Iraq-Media

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

One more, a good article analysis:

Still Think the Press Doesn’t Get It?

Here’s a story on the use of information in both Iraq and the larger War on Terror, a very long story, that appears on the first page of the D section in today’s Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/25/AR2006032500983.html (which I assume must be Style or Lifestyles, something along those lines.) It’s a muddled hash, mixing together efforts to use psyops to manipulate enemy fighting forces, information operations to manipulate enemy (and dangerously neutral) civilian populations, along with various domestic political operations that had absolutely nothing to do with the war but were cynical misfires undertaken by political operatives.

A sophisticated analysis of this war is impossible without including the role of information and imagery: it is in many ways a unique war precisely because it is an information war – much of what I’ve written here has focused on that, the way terrorist forces use violence in an effort to manipulate imagery in an effort to manipulate press coverage and through the press coverage, enemy (meaning US) public opinion.

This article, however, simply oozes snide and snark, in an effort to make fun of the men running the Lincoln Group (basically because they don’t want to be described as being involved in propaganda.) The reporter clearly finds that entertaining, this notion that there are differences between propaganda, psyops, influence operations, the idea that information operations generally are of any consequence whatsoever when there are bombs going off and people dying.

I have no particular feelings towards the Lincoln Group per se, but it’s clear from the tone of this article that this reporter – and therefore the Post’s editors – find it hilarious that the people on the ground think there’s a difference between categories of information operations, or that any of this really matters in the end. Or that bombs going off might be going off in an effort to manipulate the way information is shaped.

Only very late in the article do we read:

[i]But Americans just don’t understand. The culture hasn’t come to grips with information as a part of warfare. That’s Garfield, lecturing again.

“I think we’ve got to back up a little bit and look at warfare,” he says, telling how the conventional notion of war has changed, with insurgencies and asymmetric conflict growing more prevalent, meaning that bullets and bombs alone won’t win. Information – its strategic use – can tip the scales. And yet this fact does not yet resonate in American culture.

“People are more comfortable with killing than they are with influencing,” he says. “The majority can be convinced that the use of military force is acceptable, but everybody becomes very uncomfortable when you talk about the use of information,” like “promoting your cause, promoting your ideals” and “discrediting the tactics and the arguments and the strategy of the enemy.”[/i]

Think the reporter thinks much of this idea?

Here comes the ultimate dismissal:

[i]Not surprisingly, considering who the Lincoln Group’s big client is, Garfield sounds very much in sync with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld’s got an “Information Operations Roadmap,” which he approved in 2003 and which was declassified earlier this year. It’s supposed to “advance the goal of information operations as a core military competency.”[/i]

Again, I’ve no particular feelings about the Lincoln Group qua the Lincoln group but I’m very bothered that when the Post decided to hold them up as objects of ridicule, they went after the basic ideas underlying information operations per se.

As I’ve argued repeatedly, one of the critical failings of the coverage of Iraq is that reporters just seem utterly incapable – or at least unwilling – to consider the possibility that there are strategies that generate the violence, that the violence isn’t just random, isn’t just an effort to kill as many people as possible. And a large part of that strategy is to generate media coverage. But if this is what the media thinks of the basic idea that information matters in this war, we’re a long way from getting that idea taken seriously.

It’s part of the same problem that leads reporters (and defenders of the press coverage) to repeatedly bring up how difficult it is to cover the war because it’s so dangerous for reporters, but to leave it at that. There never seems to be any consideration of the possibility that it’s dangerous for reporters specifically because they’re being targeted specifically, or to think through what that means.

Update: Yes, by all means let’s ignore the importance of ideas and information just now: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/24/AR2006032401715.html

22

Boston,

I thought I was the one that tried to argue that the media has a purpose, or a role to play, and had been shot down in my thoughts.

Now, you feel that the media has a certain role to play, but that it isn’t fulfilling that role.

The media has a self-defined job, which is not party to any government agenda, or terrorist agenda, though of course everyone tries to influence the media to their benefit.

The media reports news. It fills seats and sells soap and dogfood during the commercials between segments. It attempts to earn a profit – that indeed is it’s role, just like any other corporate entity.

Providing lists of facts and figures concerning how many schools are built will not interest most of the prospective audience, so sales of dish soap and dogfood will suffer.

Go figure.

Once again, we have created a profit based culture, so we should not be surprised when companies do whatever it takes to improve their profits.

I don’t understand the confusion. Are you suggesting that profits should not be the driving concern for the media, that it has some other purpose, instead of selling dish soap and dogfood?

Since when?

23

[quote]vroom wrote:
Boston,

I thought I was the one that tried to argue that the media has a purpose, or a role to play, and had been shot down in my thoughts.

Now, you feel that the media has a certain role to play, but that it isn’t fulfilling that role.[/quote]

I do think they have a role to play – and that role is to report the facts in context, and not insert their own opinions into their reporting (unless, of course, they are doing an opinion piece) - or, failing that, to present the best arguments of both sides of a contested issue.

To put it more simply, their role is to provide the best information so people can decide issues for themselve, not to shade coverage to fit their own views.

[quote]vroom wrote:

The media has a self-defined job, which is not party to any government agenda, or terrorist agenda, though of course everyone tries to influence the media to their benefit.

