemy?

Those who have read the ancient Chinese military theorist and army general Sun Tzu will recall the philosophy of "Kill one, scare ten thousand" as the basic theory behind the strategy of terrorism. Through fear, the terrorist can then manipulate the behavior of the masses.

America killed tens of thousands and appears to scare not one. What was the point of Fallujah if not to kill many and scare the rest? Americas, good. Iraqis, bad.

The media allows the terrorist to use relatively small but spectacular events that directly affect very few, and spread them around the world to scare millions.

That is why they call them terrorists. It is also why they call them resistance fighters and guerrillas. The technical term is asymmetrical warfare. Is he railing against its existence?

What about the thousands of things that go right every day and are never reported? Complete a multi-million-dollar sewer project and no one wants to cover it, but let one car bomb go off and it makes headlines.

How small the town in America does he come from that covers the opening of sewage plants? Why can't the press be less like America? Isn't this the sort of thing the Russian communist press made a big deal about? And was it not the sort of news Americans chuckled at?

With each headline, the enemy scores another point and the good-guys lose one. This method of scoring slowly is eroding domestic and international support while fueling the enemy's cause.

What international support ever existed to be eroded? One second rate and a handful of third rate countries. And, no, I did not forget Poland. I was thinking of Poland. (Britain is the second rate country.)

And this coalition has been dwindling ever since his exclusive article. Spain is out. Italy is out. Japan is out. Even Poland is out. Were it not for Tony "the poodle" Blair Britain would be out.

I believe one of the reasons for this shallow and subjective reporting is that many reporters never actually cover the events they report on. This is a point of growing concern within the Coalition.

It became a concern for the reporters some six months ago when it became too dangerous to leave their hotels and the Green Zone.

It appears many members of the media are hesitant to venture beyond the relative safety of the so-called "International Zone" in downtown Baghdad, or similar "safe havens" in other large cities.

So the "damaging" reports that it is to dangerous to move about even Baghdad much less Iraq are true.

The situation for the press has only gotten worse.

Because terrorists and other thugs wisely target western media members and others for kidnappings or attacks, the westerners stay close to their quarters. This has the effect of holding the media captive in cities and keeps them away from the broader truth that lies outside their view. With the press thus cornered,

and the US unable to protect them

the terrorists easily feed their unwitting captives a thin gruel of anarchy, one spoonful each day. A car bomb at the entry point to the International Zone one day, a few mortars the next, maybe a kidnapping or two thrown in. All delivered to the doorsteps of those who will gladly accept it without having to leave their hotel rooms how convenient.

And fed the American side of the story of the completion of the grand sewage plant project without risking their lives to see a ribbon being cut.

I was being sarcastic at first but we find now there has not been even one significant so-called reconstruction project that has been completed and is still working. Most were never completed. The few that were completed were not properly staffed and ceased working within a week.

Electricity in Baghdad is now down to 4 hours per day and declining.

The scene is repeated all too often: an attack takes place in Baghdad and the morning sounds are punctuated by a large explosion and a rising cloud of smoke. Sirens wail in the distance and photographers dash to the scene a few miles away. Within the hour, stern-faced reporters confidently stare into the camera while standing on the balcony of their tenth-floor Baghdad hotel room, their back to the city and a distant smoke plume rising behind them.

Sure beats a sewage plant in the background.

More mayhem in Gotham City they intone, and just in time for the morning news. There is a transparent reason why the majority of car bombings and other major events take place before noon Baghdad-time; any later and the event would miss the start of the morning news cycle on the U.S. east coast. These terrorists aren't stupid; they know just what to do to scare the masses and when to do it. An important key to their plan is manipulation of the news media. But, at least the reporters in Iraq are gathering information and filing their stories, regardless of whether or the stories are in perspective. Much worse are the "talking heads" who sit in studios or offices back home and pontificate about how badly things are going when they never have been to Iraq and only occasionally leave Manhattan.

Would this lament not have a better twist if just Baghdad were safe enough for reporters? It is too dangerous to go out and report the news themselves. The only things they know for certain are happening are explosions that have fire and smoke attached. How is this other than doing their jobs the best they can under the circumstances?

What I should have said in my first response is that the claim of before noon to meet the US morning news cycle is accusing Iraqis of living in a different time zone. He could also have said almost all of them occur before 6pm Iraq time to be in time for the US evening news cycle. In other words, anything done at night or in daylight is timed for the US news cycle. This again is right out of the Vietnam playbook.

Since then I have been tracking the news releases from AP, NYT, Wash Post and such as well at NBC and ABC evening news. The TV news lags so far behind the news releases that it does not matter what time of day there are attacks by the Iraqi resistance.

Almost on a daily basis, newspapers, periodicals and airwaves give us negative views about the premises for this war and its progress. It seems that everyone from politicians to pop stars are voicing their unqualified opinions on how things are going. Recently, I saw a Rolling Stone magazine and in bold print on the cover was, "Iraq on Fire; Dispatches from the Lost War." Now, will someone please tell me who at Rolling Stone or just about any other "news" outlet is qualified to make a determination as to when all is lost and it's time to throw in the towel? In reality, such flawed reporting serves only to misshape world opinion and bolster the enemy's position. Each enemy success splashed across the front pages and TV screens of the world not only emboldens them, but increases their ability to recruit more money and followers.

