The Insurgents Think The US Is Winning In Iraq

[Annie]

Not much in the MSM about, but some. Links at site:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014021.php

Who's Winning? They Say We Are

I missed this when it was released by Centcom, but our friend Ed Morrissey is on top of it:

CENTCOM announced today that they had captured al-Qaeda correspondence in Iraq that discusses the state of the insurgency, especially around Baghdad but also around the entire country. Far from optimistic, the documents captured in an April 16th raid reveal frustration and desperation, as the terrorists acknowledge the superior position of American and free Iraqi forces and their ability to quickly adapt to new tactics.​

This quote from a captured document, for example, supports Ed's characterization:

[T]he Americans and the Government were able to absorb our painful blows, sustain them, compensate their losses with new replacements, and follow strategic plans which allowed them in the past few years to take control of Baghdad as well as other areas one after the other. That is why every year is worse than the previous year as far as the Mujahidin’s control and influence over Baghdad.
​

So the terrorists say we're winning in Iraq. Why is this fact so little recognized in America? Because the terrorists have been successful in one sphere only:

The policy followed by the brothers in Baghdad is a media oriented policy without a clear comprehensive plan to capture an area or an enemy center. Other words, the significance of the strategy of their work is to show in the media that the Americans and the government do not control the situation and there is resistance against them. This policy dragged us to the type of operations that are attracted to the media, and we go to the streets from time to time for more possible noisy operations which follow the same direction.​

Or, again, Centcom quotes a translated document:

Al Qaida in Iraq attacks Mosques and other public places to draw media attention and is having difficulty recruiting members because the people of Iraq do not support its cause.​

So, put it all together: al Qaeda in Iraq is failing. It has little military strength, and the Iraqi people "do not support its cause." It has succeeded in one arena only: the American media. Yet, despite the despair manifested by the authors of the captured documents, that one success may be all that al Qaeda needs. Because the perverse negativity of the American press is the only view that most Americans get of the conflict's progress. And, because of their shoddy coverage of the war, our reporters and editors provide the terrorists with their only gleam of hope.

And spare us the hate mail: I didn't say it. al Qaeda did.

UPDATE: The Associated Press has a reasonably balanced account of the captured documents, except that--oddly--it omits any mention of the documents' references to al Qaeda's focus on the American press. Via Power Line News.
Posted by John at 08:44 PM

 

[5stringJeff]

These documents ought to be highlighted by President Bush every day through Election Day.

 

[insein]

These documents ought to be highlighted by President Bush every day through Election Day.

But they won't be. BTW, Welcome noob!

 

[5stringJeff]

But they won't be. BTW, Welcome noob!

 

[Adam's Apple]

It has succeeded in one arena only: the American media.

He got that one right, big time. Sad, sad, sad, sad--for us, for our country, for Iraq, and for the Iraqi people who want to live in freedom.

 

[KarlMarx]

Fewer of our soldiers are dying in Iraq. Has anyone noticed that?

Frankly, the Administration must start to counteract the MSM more aggressively. They seem to be looking to Rush Limbaugh, the Blogosphere, NewsMax and everyone else to do their talking for them.

This administration needs more PR finesse, I hope that naming Tony Snow as Press Secretary will be a big step in that direction.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Frankly, the Administration must start to counteract the MSM more aggressively.

It's a mystery why they have given the MSM such liberty to get their message out relatively unchallenged. Don't they remember what happened with regard to Vietnam when defeat was snatched right from the jaws of victory because Walter Kronkite said that's the way it should be? It's almost like the Administration believes that the anti-war case is so asinine no one will pay any heed to it or those who espouse it.

 

[1549]

It's a mystery why they have given the MSM such liberty to get their message out relatively unchallenged. Don't they remember what happened with regard to Vietnam when defeat was snatched right from the jaws of victory because Walter Kronkite said that's the way it should be? It's almost like the Administration believes that the anti-war case is so asinine no one will pay any heed to it or those who espouse it.

Dealing with the MSM is a catch-22. You can pose it as the leftist media wants to bring down the conservative administration or the leftist media wants to break the war cause, but the media is out for $$$.

What is a better story "battle, bloodshed, and struggle" or, "we are having success". So while you say the admin. should attack the media, something like that will not go over well at all. That makes it look like the administration is tooting its own horn and is interfering with certain freedoms. For example, the decision to forbid pictures of coffins...not good for P.R. It makes it look like the administration is hiding the reality of war (which in that case, they are). So it is tough to force anything on the media without having it turned around to bite you in the ass.