The media reports news. It fills seats and sells soap and dogfood during the commercials between segments. It attempts to earn a profit – that indeed is it’s role, just like any other corporate entity.

Providing lists of facts and figures concerning how many schools are built will not interest most of the prospective audience, so sales of dish soap and dogfood will suffer.

Go figure.[/quote]

The specific point was that there are many non-school-building-type stories about successful operations that are ignored. Stories that, if the idea is that a story needs firepower or whatnot to sell, have plenty.

[quote]vroom wrote:

Once again, we have created a profit based culture, so we should not be surprised when companies do whatever it takes to improve their profits.

I don’t understand the confusion. Are you suggesting that profits should not be the driving concern for the media, that it has some other purpose, instead of selling dish soap and dogfood?

Since when?[/quote]

Indeed, and no one is begrudging the media their opportunity to sell dogfood. But in our system, the press has been granted certain, special and constitutionally protected rights because it serves a specific purpose above and beyond any corporate goals: informing voters.

And, again, no one is even arguing against making stories “sensationalistic” to attract attention – provided they are still accurate. The problem arises when coverage is biased on a particular ideological slant, and it is especially acute when those providing the slanted coverage are claiming to be unbiased.

24

Boston,

I am amazed that you are now arguing for editorial standards for the media, other than those imposed by it’s ownership and viewership!

[quote]Indeed, and no one is begrudging the media their opportunity to sell dogfood. But in our system, the press has been granted certain, special and constitutionally protected rights because it serves a specific purpose above and beyond any corporate goals: informing voters.

And, again, no one is even arguing against making stories “sensationalistic” to attract attention – provided they are still accurate. The problem arises when coverage is biased on a particular ideological slant, and it is especially acute when those providing the slanted coverage are claiming to be unbiased.[/quote]

Accurate? Since when has the media had to portray things that were accurate? You have “infotainment” on FOX news which is far from accurate, but certainly “informs” the voters. How come that doesn’t fall under your media behavioral microscope?

Are you trying to tell me that FOX hasn’t portrayed an ideological slant? Are you suggesting that the media should accurately portray the views of the Islamists, in order to avoid having a western ideological slant?

Your arguments are proposterous. You want the media to reflect your views, or that of the administration, and to be used as tool, propaganda, to support your viewpoint or that of your chosen government, to inform the populace of that which the government would have it informed.

The fact that the information being presented isn’t what you want it to present is exactly the problem you have with the media.

I am laughing at you!

25

[quote]vroom wrote:
Boston,

I am amazed that you are now arguing for editorial standards for the media, other than those imposed by it’s ownership and viewership![/quote]

Depending on what you mean, I’m not. If you mean I think some group should impose standards, then I don’t. If you mean I think that the journalists should either at the very least try to maintain the impartiality they claim or quit claiming it, then yeah, I do.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

Indeed, and no one is begrudging the media their opportunity to sell dogfood. But in our system, the press has been granted certain, special and constitutionally protected rights because it serves a specific purpose above and beyond any corporate goals: informing voters.

And, again, no one is even arguing against making stories “sensationalistic” to attract attention – provided they are still accurate. The problem arises when coverage is biased on a particular ideological slant, and it is especially acute when those providing the slanted coverage are claiming to be unbiased.

vroom wrote:

Accurate? Since when has the media had to portray things that were accurate? You have “infotainment” on FOX news which is far from accurate, but certainly “informs” the voters. How come that doesn’t fall under your media behavioral microscope?[/quote]

That’s the difference between the opinion page and the news page. Of course the opinion page is going to be biased – that’s the nature of the opinion page. Opinion TV shows are the same. News shows are the ones that claim to be unbiased, and that should either try or quit claiming it.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Are you trying to tell me that FOX hasn’t portrayed an ideological slant? Are you suggesting that the media should accurately portray the views of the Islamists, in order to avoid having a western ideological slant?[/quote]

Here’s the thing - and this is just repeating what I have already typed many, many times and what you already know is my position on this: Fox moved away from trying to claim “unbiased.” They claim “fair and balanced,” and, while they are not perfect in that regard, I think they do a pretty good job of showing both sides of the argument on contentious issues – thus, they are “fair and balanced.” That is very different from “unbiased.” And it’s right out there in the forefront, in their slogan, repeated ad nauseum for anyone who might tune in and not realize what they are attempting to do.

I infinitely prefer the “fair and balanced” motto to getting news stories that claim to be unbiased but are obviously ideologically slanted – so much so that it’s apparent that neither the author nor the editors actually cared to even give it the appearance of unbiased coverage.

And if you think about the fact that the purpose of the media’s special rights in our society is to inform voters, you’ll quickly see why I prefer the “fair and balanced” model to the “claim to be unbiased” model – it gives the voters more information, exposes them to both sides, and lets them use their intellectual faculties to make decisions on their views for themselves. As opposed to having views buried as “facts” in the “claim to be unbiased” model.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Your arguments are proposterous. You want the media to reflect your views, or that of the administration, and to be used as tool, propaganda, to support your viewpoint or that of your chosen government, to inform the populace of that which the government would have it informed.

The fact that the information being presented isn’t what you want it to present is exactly the problem you have with the media.

