Anbar Rising (III)

Bill Roggio encounters hostility in a war zone:

In nearly every conversation, the soldiers, Marines and contractors expressed they were upset with the coverage of the war in Iraq in general, and the public perception of the daily situation on the ground. The felt the media was there to sensationalize the news, and several stated some reporters were only interested in “blood and guts.” They freely admitted the obstacles in front of them in Iraq. Most recognized that while we are winning the war on the battlefield, albeit with difficulties in some areas, we are losing the information war. They felt the media had abandoned them.

During each conversation, I was left in the awkward situation of having to explain that while, yes, I am wearing a press badge, I'm not 'one of them.' I used descriptions like 'independent journalist' or 'blogger' in an attempt to separate myself from the pack.

What a terrible situation to be in, having to defend yourself because of your profession. I've always said that the hardest thing about embedding (besides leaving my family) is wearing the badge that says 'PRESS.' That hasn't changed. I hide the badge whenever I can get away with it.

Read the whole thing.

Bill also mentions encountering a Marine who was "furious over the characterization of the Devlin report on Anbar province." That's a valid complaint.

Last week the WaPo began their coverage of the Devlin report with this:

The U.S. military is no longer able to defeat a bloody insurgency in western Iraq or counter al-Qaeda's rising popularity there, according to newly disclosed details from a classified Marine Corps intelligence report...

...but shortly after acknowledged a key point (without explaining why it was key):

The Marines' August memo, a copy of which was shared with The Washington Post, is far bleaker than some officials suggested when they described it in late summer.

Of course, in the months between the writing of the report and its publication in the Post, the formation of the Anbar Salvation Council and its declaration of war on al Qaeda and its allies gained the group support from the Iraqi government and coalition forces. This had changed the Anbar situation fundamentally and significantly - to the point where the Devlin memo was without current significance. ("Overcome by events" - or simply "OBE" as we say in the military.)

But since the WaPo has never seen fit to report any of that news, the Devlin report may have seemed like news to them.

Call For Submissions

Professor Reynolds' has a creative writing assignment for the 'sphere:

So can the blogosphere do better? I'm going to try a blog symposium on Iraq, Iran, and Syria. I want some new ideas -- beyond "cut and run" or "stay the course" -- on things we're not doing that we should be doing.
<...>
Is it a good idea? You tell me. And add some other ideas of your own. Put "Iraq Symposium" in the subject line, and add a link to your blog entry. I'll pull them together in two or three days.

In this case "submission" is probably the wrong word...

Another observation from Glenn:

In fact, it seems as if Donald Rumsfeld, judging by his classified memo thoughtfully leaked to the New York Times, remains more open to new ideas than many of his critics, who often seem stuck in 1968.

Which, I think, is accurate. Rumsfeld's memo did present some concepts beyond those bandied about thus far (in public, at least). But this symposium is a good chance for a lot of folks who are smarter than Rummy to prove it.

And the timing is good to. Get your ideas out there before the Baker Committee does and you can be hailed as revolutionary rather than reactionary. (Just think - if this had been available before the invasion we could have been ready for the insurgency!)

Don't have your own blog? Leave your idea in the comments here. Maybe they'll find their way into the discussion.

Right and Wong

Via Michelle Malkin, a pointer to a NY Times blog discussion on the AP's "6 Sunnis burned alive" story.

In a meeting with us this afternoon, the A.P.’s executive editor, Kathleen Carroll, said again, passionately, “We have done everything we know how to do” to respond to the questions.

Insisting that their witness exists by "vigorously re-reporting" the same thing is apparently the limit - proving his existence is out of the question.

In a longer explanation of the AP position:

The executive editor of The Associated Press, Kathleen Carroll, in a meeting in her office Friday afternoon, explained that the agency had already done all it could to respond to the uncertainties by vigorously re-reporting the article, and suggested that to engage these questions — to continue to write about them — merely fueled a mad blog rabble that would never be satisfied.

Until offered actual proof, that is. But it is interesting to see that the NY Times is asking questions.

They also checked with their own reporter, Ed Wong, who replied as follows.

Hi Tom,
You ask me about what our own reporting shows about this incident. When we first heard of the event on Nov. 24, through the A.P. story and a man named Imad al-Hashemi talking about it on television, we had our Iraqi reporters make calls to people in the Hurriya neighborhood. Because of the curfew that day, everything had to be done by phone. We reached several people who told us about the mosque attacks, but said they had heard nothing of Sunni worshippers being burned alive. Any big news event travels quickly by word of mouth through Baghdad, aided by the enormous proliferation of cell phones here. Such an incident would have been so abominable that a great many of the residents in Hurriya, as well as in other Sunni Arab districts, would have been in an uproar over it. Hard-line Sunni Arab organizations such as the Muslim Scholars Association or the Iraqi Islamic Party would almost certainly have appeared on television that day or the next to denounce this specific incident. Iraqi clerics and politicians are not shy about doing this. Yet, as far as I know, there was no widespread talk of the incident. So I mentioned it only in passing in my report.
Best,
Edward Wong

Now, if I read that correctly he's saying "It seemed very likely to be a bogus story, so we only mentioned it in passing." Remember that rule from the style book the next time you see something mentioned "in passing" in the New York Times.

To his credit, he did include a cautionary disclaimer for careful readers in his original story:

Fanned by fear, rumors spread quickly throughout the day. In the evening, a resident named Imad al-Hashemi said in a telephone interview on Al Jazeera, the Arab news network, that gunmen had doused some people with gasoline and set them on fire. Other residents contacted by telephone denied this.

But why worry about 6 people burned alive, when he'd already claimed this a few paragraphs prior:

From morning until afternoon, at least four mosques were attacked in Hurriya, a mixed neighborhood in the capital. Two were destroyed, and at least 5 Sunnis were killed and 10 wounded, an Interior Ministry official said. A hard-line Sunni Arab group, the Muslim Scholars Association, said 18 people had been killed when one of the mosques burned down.

Apparently a separate incident from the "6 Sunnis burned alive" claim - and one with no quotes from neighbors to support or dispute it, something admittedly within Ed's ability to deliver. As I've noted before, 18 is more than 6, and a "burned down" mosque is relatively easy enough to verify. Given Ed's passion for balanced reporting, it's unfortunate he failed to at least note the well known connection between the Association of Muslim Scholars and al Qaeda - opting instead for the ambiguous "hard line" descriptor. And yes, this is the same group that claimed 184 Sunni mosques had been attacked within hours of the Shrine bombing (and that now appears to be rupturing after their leader fled Iraq). Ed Wong reported their claims as fact back then, too - and declared that plans for the formation of Iraq's government were "in ruins". Small wonder if he harbors grudges against that government now.

Meanwhile, Tom Zeller, who wrote the Time blog items quoted above, notes in a longer article on the topic

It is important to find out if this really happened in order to separate the hyperbole from the merely horrible in Iraq, so that the horrible will still have meaning. Otherwise it will all become din.

And that is indeed the substance of the problem. In fact, it's likely that Americans, if confronted with an endless series of unsubstantiated horror stories from Iraq reported as fact - on top of the real death and destruction accompanying war - might even sooner give up altogether, start saying things like "we'll never be able to stop those people from killing each other" and insisting the troops come home now. (Note to NY Times readers: I'm using sarcasm in the previous line.)

But if the NY Times is serious about accurate reporting from Iraq, they might want to start examining the work of their own man on the scene, who's never met an unsubstantiated rumor of atrocity he found unfit to print.

Update: Heh.