 |  |
 
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
     |
 Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! April 3, 2006 Headless in the HeadlinesBy Greyhawk(Update/bump from 2006-04-01 17:13:53) NY Times headline, March 27: 30 Beheaded Bodies Found; Iraqi Death Squads Blamed BAGHDAD, Iraq, March 26 — The bodies of 30 beheaded men were found on a main highway near Baquba this evening, providing more evidence that the death squads in Iraq are becoming out of control.But Blazing headlines notwithstanding, the odd thing about those headless bodies that provided more evidence that death squads in Iraq were out of control is that nobody ever claims to have actually seen them: Interior Ministry officials said a driver discovered the bodies heaped in a pile next to a highway that links Baghdad to Baquba, a volatile city northeast of the capital that has been wracked by sectarian and insurgent violence.In short, some guy said he knew a guy that saw them. Which is how the story should have been reported - as a rumor. But it wasn't. Yesterday's press briefing from Iraq: Q: About, on the news that we heard this week of a number of headless bodies being found along a road in Baghdad. I was wondering what more you could tell us about that, what you know about the victims, and who the perpetrators were?But apparently within the standards of acceptable journalism for the New York Times. Update: Times readers eager to find a correction will discover it featured prominently in paragraph 17 of this story The police in western Baghdad discovered 14 bodies on Tuesday, all killed execution-style with gunshots to the head, apparently the latest victims of sectarian bloodletting. On Monday, Iraqi forces found 18 bodies near Baquba with similar wounds. Earlier reports of 30 beheaded bodies found in that area were wrong, the Interior Ministry official said.Update 3 Apr: U.S., Iraqi Troops Nab Insurgents Suspected In Mass SlayingThat's from Stars and Stripes. No doubt the NY Times has the story too. Somewhere... More: This report also confirms an earlier one on the topic: BAQOUBA, Iraq — A mass execution in a rural village north of Baghdad on Sunday night was the latest example of insurgents staging fake sectarian killings in order to fuel tensions between the Sunnis and Shiites, U.S. soldiers investigating the incident said.That's also from Stars and Stripes. There are thousands of actual and compelling stories to be found in Iraq, and the mainstream media misses them all in favor or urban legends. These real stories have plenty of blood, death, human misery and suffering too, so "if it doesn't bleed it doesn't lead" can't be the reason. (More in comments. Don't skip 'em!) Posted by Greyhawk / April 3, 2006 6:59 PM | Permalink 8 TrackBacksMudville Gazette reports on a number of instances where the Big Story was false and the little story was the correction. The Big Story was the raid on a Mosque last week that al Sadr's group wailed loudly about. You Read More I'm sure if you want to go back a bit, the Gray Lady has struck out before, a lot even, but with the most recent at bat finally over -- Strike One [Identified the wrong man as the hooded Abu Graib victim] -- Strike Two [Bought into the fraud of a suppo... Read More Greyhawk at Mudville Gazette points out some glaring examples of misreporting from the factually challenged but accurate. Kevin of Command T.O.C. immediately jumps on Greyhawk in comments. Read More To use a first day of baseball analogy, Greyhawk at Mudville Gazette knocked this one out of the park. He provides the latest evidence in the case against The New York Times. New York Times, March 27: 30 Beheaded Bodies Found; Iraqi Death Squads Bl... Read More A Commenter on the earlier post A letter From Kuwait wrote, "If you tell me why you (b)elieve what you said, then I can evaluate whether or not I should believe it as well." Sarge did read that and posted a reply in which he said he did... Read More Okay, so I'm watching basketball tonight, as I do every year at this time. It's been a long time since I missed the NCAA final. I think it was a call night during my internship. But there are a few Read More Via Mudville Gazette we have this lovely story of the NYT slapping a big headline on a story of the horrible conditions in Iraq only to have it surface, once again, as a great big fairy tale. Seems the Times ran the story back on the 27th of March that... Read More Today's picnic basket of items from my blogroll. bRight & Early rounds up the Delay story Harvey (Bad Example) conducts an experiment Mr Atoz (Agent Bedhead) finds the reason Basically It Stinks Basic Instinct 2 failed at the box office Space... Read More 32 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
 
 
 Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com  Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
/sarcasm on
If the military is paying Iraqi newspapers to print the truth, why shouldn't the New York Times reciprocate by printing lies for free?