I am laughing at you![/quote]

Keep laughing - it’s good for the abs.

Then try re-reading my posts and see if you can’t get my real position.

26

BB,

Not to keep blowing sunshine up your rear: BUT, good articles.

It’s frightening to talk politcs with people, have them regurgitate slogans/headlines, and discover that they don’t have the slightest idea about the context or the “meat” of the story.

If you’ve had this experience, you become very wary over the power that the press wields. Many of us feel they haven’t earned the right to “make” public opinion.

Give us the facts and we will decide.

Iraq is a prime example of the failings of the modern press.

Fox easily has done the best job reporting on Iraq. It isn’t even close.

Oh, before I get the usual prattle about “Jeff favors Fox, what a surprise,” please note that I make a good faith effort to read and cite liberal leaning sources in my arguments.

I don’t think Fox has missed any negative story. However, they stand head and shoulders above the other media outlets when it comes to reporting progress on the ground. cnn/npr/abc/nbc/cbs aren’t even ballpark.

Worse, some of us suspect they don’t make a good faith effort to be balanced.

JeffR

27

Boston,

You have basically come full circle. Now your standpoint is basically, don’t lie to me.

The problem is, this whole issue is subjective, so if you are more right than the media, it is biased. Similarly, if you are more left than the media, it is biased.

No, the problem is, the media picks what to report, but you want it to report more things that promote your own viewpoint… but you are not willing to stand up and say that.

I’m still laughing at you!

28

[quote]vroom wrote:
Boston,

You have basically come full circle. Now your standpoint is basically, don’t lie to me.

The problem is, this whole issue is subjective, so if you are more right than the media, it is biased. Similarly, if you are more left than the media, it is biased.

No, the problem is, the media picks what to report, but you want it to report more things that promote your own viewpoint… but you are not willing to stand up and say that.

I’m still laughing at you![/quote]

vroom,

You’re correct in that my position is essentially, “Don’t lie to me.” Your incorrect in that it hasn’t changed since the beginning.

I look at the media with the same basic eye that the SEC looks at public companies – make the reports as accurate as possible, and don’t mislead via omissions.

Of course the media chooses what to report – and, of course, this is the problem with having an overwhelmingly biased media (a media that is, in general, overwhelmingly liberal that is). I want the media to report a complete picture of what’s going on in Iraq, rather than pretend to be unbiased while “muddying” (as opposed to whitewashing) the story.

Actually, that’s the same thing I want with economic stories, political stories, or, really, any news stories on controversial topics. It’s not doing so. In my mind, that means the media is not doing its job.

And it’s not even a matter of being more “left” or “right” than the media (though it’s certainly easier to be right of the media…). It’s just a matter of getting some balanced news coverage (and, really, as I said, I’d be happy if they even tried to do so on a regular basis - no one expects perfection, but we have the right to expect effort).

29

No, you don’t.

What you have the right to do is financially support (create a market for) good media. However, the public has failed to do this.

Personally, I don’t like the idea of a government controlled media, as the government is already powerful enough, it doesn’t need the ability to silence it’s critics.

30

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

And it’s not even a matter of being more “left” or “right” than the media (though it’s certainly easier to be right of the media…). It’s just a matter of getting some balanced news coverage (and, really, as I said, I’d be happy if they even tried to do so on a regular basis - no one expects perfection, but we have the right to expect effort).

vroom wrote:

No, you don’t.

What you have the right to do is financially support (create a market for) good media. However, the public has failed to do this.

Personally, I don’t like the idea of a government controlled media, as the government is already powerful enough, it doesn’t need the ability to silence it’s critics.[/quote]

What on earth makes you think I support government-controlled media? Certainly nothing I wrote – in fact, if you review, I believe I explicitly said I do not support the enforcement of a standard by the government or any other body.

I can argue for what I think is right and correct without being for government or other enforcement. If I want anything, it’s a little market-imposed discipline, which is why I argue my case to the masses (or the massive, on this site).

31

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
What on earth makes you think I support government-controlled media? Certainly nothing I wrote – in fact, if you review, I believe I explicitly said I do not support the enforcement of a standard by the government or any other body.

I can argue for what I think is right and correct without being for government or other enforcement. If I want anything, it’s a little market-imposed discipline, which is why I argue my case to the masses (or the massive, on this site).[/quote]

I wish you would make up your mind.

Either you are in favor of market forces driving the media, as they do, and they worry about profits or you are in favor of something else.

I look at the media with the same basic eye that the SEC looks at public companies – make the reports as accurate as possible, and don’t mislead via omissions.

This lead me to imagine you were longing for some type of oversight capability. If not, relax, you have exactly what you want, a media bent on it’s own wellbeing and profitability.

Woohoo!

32

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
What on earth makes you think I support government-controlled media? Certainly nothing I wrote – in fact, if you review, I believe I explicitly said I do not support the enforcement of a standard by the government or any other body.

I can argue for what I think is right and correct without being for government or other enforcement. If I want anything, it’s a little market-imposed discipline, which is why I argue my case to the masses (or the massive, on this site).

vroom wrote:
I wish you would make up your mind.

Either you are in favor of market forces driving the media, as they do, and they worry about profits or you are in favor of something else.