As these Iraqis are so much better than America at manipulating the press it would appear the Army needs better training. How does this compare with America selling the press all the lies about Iraq which falsely justified the war? Who made enemies of the Iraqis?

So while the press was giving us negative news of the great progress in the Iraq war the military itself has since acknowledged things are more than twice as bad in terms of number of attacks since when this gentleman wrote. In fact the military has acknowledged things were continuing to get worse when this gentleman was writing. I was correct in saying he was playing the fool.

So what are the credentials of these self proclaimed "experts"? The fact is that most of those on whom we rely for complete and factual accounts have little or no experience or education in counter-insurgency operations or in nation-building to support their assessments.

Given the current situation in Iraq, or even just the situation in Fallujah which he confirms, the Army has no useful eduction in counter-insurgency. So the Army can hardly judge education in the subject.

We are not nation building in Iraq. Bush has said we are not. What qualifies this writer when he does not know what we are doing in Iraq?

How would they really know if things are going well or not?

The fighting in Fallujah not going into it third month might help. The constant gunfire in Baghdad would likely be a plus. The insurgency ceasing to increase in size would be a step in the right direction.

The simple fact is they were correct in saying things were going wrong. Things were going wrong in the sense of getting worse while the gentleman wrote this piece of crap. Today the military says I was right and he was wrong in his exclusive article. And I am one to rub it in.

I have never been wrong about Iraq and this administration has never been right about Iraq. This is not a matter of debate. It is a fact.

War is an ugly thing with many unexpected twists and turns. Who among them is qualified to say if this one is worse than any other at this point?

The present situation is worse than it was last month and worse than six months ago and worse than a year ago. I would also say this is the worst any war has been 20 months after the end of major combat operations.

And the present situation is at least twice as bad as it was when he wrote nearly two years ago. The US has been in Iraq longer than it took to win WWII. There are well over twice as many attacks per day than when he wrote. Fallujah is back in the hands of the insurgency and Anbar Provence has been abandoned to the resistance.

What would they have said in early 1942 about our chances of winning World War II? Was it a lost cause too?

Today is comparable to Germany and Japan in early 1947. I would say there is no comparison at all. If it had been this bad in those countries in 1947 many people might have considered it a lost cause.

Today is comparable to Germany and Japan in 1949 and it is worse than a comparable 1947. This is a silly analogy. If this were WWII October 2006 should have celebrated Victory over Japan and the end of WWII. So even if the gentleman is correct in comparing Iraq to early 1942 we should have won by now.

How much have these "experts" studied warfare and counter-insurgencies in particular? Have they ever read Roger Trinquier's treatise Modern Warfare: A French View on Counter-insurgency (1956)? He is one of the few French military guys who got it right. The Algerian insurgency of the 1950s and the Iraq insurgency have many similarities.

First he does not want this considered a lost cause and then he says it is similar to Algeria which France lost. He really needs to leave the propaganda to the professionals.

What about Napoleon's campaigns in Sardinia in 1805-07? Again, there are a lot of similarities to this campaign. Have they studied that and contrasted the strategies? Or, have they even read Mao Zedung's theories on insurgencies, or Nygen Giap's, or maybe Che' Gueverra's? Have they seen any of Sun Tzu's work lately? Who are these guys? It's time to start studying, folks. If a journalist doesn't recognize the names on this list, he or she probably isn't qualified to assess the state of this or any other campaign's progress.

Who is this guy who does not know insurgencies come in two types; those which have won and those which are still fighting? There have been no losing insurgencies. But never let it be said Iraq is not a lost cause. That would be to knowledgeable and to educated to say.

Worse yet, why in the world would they seek opinion from someone who probably knows even less than they do about the state of affairs in Iraq? It sells commercials, I suppose. But, I find it amazing that some people are more apt to listen to a movie star's or rock singer's view on how we should prosecute world affairs than to someone whose profession it is to know how these things should go. I play the guitar, but Bruce Springsteen doesn't listen to me play. Why should I be subjected to his views on the validity of the war? By profession, he's a guitar player. Someone remind me what it is that makes Sean Penn an expert on anything. It seems that anyone who has a dissenting view is first to get in front of the camera. I'm all for freedom of speech, but let's talk about things we know. Otherwise, television news soon could have about as much credibility as "The Bachelor" has for showing us truly loving couples.

By profession this man is supposed to know no one has ever won against this kind of guerrilla movement. Knowing that he should be telling us what new and different things America is doing from other guerrilla wars such as Vietnam. Can he explain destroying Fallujah in order to save it?

I implied a question back then, what is the US doing differently to win in Iraq where it failed in Vietnam? It was a rhetorical question, nothing different. In nearly two years since then, still nothing different from Vietnam. So please tell me why doing the same thing will have a different outcome? I do not see it.