/sarcasm off
Next week's NY Times stories from Iraq:
BAGHDAD, Iraq, April 5 — Iraqi heroin addicts are hiding their needles in theater seats, providing more evidence that the death squads in Iraq are becoming out of control.
BAGHDAD, Iraq, April 6 — Iraqi militia members are driving through Baghdad with their headights out and beheading anyone who flashes their lights at them, providing more evidence that the death squads in Iraq are becoming out of control.
BAGHDAD, Iraq, April 7 — This guy I know in tech services says there's a new computer virus that originated in Iraq providing more evidence that the death squads in Iraq are becoming out of control.
Oh, ok, it is 32 bodies shot in the head, not 30 bodies beheaded. Whew! Thank god. I thought the conclusion that the Country is out of control was exagerrated. I am so glad to hear that it is shootings and not beheadings. Are you an idiot? What F*ing difference does it make? The Country is out of control.
Also, What happened to the "Crack" Iraqi Army that you and the other pentagon propagandists keep talking about? They are "afraid" to go retrieve the bodies?
You are more like Clinton than any democrat. Rather than looking at the point, you would rather argue about what the definition of "is" is.
Kevin
This story is another example of American media printing rumors - or claims made by the enemy - as verified fact. It fits in with claims of 184 Sunni mosques attacked in the wake of the Samarra bombing and the attack on a Shiite "mosque" by US troops this week. The NY Times did not even bother to qualify this report as unproven.
The "Interior Ministry source" (Janitor? Minister?) has become a key element of such reports. As with such "whistle blowers" in the US government, the individual remains nameless - in this case no reason is offered. ("Fear of retribution" is the usual explanation. No doubt in this case that's justified.) There's a real story somewhere in the Interior Ministry that won't be told in American media. In another era exposing an enemy (or incompetence) in a government office would be a blockbuster, but doing so today would cost a "source" for their most profitable headlines. Too bad.
People are dying in Iraq. The situation is chaotic, and that's why accurate reporting is essential, and would be nice to have. Without it, at least using the phrase "unconfirmed reports from unreliable sources" somewhere in the coverage where such reports are prominently featured would be fair - but also an admission of the absurdity of the reporting. How to deal with that issue is the decision of the editorial/management staff. The NY Times has apparently established their policy: Admit today's banner headline was wrong in paragraph 17 of tomorrow's report.
As for that "they were shot in the head, not beheaded" bit, you're referring to 3 separate incidents, one we now know to be false. People are being killed, reports are exaggerated; pretending otherwise doesn't contribute much to efforts to discover what's really happening.
"Also, What happened to the "Crack" Iraqi Army that you and the other pentagon propagandists keep talking about? They are "afraid" to go retrieve the bodies?"
I don't know. Is this an actual quote? Real events spliced onto urban legends give them a bit of credibility, so let's assume it is.
How many troops did this Iraqi Army commander have at his disposal? Two? A handful at a checkpoint? A squad? A Brigade? He's got a report of 30 headless bodies on a road, perhaps just given to him by a reporter (or a "stringer"). If true, that means there's an enemy somewhere nearby capable of accomplishing that. Corpses along the road are common bait for attacks on those retrieving them. (Getting that story would be a coup for the "stringer".)
So the commander decides to wait for backup. This is standard SOP in Armies and Police forces around the world. The Times chooses to present it as cowardice or incompetence; a charge people like you are eager to believe.
The Times' report is an urban legend presented as news, pure and simple, and not the first example of such. Baghdad may or may not be "out of control", but the reporting demonstrably is. If you want a dose of reality, try these numbers.
The idea that the reports will be 100% accurate is ludicrous. The fact that our Government puts many things in "confidential" status, the fact that our Government is involved in a massive propoganda movement, the fact that our Government has selected certain news outlets to be their mouth piece (fox) and the fact that our Government has PAID for stories in the US Press, means we must have an aggressive and antagonistic press.
Given that the Government holds "all the cards", the newspapers have to use the process of "triangulation" to get the story. That means the detailed facts may not be perfect but the theme will be accurate... kind of like indirect fire, you launch a few, get some response, triangulate in and eventually the truth is out.