I look at the media with the same basic eye that the SEC looks at public companies – make the reports as accurate as possible, and don’t mislead via omissions.

This lead me to imagine you were longing for some type of oversight capability. If not, relax, you have exactly what you want, a media bent on it’s own wellbeing and profitability.

Woohoo![/quote]

I have made up my mind. I want to influence market forces to shape the media into something better - something more along the lines of what it should be. And I want to de-regulate broadcasting to speed this process along.

You read the SEC analogy incorrectly – I was simply using it as an example for what I think consumers should expect (and journalistic ethics should demand – I guess for that I need to influence academia as well as the market…).

33

BTW, back on topic of the media’s coverage of Iraq, here’s an article – not from a mainstream source but from a conservative/libertarian (but not libertarian on the Iraq War, obviously) magazine, the National Review, focused largely on military progress in Iraq, and also on some broad-based economic progress. Seems to me there are more than just school openings out there to cover - it’s just not getting covered, for some strange, unknown and altogether unfathomable reason…

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/crawford200603270552.asp

March 27, 2006, 5:52 a.m.
The Other Side of the Story
A third update on good news from Iraq.

By Bill Crawford

Welcome to another dose of good news about Iraq. (See here ( http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/crawford200603070834.asp ) and here ( http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/crawford200603200824.asp ) for more.) After my last report, I received an avalanche of positive feedback about the story of the bullet-proof cross, requesting more stories like that. So I’ve done that, and at the end of this update there are several more stories about the wonderful men and women in our armed forces.

Colonel John Tully is the officer in charge of security for three Iraqi provinces south of Baghdad. He recently told Voice of America that Iraqi forces will soon be capable enough that the U.S. can begin to drawn down the number of troops in the region ( http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-03-23-voa1.cfm ):

“I’d say by the time I’m ready to go back to Texas at the end of the year that the Iraqi Army is going to have the lead for any kind of counter-insurgency operations in the three provinces that I’m in, and I’ll be in a support role for them. Clearly, as the Iraqi Army takes over the lead for any kind of counter-insurgency operations I won’t need a complete battalion to work in an area. What I need is just a smaller team. So without a doubt it translates into less troops on the ground, less U.S. troops,” he said.

As proof of their capabilities, Colonel Tully cites the recent Islamic holiday of Arba’een, which takes place in the holy city of Karbala. Security for the holiday was a mostly Iraqi affair, with U.S. troops in support. There were no deaths during the holiday, and only a few minor injuries.

A major theme of my first two updates was that people who actually go to Iraq are far more optimistic about the situation than those who base their opinions only on the reporting of the mainstream media. Governor Kenny Guinn says his belief in what the U.S. is doing in Iraq has been strengthened after a trip there ( http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2006/mar/22/032210096.html ):

[i] Regarding the rampant sectarian violence in Iraq, Guinn said there were “enough out of millions of people that will join together and try to do things you don’t want them to do.”

"We have gangs in America, don't we?" Guinn said. "And they're pretty brutal in many of the areas."

Guinn said he saw major reconstruction and other signs of progress in Baghdad that he didn't think had been depicted in the news here, adding, "I went there and saw something different that what I had been exposed to." [/i]

Governor James Douglas of Vermont traveled with Gov. Guinn and made an interesting observation ( http://www.addisonindependent.com/News/032306gov.html ):

[i] Iraqi insurgents, according to Douglas, are most active in four of the country’s 18 provinces. Much of the violence is centered in and around Baghdad, he noted.

"The insurgents are pretty smart ... they know where the media are," Douglas said. [/i]

Colorado Senator Ken Salazar is also in Iraq with a bipartisan delegation, and like so many others who have been there, he sees signs of progress ( http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4559894,00.html ):

Salazar said he is hopeful “because I see signs of positive action on the ground, in terms of training of the Iraqi army as well as training of the Iraqi police.”

Senator Jeff Sessions is traveling with Salazar, and expressed optimism about the situation as well ( http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/1143022735221820.xml&coll=1 ).

Australian Prime Minister John Howard said the situation in Iraq is getting better and that the country is not on the verge of civil war ( http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200603/s1598809.htm ):

“When you have a situation where a country was a dictatorship, and a very brutal one which didn’t allow television reports when people were exterminated and liquidated by Saddam Hussein, when you go from that to being a democracy and you have in the space of 12 months, you have three democratic elections, I don’t think things can be said to be getting worse. I think they can be said to be getting better,” he said.

The son of Iraq’s president spoke in Floriday about the situation in his country. He predicted disaster if U.S. troops leave too soon, and said the situation isn’t as bad as media reports present it ( http://www.kurdmedia.com/news.asp?id=11724 ):

But I’m here to tell you," he said, “that not everything happening in Iraq is bad.” The country, he said, is largely stable, with fighting in a handful of areas while most of Iraq functions calmly. Schools and hospitals are opening, he said, and trained Iraqis are fighting terrorists. Plus, the country held three elections in a little more than a year.