Also bothersome are references by "experts" on how "long" this war is taking. I've read that in the world of manufacturing, you can have only two of the following three qualities when developing a product cheap, fast or good. You can produce something cheap and fast, but it won't be good; good and fast, but it won't be cheap; good and cheap, but it won't be fast. In this case, we want the result to be good and we want it at the lowest cost in human lives. Given this set of conditions, one can expect this war is to take a while, and rightfully so.

Sir? Can you give us an estimate when we will see films of Americans being helicoptered off the roof of the embassy? Why have things gotten worse since major combat operations ended? Why has the US let this happen for the last 20 months and now pleads modest improvements in small places?

And two years later I add to that question as to why things have gotten much worse since I asked that question? There are more than twice as many attacks per day, Fallujah is back in the hands of the insurgents and Anbar Provence has been abandoned. Progress, our most important product.

Creating a democracy in Iraq not only will require a change in the political system, but the economic system as well.

But Iraqis should not be fighting for their way of doing things. They should not resist having the American system imposed on them. They should want to become good Americans. The man lists reasons for the fighting at the same time he bemoans it.

In another article I pointed out the stupidity of the American idea of "fair play" when it cut back on Baghdad's electrify in order to fairly distribute it to all the country. Problem is those plays which had been shortchanged already had generators and fuel distribution for them. The people in Baghdad did not. The net result was the people in Baghdad were without power most of the day and people outside Baghdad did not have to use their generators as much.

So lets impose the American idea of an economic system on the Iraqis. Fact of life is if the US were to impose its ideas of an economic system on the British the Brits would kill us.

Changes like this cannot be made without people hating you for doing it.

Study of examples of similar socio-economic changes that took place in countries like Chile, Bulgaria, Serbia, Russia and other countries with oppressive Socialist dictatorships shows that it took seven to ten years to move those countries to where they are now. There are many lessons to be learned from these transformations, the most important of which is that change doesn't come easily, even without an insurgency going on.

Not one of those countries had a guerrilla war. The closest was Pinochet, the American backed dictator, murdering every socialist he could find in Chile. None of those countries had change imposed by another country by force of arms. This man knows no history.

Maybe the experts should take a look at all of the work that has gone into stabilizing Bosnia-Herzegovina over the last 10 years. We are just at the eighteen-month mark in Iraq, a place far more oppressive than Bosnia ever was. If previous examples are any comparison, there will be no quick solutions here, but that should be no surprise to an analyst who has done his or her homework.

Anyone who looked at that war found secession and wars against it. They had nothing to do with with socialism or economics. This boy is dumber than dog-shit.

This war is not without its tragedies; none ever are. The key to the enemy's success is use of his limited assets to gain the greatest influence over the masses. The media serves as the glass through which a relatively small event can be magnified to international proportions, and the enemy is exploiting this with incredible ease. There is no good news to counteract the bad, so the enemy scores a victory almost every day.

If it were reporting a single event blown out of proportion this might have some merit. But a hundred "little" events a day every day and increasing in number and violence is a different story. Does this man imagine he can produce hundreds of good stories a day, every day and increase the number every day?

In its zeal to get to the hot spots and report the latest bombing, the media is missing the reality of a greater good going on in Iraq. We seldom are seen doing anything right or positive in the news. People believe what they see, and what people of the world see almost on a daily basis is negative. How could they see it any other way? These images and stories, out of scale and context to the greater good going on over here, are just the sort of thing the terrorists are looking for. This focus on the enemy's successes strengthens his resolve and aids and abets his cause. It's the American image abroad that suffers in the end.

The boy could list the hundred good things that happened yesterday to make his point. There are so many attacks each day it is a matter of available time and space as to which ones to report. Would he like this disclaimer to precede all reports from Iraq?

Ironically, the press freedom that we have brought to this part of the world is providing support for the enemy we fight. I obviously think it's a disgrace when many on whom the world relies for news paint such an incomplete picture of what actually has happened. Much too much is ignored or omitted. I am confident that history will prove our cause right in this war, but by the time that happens, the world might be so steeped in the gloom of ignorance we won't recognize victory when we achieve it.

His confidence in history is his delusion that he can predict the future. Did he not know before the war to disarm Iraq that he would be forcing Iraqis into an American political and economic mold? Will not history record the bushit which justified this invasion?

Postscript: I have had my staff aggressively pursue media coverage for all sorts of events that tell the other side of the story only to have them turned down or ignored by the press in Baghdad. Strangely, I found it much easier to lure the Arab media to a "non-lethal" event than the western outlets. Open a renovated school or a youth center and I could always count on Al-Iraqia or even Al-Jazeera to show up, but no western media ever showed up ever. Now I did have a pretty dangerous sector, the Abu Ghuraib district that extends from western Baghdad to the outskirts of Fallujah (not including the prison), but it certainly wasn't as bad as Fallujah in November and there were reporters in there.

If you do have that district you could then demand the inmates at Abu Ghraib be charged with a crime or released and if charged with a crime be represented by attorneys and appear before Iraqi judges. But if you do not have that authority what do you mean by "did have a dangerous sector"? Who gave it to you? Who had the authority to give it to you? Who had the authority to give you any authority to be there? By what right beyond might do you have to be in Iraq?

Page reads: 1130