So, sometimes you say behead in one instance and it turns out to be shot in the head in three but the theme is the same: The Country is out of control and the US Military nor Iraqi military appear to be able to do a damn thing about it.
You say a Kuran was flushed down a toilet and it ends up it was pissed on. The theme is the same: We show an amazingly juvenile lack of respect for their religion.
Bottom line: Unless the Government gives out all facts as is, we will have to rely on this effort by the press. Quite frankly, given that they are up against a 1/2 trillion monster propoganda machine (The US Government) I would say they do a fantastic job.
Short version of your comment: the reports are "fake but accurate." I didn't realize anyone still considered that a credible defense.
I've checked Factiva, and to be fair to the Times, it looks like the 30 Beheaded story only ran on the Web. Of course it should be corrected there. The print version of the times only alluded to the story this way, in story entitled SHIITE FIGHTERS CLASH WITH G.I.'S AND IRAQI FORCES: "On Sunday, Iraqi authorities found 10 bodies in Baghdad and said they were investigating a report that 30 men were beheaded near Baquba."
Odd that it's by the same reporter and yet so much more careful. Seems like they throw any old crap up on the Web and then just forget about it. Also suggests editors for the print version might be keeping this writer, Gettleman, in check, whereas editors for the Web are more lenient.
But, according to Democracy Now leader Amy Goodman, the all our press except NPR/PBS is controlled by Corporate Nazi Government Republican Oppressors.
So Kevin, if she's right how can the press be a reliable source of information?
By the way that's some monster propaganda machine selecting certain outlets(fox) as their mouthpiece against the suppressed CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, Al jazzera, TY TImes, Washington Post, LA Times, Seattle Post, Boston Globe and C-span. Plus Susan Sarandon, George CLooney, Barbra Streisand, Charlie Sheen and all the other blowhards wailing away at the truth!
Have no fear, an Army of Davids can beat monster propaganda machine anyday. Even a 1/2 trillon one.
As is his wont, Kevin misses the point of Greyhawk's post.
The many miscellaneous inaccuracies themselves suggest the reporters and editors at the Times are far less interested in reporting than they are in finding supporting evidence for what they want to portray.
That is the point, that they bend news or pick and choose data points to fit the what I've previously described as "the template."
The country is in chaos, sectarian violence is on the rise, Civil War is either imminent or upon them.
Only, as Greyhawk points out, reporting from the military and Iraqi government officials involve strongly suggest that the violence described was by insurgents "protraying" sectarian vioence. (In other words, Sunni on Sunni to look like Shia on Sunni.)
Kevin can argue that "dead is dead" all he wants, the reality is the NY Times used that violence to support a report that spoke of heightened "sectarian violence."
And of course that is the point. The NY Times reporters and editors involved have sought to portray reality in Iraq in a certain way, then slant their reporting, fact selection, storyboards, etc., to support that "template."
And when the underlying facts are wrong, since news stories aren't supposed to be subjective or include editorializing, they correct the underlying fact but can't correct the subjective tone and thematic "understory."
And reliable "useful idiots" can criticize the criticizing of the NY Times as harping on trivialities.
Oh Wise and Patient GreyOne,
Subsunk: Why do you show such patience with the young ones, great Grey Father?
GreyHawk: Even the young ones need to be allowed to grow up so that one day they may have their eyes opened and finally see how to contribute well to the land of our Forefathers.
Subsunk: Nah, just smash 'em with with the tomahawk and go make new ones, boss. The young ones named Kevin and IRR are lost causes.
Greyhawk: Nay, nay Moosebreath Subsunk. The Great GreyFather never smashes troll children. He lets their parents do so. Let them rattle on. It will do them good when their whining is visited upon them in their older age and they can be shown to be the misguided children that they are. When their peers laugh at them because they were wrong, and their elders judge them for their impertinence towards the wiser old ones, they may grow to see the error of their ways.
Subsunk: OK, GreyFather. But I still think it would be more fun to smash 'em like a grape.
[Conversation taped in GreyHawk's wickiup by NSA peace pipe surveillance methods found to be legal by the Evil Spirits of the Land]
Out.