Many American media outlets (Yahoo, CBS News, CNN, Fox News) reported that a U.S. air raid killed eleven in the town of Ishaqi; however, the U.S. military is denying the reports ( http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-03-22T203846Z_01_MAC267820_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-USA-CIVILIANS.xml&archived=False ):

The U.S. military hit back on Wednesday at what it called a “pattern of misinformation” following Iraqi police accusations that its troops shot dead a family of 11 in their home last week.

President Bush mentioned the Iraqi city of Tall’afar Afar during a speech this week. The mayor of Tall’afar agrees. He recently sent a letter to General Casey thanking U.S. troops for routing the terrorists from his city. This exchange has not been covered by the media, so perhaps you aren’t familiar with it. Here are some excerpts from the mayor’s letter ( Multi-National Force - Iraq - Home ):

[i] Dear General Casey, I don’t need to explain to you the condition of my city since you have full knowledge of our suffering better that any other dignitary in our dear Iraq. By this letter, I wish to bring to your attention the dear position you occupy in the hearts of the Tall’afar people, which all words fall short of explaining.

Dear General, our city was overrun by heartless terrorists, Abu Mus'ab Al Zarqawi and his followers who unloaded their blood thirsty and veracious action of evil on this city for several months by indiscriminately killing men, women and children. At that time, Tall'afar days were all dark. I have seen with my own eyes, fathers holding their sons bleeding to death from injuries inflicted while we could do nothing to help as there was not a drop of life saving blood to be found in the whole city. Tall'afar was a human slaughterhouse. [/i]

Iraq has become a tough place to be a member of al Qaeda, and it has been reported that the number al Qaeda members in Iraq is dwindling ( http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2006/march/03_24_1.html ):

[i]Officials said Iraqi intelligence has assessed that the number of Al Qaida operatives in the country decreased significantly over the last year. They said many of the operatives were killed, captured or returned to their native countries.

"We have information that many members of Al Qaida have returned to their countries," Iraqi Interior Minister Bayan Jabr said.

Officials said no more than several hundred Al Qaida operatives were believed to be in Iraq. [/i]

A top aide to Zarqawi was captured in eastern Iraq on Thursday ( http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=123&art_id=qw1143120241401B262 ). Fares Kadhim Lafi, an Iraqi, was responsible for dozens of attacks, including an attack on a bus that killed nine civilians.

In Baghdad, soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division stopped a kidnapping after receiving a tip from an Iraqi ( http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom1/Lists/Press ). A suspicious vehicle was pulled over and a kidnapping victim rescued from the trunk of the car.

In Tikrit, a tip from a local led to the discovery of a weapons cache containing 500 rounds of anti-aircraft ammunition ( Multi-National Force - Iraq - Home ).

Operation Northern Lights began on Thursday, in part from information received via tips from Iraqis. The operation has already resulted in the discovery of five weapons caches ( Multi-National Force - Iraq - Home ):

…containing a machinegun, a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, three AK-47 assault rifles, 2,200 PKC machine gun rounds, two boxes of gunpowder, a RPG rocket, an Iraqi police jacket, 18 106 mm tank rounds, 400 blasting caps, 40 artillery rounds, 17 pressure plate initiators, 20 Motorola radio initiators, and thousands of .50 caliber machine gun rounds.

Iraqi forces killed one terrorist during a firefight. Eighteen terrorists have been detained in the operation, including two “high-value” targets ( http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=8733 ).

During Operation Swarmer a tip from an Iraqi led to the arrest of two and the discovery of a large weapons cache ( http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7002859891 ). The weapons cache consisted of “four 55-gallon drums filled with weapons.”

Operation Swarmer ended on the March 22 “without any casualties and with all tactical objectives” having been met. During the operation, more than 100 insurgents were detained and 24 weapons caches discovered. The caches included ( http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom1/Lists/Press ):

Six shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles

Over 350 mortar rounds and three mortar systems

26 artillery rounds

A variety of IED-making materials and other military items

Over 120 rockets

Over 3200 rounds of small-arms ammunition

86 rocket-propelled grenades and 28 launchers

Six landmines

12 hand grenades and 40 rifle grenades

34 rifles and machineguns of various types

North of Balad, a joint Iraqi and U.S. operation uncovered more weapons, including four shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles ( http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom1/Lists/Press ):

Iraqi Army and coalition forces also confiscated nine 155 mm artillery rounds, four 122 mm mortar rounds, 27 rocket-propelled grenades, eight RPG launchers, 10 - 57 mm rockets, a .50 caliber machine gun, various types of hand grenades, 50 pounds of explosives and various improvised explosive device making material.

In Anbar Province, Marines have uncovered 500 weapons caches in the last six months ( Home ).

In the town of Madain, 15 miles south of Baghdad, Iraqi and U.S. troops stopped an assault on a police station ( http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060323/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq ). More than sixty insurgents were involved in the attack using mortars, RPG’s, and automatic rifles. Iraqi forces stood their ground and when it was all over 50 of the attackers were in custody.

Iraqi forces in Fallujah were just provided with armored Humvees similar to those of their Marine counterparts ( Multi-National Force - Iraq - Home ):

[i] Iraqi soldiers said through an interpreter, they were pleased with the delivery. They praised the “high technology” and said that with the added protection, they could “destroy the terrorists.”

"We're very excited," one Iraqi soldier said. "We can't wait to go into the city of Fallujah with these cars. The terrorists will be more scared and will take more consideration before attacking."