At the same time, if an administration lets the media run free, the media will continue to get the money stories. Soldiers under constant fire. Snipers owning the cities...that kind of stuff. Don't pretend that it is all a leftist agenda. That plays a role at times, but the final goal is ratings. Look at celeb divorces and celeb drama. Whats a good celeb story? celeb weddings get a small buzz, but something like Tom Cruise's craziness, or Brad Pitt running off on Jennifer--that is the $$$ shit. People enjoy watching things go wrong.

Many also argue that if a presidential administration is going to say everything is well, you need a source that will at least define 'well'. In this case: the media. It is there job to go out there and say, "yes the president says all is well, but do not forget that there is a lot still happening out here".

 

[Adam's Apple]

Many also argue that if a presidential administration is going to say everything is well, you need a source that will at least define 'well'. In this case: the media. It is there job to go out there and say, "yes the president says all is well, but do not forget that there is a lot still happening out here".

It is the MSM's job to report factual news, not the pick-and-choose/ slanted/biased coverage that we constantly get from them. The complaint against the MSM is that it is so overtly political in its coverage of the news that we can't trust their reports to be fair or even accurate. There is plenty of evidence from unbiased reporters that there are lots of positive things happening in the WOT that the MSM refuses to report. You can count of the fact that we will never hear the upside of the WOT from the MSM. What we have today is a deliberate abuse of power by the MSM, betraying the trust people place in them for factual coverage of the news.

 

[Dr Grump]

It is the MSM's job to report factual news, not the pick-and-choose/ slanted/biased coverage that we constantly get from them. The complaint against the MSM is that it is so overtly political in its coverage of the news that we can't trust their reports to be fair or even accurate. There is plenty of evidence from unbiased reporters that there are lots of positive things happening in the WOT that the MSM refuses to report. You can count of the fact that we will never hear the upside of the WOT from the MSM. What we have today is a deliberate abuse of power by the MSM, betraying the trust people place in them for factual coverage of the news.

I'd say it is ALL media's job to report factual news, not just the MSM. I find it kinda ironic that you call the unbiased reporters that are the ones reporting positives re Iraq and other things like the WOT. What makes you think they are unbiased? Because they are "selling" positive stories or their track record? That aside, bad news sells, good news rarely does. It is not just the bad news re the WOT and Iraq that is being reported mainly, but any bad piece of news - from home invasions, to earthquakes to murders....

 

[Adam's Apple]

I'd say it is ALL media's job to report factual news, not just the MSM.

That's what I was saying--that it is the job of all media to report factual news. Since the MSM has been on the throne so long without any competition, naturally they are going to be the chief recipients of the complaints.

I find it kinda ironic that you call the unbiased reporters that are the ones reporting positives re Iraq and other things like the WOT. What makes you think they are unbiased? Because they are "selling" positive stories or their track record?

Because they have absolutely nothing to gain by reporting the positives with regard to the WOT? By that I mean wouldn't the reporter who files positives reports about the war have a much harder time getting his/her article picked up by the MSM news services? Everyone knows that both good and bad things happen as a result of war. When only the negatives are reported, it does make one suspicious.

That aside, bad news sells, good news rarely does. It is not just the bad news re the WOT and Iraq that is being reported mainly, but any bad piece of news - from home invasions, to earthquakes to murders....

Unfortunately, in today's world, you are so right about that.

 

[1549]

It is the MSM's job to report factual news, not the pick-and-choose/ slanted/biased coverage that we constantly get from them. The complaint against the MSM is that it is so overtly political in its coverage of the news that we can't trust their reports to be fair or even accurate. There is plenty of evidence from unbiased reporters that there are lots of positive things happening in the WOT that the MSM refuses to report. You can count of the fact that we will never hear the upside of the WOT from the MSM. What we have today is a deliberate abuse of power by the MSM, betraying the trust people place in them for factual coverage of the news.

I see your point. However, the only thing really governing them is a code of ethics.

I can see both sides of the issue. On the same day a terror suspect is caught taking a crap in Kabul and 5 U.S. troops die in a car bomb in Baghdad. We have a success and a failure in the war on terror. What deserves more coverage?

I say mention the terror suspect was caught, but emphasize the deaths of the soldiers. They were American citizens who lost there lives. It is the duty of our media to ask basic questions? One of those questions is: what is the price we are paying for the war on terror? On this hypothetical day, that price was the lives of 5 American kids.

 

[dilloduck]

I see your point. However, the only thing really governing them is a code of ethics.