Subsunk
This is the gist of Kevin's position:
Comes from the MSM: Absolute truth (I mean, why would they lie...?)
Comes from the Government: Absolute proganda (I mean, why would they tell the truth...?)
OK, The NYT reported an unsubstantiated rumor. I agree, this is bad reporting, and evidence of bias. And the alternative is... Stars and Stripes, reporting an unsubstantiated rumor. Just as "some guy said he knew a guy that saw them" is not beleivable, "some soldier thinks they're playing tricks on us" isn't any better.
(Plus, c'mon! It's Stars and Stripes! This is our alternative? A government-run newspaper for soldiers? Gimme a break.)
How vehement opposition to the Patriot Act is often a good litmus test for anti-Americanism, and how to debate such people effectively and quickly.
I believe US command's reports from Iraq just as much as I believed their body counts from Vietnam.
I'm with Kevin, where is the mighty Iraqi army? But I'm still wondering where the freedom-loving Vietnamese army was, too. Not in the field shooting it out with the bad guys.
One thing I know, and know for sure, and don't have to rely on either the Army or the Times to know: US commanders are afraid to come out of their strategic hamlet in Baghdad and travel on the ground 10 miles to their own airport.
Until the generals can do that, they're on the defensive. And they're losing.
And, yes, I was indoctrinated in the 1960s. I learned that the Army's mission is not to control territory but to impose its will on the enemy.
The Army was wrong then, and it's wrong now.
It isn't winning in Iraq and it doesn't have anotber strategy that might work.
So the NY Times will print any rumor that it thinks supports the "the war is going poorly" view yet demands absolute proof for anything that would, say, indicate that Saddam and al Qaeda were working together. See, for example, how the NY Times refuses to give any credit to the recently released documents captured in Iraq that show al Qaeda and Saddam were planning together because, according to the times, the source named in the document was not official enough...
Curious.
"I believe US command's reports from Iraq just as much as I believed their body counts from Vietnam."
You mean, that they were understated(enemy body counts) by a factor of 3, while most folks believed they were overstated by a factor of 3?
But then, something that is off by a factor of 10 is a good reason to disbelieve it.
Yep, MACV was lyin, they only reported what they could confirm, which was way, way off.
Graham, your comparison between the Times story and the Stars and STripes stories is so unfair that I wonder if you even looked at the latter. Do it. See how careful the Stars and Stripes reporter was to distinguish between what was known and what was not known? Any speculation is marked as such and properly attributed. That's honest reporting. The premises need never be corrected. Whereas the Times article assumes as its premise and highlights in its headline an unverified rumor that we now know was a falsehood--broadcasting which seems to have been the story's only purpose. That's simply pathetic, biased pseudo-journalism, Times or not. You have no right to put down the Stars and STripes reporter, who's demonstrated right on the page that he's a professional.
It does make a person wonder when the villagers report that the men in uniform *said* what group they were from.
Harry,
Someone can feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe the Iraqi army is currently securing route irish... that's the very road from the "strategic hamlet in Baghdad" to the airport. Attacks have dropped markedly; they've apparently been quite successful, and it's been widely reported.
I think that's the "mighty Iraqi army" you were looking for.
I'm just trying to be helpful...but that's the kind of guy I am. No need to thank me. Carry on.
Another difference between the NYTimes article and the one from Stars and Stripes: the reporter in the US relays a rumor he's heard and the soldier in Iraq speculates on what he has actually observed.
Big difference IMHO.
They are, huh?
Are you telling me the generals are driving to the airport now?
'Cause if you're not, you're not being helpful.
"I'm with Kevin, where is the mighty Iraqi army? But I'm still wondering where the freedom-loving Vietnamese army was, too. Not in the field shooting it out with the bad guys.
One thing I know, and know for sure, and don't have to rely on either the Army or the Times to know: US commanders are afraid to come out of their strategic hamlet in Baghdad and travel on the ground 10 miles to their own airport."
-- Posted by Harry Eagar at April 4, 2006 02:32 AM
But the Stars and Stripes story above says: "More than a dozen insurgents suspected in the mass killing of 18 Shiites last week were arrested or killed Friday after U.S. and Iraqi army soldiers spent several hours chasing them through the rural farmland north of Baghdad."