The new humvees are more than just better protection for the Iraqis. It's also a visual reminder of their growing capabilities in the eyes of their own citizens.

"They're a status symbol," explained Capt. Jon J. Bonar, a 31-year-old from Los Angeles who serves as the senior logistics advisor to the 1st Iraqi Army Division. "All the soldiers take their picture in from [sic] of the humvees."[/i]

The 9th Iraqi Army Battalion took over responsibility for another nine square miles of battlespace in northern Baghdad ( Multi-National Force - Iraq - Home ):

[i] “The Iraqi Army is getting better every day,” said Col. James Pasquarette, commander of 1st BCT. “They are a capable security force. They impress me because they can gather intelligence from the Iraqi citizen better than we can.”

"They (the Iraqi Army) are motivated and trained to take over the mission. I was really impressed," said Capt. Lou Castillo, commander of Headquarters and Headquarters Company, STB, 1st BCT. "They are a ready and trained force." [/i]

In an area of Anbar Province called “The Triad,” members of the Iraqi 7th Army operated independently for the first time ( Home ):

[i] Iraqi soldiers planned, rehearsed, and executed the mission entirely on their own. A Military Transition Team (MTT) ? a group of Coalition servicemembers assigned to logistically assist and guide each Iraqi military unit’s transition to independent operations - accompanied the Iraqi soldiers to advise them during the operation.

This operation is another example of the continuing progress Iraqi Army units are making toward eventually assuming control of areas of Iraq, independent of Coalition forces. [/i]

The operation was part of Raging Bull. The Iraqi soldiers were pleased with the results:

[i] Iraqi soldiers are pleased with the success of the independent operation.

"All the soldiers are very happy to be able to do this operation because it is our one chance to prove we can do our duty alone," said Iraqi Army Sgt. Q'ter al-Raheed, a platoon noncommissioned officer with 2nd Bn., 2nd Brigade. [/i]

Iraqis now control a considerable amount of battle space in Iraq ( U.S. Department of Defense ):

[i] Two divisions, 13 brigades and 49 battalions of the Iraqi army and two brigades and six battalions of the national police are responsible for their own battlespace, Dempsey said. By July, Iraqi security forces will be responsible for security along all 3,631 kilometers of Iraq’s borders, he added.

Much of the battlespace the Iraqis are responsible for is in secured areas or those with small populations. Dempsey pointed out that 50 percent of Baghdad is controlled by Iraqi forces and by the end of the year, when Iraqis control 75 percent of the country, much of that will include heavily populated and dangerous areas. [/i]

This week, 196 Iraqis graduated from the Baghdad Police Academy. One graduate made his resolve clear ( http://www.blackanthem.com/TheAllies/military_2006032501.html ):

“There is no difference between Sunni and Shia, we are all Iraqis. One thing we learned at the police academy is that we must work as one family to win against the insurgency,” said a police graduate.

There are now more than 241,000 trained and equipped Iraqi security forces ( Multi-National Force - Iraq - Home ).

Construction will begin soon on an international port in Basra ( http://english.alarabonline.org/display.asp?fname=2006\03\03-20\zbusinessz\980.htm&dismode=x&ts=20/03/2006 ):

[i] Iraq is on the verge of starting work on the construction of the Basra Grand Port, an international maritime hub linking Asia and Europe, a senior official at the transport ministry has confirmed.

"The plan foresees the construction of 100 platforms with a capacity of 400-100 million tonnes per annum, and the works, which will begin by year's end, till take four years and cost 80 billion dollars." [/i]

Construction is to begin on a $3.4 billion project to build an underground metro system in Baghdad ( http://english.alarabonline.org/display.asp?fname=2006\03\03-24\zbusinessz\979.htm&dismode=x&ts=24/03/2006 ). The project will be completed in four years.

Iraqis in four towns south of Baghdad now have clean drinking water thanks to a water delivery system built with the assistance of U.S. forces ( http://www.portaliraq.com/news/Storage+tank+project+provides+Iraqis+with+fresh+water__1111868.html?PHPSESSID=604c2cd60dd6cd426c8b0fb4ad220d36 ).

Iraq’s economy is improving ( http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq ): Iraq’s economy is showing signs of recovery after 30 years of dictatorship. In 2005, the Iraqi economy grew an estimated 2.6 percent in real terms, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has estimated it will grow by more than 10 percent in 2006. Under Saddam Hussein’s regime, Iraqis’ standard of living deteriorated rapidly. In nominal terms, Iraq’s per capita income had dropped from $3,800 in 1980 (higher than Spain at the time) to $715 in 2002 (lower than Angola). In 2005, per-capita income is estimated to have increased to over $1,000.

USAID has provided more than $8 million to create a microfinance industry in Iraq ( http://www.portaliraq.com/news/Grants+establish+microfinance+industry+in+Iraq__1111860.html?PHPSESSID=604c2cd60dd6cd426c8b0fb4ad220d36 ). Loans will range from $250 to $1,000 and will be provided interest free.