I can see both sides of the issue. On the same day a terror suspect is caught taking a crap in Kabul and 5 U.S. troops die in a car bomb in Baghdad. We have a success and a failure in the war on terror. What deserves more coverage?

I say mention the terror suspect was caught, but emphasize the deaths of the soldiers. They were American citizens who lost there lives. It is the duty of our media to ask basic questions? One of those questions is: what is the price we are paying for the war on terror? On this hypothetical day, that price was the lives of 5 American kids.

And all the other events that happened that day ?

 

[1549]

And all the other events that happened that day ?

I am not following your question.

But on this hypothetical day, those were the only 'big' events that happened in the middle east.

Sure, maybe our soldiers white washed a fence and gave a kid some skittles. But if that appears on the news, we might as well mention that 10 soldiers were fired at, one Iraqi citizen said in a conversation that he detests American chocolate, and I won a dollar on a scratch and win lotto.

The point is on every given day a million good things and a million bad things happen, add it all up and every day is average...lets stick to the events that would be considered 'news worthy'.

 

[dilloduck]

I am not following your question.

But on this hypothetical day, those were the only 'big' events that happened in the middle east.

Sure, maybe our soldiers white washed a fence and gave a kid some skittles. But if that appears on the news, we might as well mention that 10 soldiers were fired at, one Iraqi citizen said in a conversation that he detests American chocolate, and I won a dollar on a scratch and win lotto.

The point is on every given day a million good things and a million bad things happen, add it all up and every day is average...lets stick to the events that would be considered 'news worthy'.

Big is relative----the media can change the size of anything.

 

[Adam's Apple]

I see your point. However, the only thing really governing them is a code of ethics.

I get the idea that you are agreeing with me that the MSM might have a problem with that “code of ethics” business?

We have a success and a failure in the war on terror. What deserves more coverage?

It would depend on what else was happening in Iraq on that particular day. If some aspect of establishing Iraq into a democracy were accomplished on that same day, then why shouldn’t that warrant as much news coverage as the death of the soldiers? After all, that's why the soldiers died--so that freedom could live.

One of those questions is: what is the price we are paying for the war on terror? On this hypothetical day, that price was the lives of 5 American kids.

Ah, the libs’ favorite question. Did you ever think that the 2,000+ deaths of American soldiers killed in Iraq to date would pale by comparison if the terrorists were allowed to fight the WOT on our own soil, as they would like to? It's a fact that the terrorists killed more Americans in one day in New York, Washington and a cornfield in Pennsylvania than they have been able to kill in Iraq in 3 years.

Look, the U.S. did not start the WOT, contrary to what the libs are so fond of implying. As a matter of fact, the Clinton Administration tried hard to look the other way time after time after time. What you’re forgetting is that the WOT came to us right here in America on 9/11/01—without provocation, I might add--after killing Americans and destroying American property in other countries for about a 10-year period.

As President Bush has said a thousand times, by fighting the WOT in Iraq, we are saving the lives of thousands of Americans right here in the U.S., not to mention thousands of dollars in property damage and the loss of thousands of jobs. Those who spout the line that President Bush started this war to avenge his father or for oil are deliberately overlooking a whole lot of important facts that preceded the actual beginning of our engagement in the WOT.

Our men and women in uniform are realists; they know that freedom is not free and that they might die defending it. That's why they became soldiers in the first place--to defend this country and the ideals it was founded on. They are willing to put their lives on the line so that you and me can continue to enjoy that great blessing. They would want you to remember their sacrifice with pride and respect rather than using it to justify a particular political philosophy.

 

[no1tovote4]

I see your point. However, the only thing really governing them is a code of ethics.

I can see both sides of the issue. On the same day a terror suspect is caught taking a crap in Kabul and 5 U.S. troops die in a car bomb in Baghdad. We have a success and a failure in the war on terror. What deserves more coverage?

I say mention the terror suspect was caught, but emphasize the deaths of the soldiers. They were American citizens who lost there lives. It is the duty of our media to ask basic questions? One of those questions is: what is the price we are paying for the war on terror? On this hypothetical day, that price was the lives of 5 American kids.

So you are saying that the fact that the Enemy believes the US to be winning and that they are having a hard time not to be newsworthy? I don't quite catch what you are putting down here.

It is spectacular and huge news. Covering this won't cut into their paychecks, and might extend US time there as the populace might change a bit on supporting/not supporting the war. If all they were out there doing asking the critical questions, wouldn't asking not just what the price is, but also telling what we have bought with it might be just a smidge newsworthy? This isn't Bush saying "we're giving soccer balls away", this is the actual Enemy saying, "We're losing in every place except the US Media!"