So one of you is wrong. If it's the Stripes reporter, then he's not simply wrong, he's lying.
Sort of what 60 Minutes recently did when they aired a piece claiming the Airport road was still under the control of insurgents and terrorists last fall. The reality was that it had indeed been secured by the Iraqi army - and USA Today and the Washington Post had reported that. (Details here)
Here are some stories from today's S&S:
U.S. says 9 more soldiers killed in Iraq
Pentagon probes possible Tillman cover-up
Military sexual assault reports up 40 pct.
Propaganda?
Think about how desperate the "insurgents" must be to kill their own to recruit them for the cause.
How utterly depraved.
PROPAGANDA, bull crap. This is getting to be unreal, we don't have enemies just in Iraq, we have them here and if we don't wake up they are gonna get a lot of us killed......Just because they do not like our President!!! Well tough, the guy is in for 2 more years so deal with it. I dealt with it for 8 years under their President. There are people here who I think want us to have another attack, just to say I told you so, and that is pathetic on their part. Seems politics and power and of course money is what it seems to be all about. Our troops are doing just fine so will they please leave them alone and let them do their jobs.
Harry,
Attacks have dropped significantly... but until the generals are hitching rides to the airport on deuce-and-a-halfs and civilian farm trucks, route Irish is still a disaster? What sort of moving-the-goalposts standard is that?
The example you cited to support your Iraqi-army-is-worthless thesis was ill-chosen, as it shows exactly the opposite. Your dissembling and hair-splitting about your original point ("I meant the generals! The Generals!!) isn't really convincing me.
While the the Iraqi army certainly has its problems, I'd simply have picked a different example to illustrate them, that's all.
The Mad Magazine parody of New York Times stories used to begin with the formula "It has been reported by hitherto reliable but as yet unconfirmed sources..." I don't think the Times ever actually used this formula, but it captured their extreme caution in those days about trusting sources. The contrast is astonishing.
My first statement: 'US commanders are afraid to come out of their strategic hamlet in Baghdad and travel on the ground 10 miles to their own airport.'
My second statement: 'Are you telling me the generals are driving to the airport now?'
How is that 'moving the goalposts'?
That's my position. You don't have to like it, or agree that it's the right measure of progress, but I notice you cannot refute it either.
Maybe you could get a job at the New York Times.
Harry,
If you were attempting to make a point about the travel plans of various general officers, then I'd simply let it stand. Alas, your point was much broader, and involved the entire Iraqi army:
where is the mighty Iraqi army? But I'm still wondering where the freedom-loving Vietnamese army was, too. Not in the field shooting it out with the bad guys.
One thing I know, and know for sure, and don't have to rely on either the Army or the Times to know: US commanders are afraid to come out of their strategic hamlet in Baghdad and travel on the ground 10 miles to their own airport.
Until the generals can do that, they're on the defensive. And they're losing
It seems to me you were using route irish in the context of your larger point... but perhaps my reading comprehension is lacking.
As far as refuting your point... why? The burden of proof is yours; at a minimum, I should challenge you to provide some evidence for such an assertion. How can we accept it as a given that absolutely no generals have traveled to/from the airport by ground? You may be in a position to know, and if so, great; I won't press you to prove it. There's no sense in blowing your security clearance to make a cheap point on a public weblog.
Again, your caution about the Iraqi army may be well-founded, but your example is not illustrative of the point.
the original story says, "Interior Ministry officials said." Why blame the media when it reports what the democratically elected government told it?
No sense beating this to death, but you must indeed be a 'new guy.'
I chose my example carefully. The idea that a successful army does not have to control territory is one that our army ought to have unlearned in Vietnam.
If the general doesn't feel safe going to his own airport next door, then I feel confident in saying that the US Army is not really in control anywhere that isn't actively patrolled.
Been there, done that, why are we doing it again?
Earlier reports of 30 beheaded bodies found in that area were wrong, the Interior Ministry official said.
Is this the same Interior Ministry official who earlier reported the 30 beheaded bodies? Yeah, let's believe him now, but not before. And of course, the American Military would never lie about such things!
You brownshirts are really fucking clueless.