Opponents of our efforts in Iraq often point to Iraq’s electrical grid as a sign of our failure, but the reality is that remarkable progress has been made in this area as well. Prior to the invasion, Baghdad had access to 24 hours of electricity; however, it came at the expense of the rest of the country. Today, Iraqis all over the country have, on average, 13 hours of electricity a day ( http://www.iraqblc.com/iraq-accomplishments.htm ), and 1,492 megawatts of capacity has been added to the country’s electrical grid ( http://www.iraqdirectory.com/DisplayNews.aspx?id=1044 ). Iraq’s electrical generation is now higher than pre-war levels:

By October 2003, U.S. government efforts rehabilitated electric power capacity to produce peak capacity of 4,518 MW, greater than the pre-war level of 4,400 MW. Peak production reached 5,365 MW in August 2004 and a peak of 5,389 MW in July 2005.

For an overview of the electrical, water and oil sectors see this report ( http://www.rebuilding-iraq.net/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PCO_CONTENT/HOME/METRICS_IMPACTS/030706 ).

In Al Hasa, a wheelchair-bound Iraqi girl received a new wheelchair from Marines of the 5th Marine Regiment ( http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom1/FrontPage ). The girl lost the ability to walk after a car accident two years ago, and her wheelchair was old and rusty, and designed for an adult. The girl’s father was tremendously happy, and he thanked the Marines again and again.

Soldiers of the 10th Mountain Division are helping Iraqis clean a canal near Abu Ghraib in order to improve water flow for the irrigation of their crops ( http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=8736 ):

“This project was not simply about cleaning canals for the residents of this area,” said Capt. Edward Keel, commander, Company A, 3-6 FA. “By working with the Nahia Council and hiring local workers, we have laid the corner stone for further projects that will be developed, financed and executed by the Iraqis.”

Once again I would like to end the update with a couple stories showing how incredible the men and women serving in our armed forces are.

First, the story of Spc. Brian Sheetz of Connellsville, PA, who saved the lives of his buddies when he took action after a grenade landed in the tank they were riding in ( http://www.wpxi.com/news/8163139/detail.html ):

[i] According to the Herald Standard Newspaper, a few grenades were tossed into the tank Sheetz and his unit were riding in during a patrol mission in Iraq.

Sheetz tossed the grenade out before it exploded.

He sustained injuries to his hands and face after one of three tossed grenades exploded.

He has returned to regular duty. [/i]

Some soldiers have lost limbs in Iraq, only to return to active duty, some actually returning to their comrades in Iraq. Take Captain David Rozelle for instance. Rozelle lost his right foot after the Humvee he was riding in hit a mine. He is now back at his post in Iraq ( Beating the Odds, Amputees Return to Active Duty - ABC News ):

[i] Rozelle’s right foot was amputated, which could have allowed him to retire. Instead, he battled drug and alcohol dependency and worked to get back in the fight against insurgents.

"They made a decision on that day that I was going to get injured," he said. "But I wanted to turn it around and say, 'I can beat this.'"

Eighteen months later, Rozelle became the first officer to lose a limb and return to command in Iraq.

"I went back and I faced the demon," he said. "I overcame my fears, and I went back to war." [/i]

Marine Sergeant Sean Wright lost both hands in the battle of Fallujah, and is now a martial arts instructor. He has no reservation about returning to Iraq if he is needed.

In all, 26 U.S. soldiers have returned to active duty after suffering an amputation, and ten have returned to Iraq.

Sergeant Williams of the Arkansas National Guard has been back from Iraq for one year ( 404 Not Found | thv11.com ). She is so proud of what the military is accomplishing there that he has chosen to reenlist, knowing he will have to leave his wife and one year old son when he returns to Iraq.

Here are a few factoids via the Centcom website ( http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom1/default.aspx ):

Ninety-eight percent of Iraqi children under five have been vaccinated for polio, and Malaria cases have dropped from 1,043 to 86.

Iraq has six police academies, with one in Jordan, that train 3,500 police every 10 weeks.

During Saddam’s rule, Internet access was limited and censored. Today, Iraqis are flocking to an uncensored Internet in Iraq, with over 2,000 Internet cafes serving them.

About 90,000 residents in the city of Abu Ghraib will receive piped drinking water from a project funded by the Commander’s Emergency Response Program.

Progress in the area of education:

In 2003, approximately 6.1 million children were enrolled in Iraq’s lower education system. Of these only about 2.96 million were expected to graduate from secondary school. Now, in 2006 nearly 25 percent of the Iraqi population either attends a school of, or is directly employed by, the Ministry of Education. With a 2006 budget of $1.9 million (up 66 percent from 2005), the ministry oversees more than 20,000 school sessions in over 14,731 school buildings, administrative offices, and educational facilities nationwide. The MoED provides the oversight and training needed to support 500,000 teachers in their work with 6.28-6.4 million K-12 students a 3-5 percent increase from 2003.

In 2003 there were 14,731 kindergarten, elementary, and secondary schools, most of which suffered from years of neglect by the Saddam regime, an insurgency intent on intimidating teachers and students, and the damage caused by war. Over the last three years nearly 6,000 of those schools have been renovated or undergone some form of rehabilitation.

In 2003, the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research (MHESR) consisted of 22 universities, 46 institutes or colleges within the Community College system, 2 commissions and 2 research centers. Since 2003, MHESR has, in addition to continuous work on its facilities and infrastructure that had been largely destroyed by war and looting, has been able to install nearly a dozen new colleges within its university system.

In addition, more than 2,500 schools have been rehabilitated and 45 new schools built. Educational supplies have been provided to more than 3 million Iraqi school children.

Although mostly ignored by the media, there have been major accomplishments in the reconstruction of Iraq:

The Iraq Relief & Reconstruction Fund ($2.5 billion) and supplemental Appropriations ($18.4 billion) have been committed to the re-building of Iraq. As of 7 March 2006, $18.6 billion (of which $11.4 billion is obligated for DoD projects) has been obligated on Iraqi reconstruction.

Since March 2003, more than 11,600 construction projects have been started. More than 9,340 projects, valued at $9.3 billion, have been completed.

Since March 2003 $9.6 billion (IRRF 1 - $2.5 billon, IRRF 2 - $7.1 billion) has been focused on providing reliable essential services (electricity, water, transportation, telecommunications, and oil). More than 2,412 essential service projects are either completed or underway.

Before March 2003, Iraq averaged 4,300 MW of peak electricity generation, supplying Baghdad with 12-24 hours of power a day by diverting power from the rest of Iraq, left with 4-8 hours of power, however today the average Iraqi citizen has 7 hours of electrical service in Baghdad and 10-12 hours in the rest of the country. It is expected to be 12 to 14 hours over the next year.

Before March 2003, only 5.5 million of Iraq’s 25 million citizens had access to a safe and stable water supply. Iraq’s cities suffered from inadequate sewage systems, today nineteen potable water treatment facilities have been built or rehabilitated, providing a standard level of service to about 2.7 million more Iraqis. In addition eight centralized sewage treatment facilities have been rehabilitated, adding capacity to benefit 4.9 million Iraqis.

Health care for some ethnic groups was almost nonexistent under Saddam’s regime, today there are over 300 new health care facility projects across Iraq and over 270 projects underway to be completed by mid-year 2007 allowing an additional 7 million Iraqi citizens, regardless of ethnicity, geographic origin, gender, or religious affiliation, access to health care that was unavailable under the old regime.

You can read more here ( Multi-National Force - Iraq - Home ).

The Iraqi government, the economy, the education system, the police force, the army, the infrastructure ? all of these are being rebuilt, or just plain built. For all the bad news coming out of Iraq, there’s plenty of good news too, and it’s important that Americans be made aware of this.

? Bill Crawford lives in San Antonio, Texas. He blogs at All Things Conservative.

34

Holy shit, you are right, the media should have been all over a day in which there were only minor casualties!

I’ve been so misled, I thought there was only bad news in Iraq. However, there actually are days where nobody is blown to hell. Wow, it’s a paradise. I think we should all make vacation plans now.

Also, I love how your article talks about an expected future. I don’t think hoped for future events qualify as news until they actually do happen. And yes, I have been hearing a lot about how the Iraq military has been acquiring the ability to look after more issues.

The news covers the news, not the bullshit feel good crap you wish was news. If most of the public felt that was interesting news, it would be on the air, because it would garner them viewership and make them money.

What part of that is hard to understand?

35

Interesting vroom,

But I think your theory is full of holes – mostly because print and broadcast medias aren’t really open markets – and also aren’t necessarily single-issue driven either.

For instance, the broadcast media is highly regulated – there are essentially 3 main players, with some other fringe players. Yes, there are lots of cable stations, but a sizable percentage of the market does not have cable or satellite TV. So, the big MSM players – the networks, and any cable networks they control – can function more like an oligopoly than a competitive market. Add to that the fact that the newsroom does not always reflect the bottom-line business decisions, especially on an issue-by-issue basis – journalists and editors are very big on “journalistic integrity” and not taking orders from the business folks. The same reason I think all those conspiracy nuts are full of crap (“The media are all run by the corporations man, the corporations – spark me up…”) is the same reason I think journalists and editors have a lot of freedom to work their viewpoints into their stories.

Also, along that line, there is a high cost of entry into the local newspaper market, and a huge cost of entry into a national newspaper market – I think, really, there are only 3 “national newspapers” and a few strong regional ones, and the national papers don’t really compete directly with one another (USA Today, WSJ and NYT). So, assuming arguendo that there was an unserved market for stories, you would need to be able to raise the initial capital to break in (and assume the other players wouldn’t adapt to you if you started gaining market share – see cable news networks and how they have tried to adopt lots of Fox’s formats).

Then there is the other issue – consumers of media, to the extent they are deciding which media to consume, may or may not make a decision based upon a particular issue. Given the size of the consumer base and the relative disinterest of a lot of people in the actual issues, let alone with political shading of them, I submit that even if a lot of people did care and did want such stories, unless they were willing to actuall switch their consumption based upon that issue, it wouldn’t matter.

My solution, in case you try to imply I want the government to step in, is this: publicity. I just want to make more people aware, and hopefully convince them that the slanting is an important enough factor that they should base consumption on it. That and deregulation of the broadcast space.

So, while I do like leaving things to markets, that does not mean I think they are always efficient or “best” on any one particular issue. Overall, probably yes (though the regulation aspect makes it questionable).