I feel reasonably certain that if the AQ/ISI assault had succeeded in freeing the war criminals from that jail the MSM would be hailing, yes, hailing, it as a Dien Bien Phu for the Iraqi government forces.

That fits in better with the MSM's preferred narrative.

Full Metal Jacket (1987)

LOCKHART: And, Joker ... where's the weenie?
JOKER: Sir!
LOCKHART: The Kill, JOKER. The kill. I mean, all that fire, the grunts must've hit something.
JOKER: Didn't see 'em.
LOCKHART: Joker, I've told you, we run two basic stories here. Grunts who give half their pay to buy gooks toothbrushes and deodorants—Winning of Hearts and Minds--okay? And combat action that results in a kill--Winning the War. Now you must have seen blood trails ... drag marks?
JOKER: It was raining, sir.
LOCKHART: Well, that's why God passed the law of probability. Now rewrite it and give it a happy ending--say, uh, one kill. Make it a sapper or an officer. Which?
JOKER: Whichever you say.
LOCKHART: Grunts like reading about dead officers.
JOKER: Okay, an officer. How about a general?
A few laughs.
LOCKHART: Joker, maybe you'd like our guys to read the paper and feel bad. I mean, in case you didn't know it, this is not a particularly popular war. Now, it is our job to report the news that these why-are-we-here civilian newsmen ignore.

Hey Man, Nice Shot

Cordially,

Uncle J

A little too much shochu there, John?

Sorry, I mean, what a powerful statement about military reporting from a Hollywood movie. And it was from a fictional Vietnam, too. How apropos.

Naturally, civilian reporters would NEVER have a conversation like the Joker / Lockhart one above, and everything that shows up in a Hollywood movie about the character of the US military in 1968 is certainly true today, right? Don't even need to think to know that, right, shochu?

It also would have been nice for the media, in spring 1968, to have reported that the Tet offensive had essentially destroyed the Viet Cong as an effective fighting force and severely attrited the NVA--and that was during the administration of a Democratic president. I'm not holding my breath for the MSM to pull its head out anytime soon for the current occupant of the White House.

Where'd you go, Shochu? I need clarification. Was that a subtle jab at Kubrick, or toilet paper stuck to the bottom of your shoe?

cy

don't knock the lack of msm attention. they might pull uncle walter out of retirement to announce how this was a major defeat for the allies.

Move along, nothing to see here, move along...

hontou?[!],

No doubt if I had quoted Homage to Catalonia, your reaction would be several rambling lines of sarcasm pointing out that Iraq and Spain are completely different countries. Forgive me. I will try to use only literal language and simple words going forward. Let me know if this is properly clear:

Official government releases about military conflicts have as their chief purpose not the dissemination of facts, but the furtherance of military objectives. In the instant case, it should come as no surprise that the military is talking up our Iraqi allies, as they have been doing so for the last four years. In that four years, actual performance has consistently underperformed the sunny words. It therefore stands to reason that this is getting little circulation in the “MSM” because (1) it is of questionable credibility and (2) the war is no longer popular enough to relay official puffery as news.

So much for your reasoning skills...
Things don't appear in the MSM due to their questionable credibility??
Paging Dan Rather...

I'm with SJ here: if you believe everything the miltary tells you, you are probably working on at least some false information.

If the only evidence that 200 insurgents were involved is a US DOD press release, we can take them for about the same value as the casualty reports out of Viet Nam back in the day.

So if the MSM is not reporting it the way the military describes it, I have to say that it probably didn't happen the way the military described it. Would not be the first time, for certain.

(And what, by the way, is the motivation for the MSM to report the bad but not the good, beyond "if it bleeds it leads?" I see some circular reasoning here--the media doesn't report the good things happening in Iraq because it is liberal, and it must be liberal since it doesn't report the good things happening in Iraq.)

Anyway, "7-10 vehicle born bombs" does not constitute a "large-scale attack" for this old tanker. And they responded with "the backing of the US military." Let me know when they can operate without our help--oh, I forgot, many of them already do, at least when they are off duty. Only we call them "insurgents." "Fighting ISI by day and USA by night" could be the motto of many Iraqi troops and cops right now.

Still, let's say for the sake of argument that the Iraqis are responding effectively and without assistance to large scale attacks now. This means the mission is complete and we can start withdrawing, right?

I got it. The benefit of the doubt goes to the enemy. Clear as a bell, SJ.

No, Shouchus right about the Stars and Stripes. It's always been pretty much a propaganda rag. We used to read it just to see how much of it we actually verify was BS.
Isn't CNN pretty much mainstream?

In El Jabal during the first gulf war we sat around one night and counted the number of Patriot Missles it took to bring down a Scud. We came up with 16 on average.
The following day we watched the same attack as protrayed on CNN. They only showed the ones that hit.
It ain't just the Stars and Stripes. CNN started out life as a propaganda organ for the US government.
All I know for sure about this war is they lied about why we were going, didn't send enough troops and have been f**king it up by the numbers for over 4 years now. I'll won't know what really happened there until 10 years after the last troop comes home and neither will any of the rest of you. Since I honestly don't give a damn about any Iraqi, and neither, really, does anybody else posting to this site, I hope that's about the middle of next week.

"CNN started out life as a propaganda organ for the US government."
Wow.
Did you clear that statement through Mr. Jane Fonda, Ted Turner??

So if the ISI thwarted such a major attack and suffered minimal casualties in a serious engagement, why not bring our troops home? Seems they are able to do what Bush considered necessary for us to claim victory. Or are we still afraid of "them" following us home?

7-10 VBIEDs do not "constitute a major attack" for the terrorists ?

Oh, sure, for an insurgency to concentrate that level of resources into one zone of attack would be a trivial thing. Especially during a security lockdown period.

I don't know that much about tanks, but UW was my specialty. I wonder Just what would equate to a major attack for some people ? Apparently, some folks think these guys have armored divisions on call ? We need to forget the Cold War -- this is guerilla warfare (terrorism if you prefer). You don't concentrate that level of force without being serious in your commitments.

Ya' think a line of 40 dump trucks moving down the street might arouse some suspicions ?

And if anyone wants to believe that CNN (often relying on the "let's PhotoShop" AP and the "We hate America" Reuters) is less biased (albeit in the opposite direction) than the S&S, I really have little to say to them.

I have been on the scene twice for major events that were covered by CNN, and in both cases what I say was substantially different from what was reported.

I know, who am I supposed to believe, CNN or my own lyin' eyes ?

Setting aside the "glass is half empty/half full" phenomenon, which I recognize I do suffer from, I remain more skeptical of CNN than anything this side of AP or the NY Times. There is a difference between skepticism and silence.

Consider, if a terr says something against US interests, CNN reports "so-an-so alleges." But if the US says something against the terrs, CNN responds with silence. And, as is clear above, too many are very eager to believe the US lies, but that it's enemies don't.

Repeat after me: We are the good guys. If we blow up kids, it's an accident or an aberration. They are the bad guys. When they blow up kids, it's often deliberate.

I really can't make it plainer than that.

I just added an excerpt and link to my 2007.05.21 Iraq/Iran Roundup.

"CNN started out life as a propaganda organ for the US government."

Who knew that Peter Arnett was reporting news on behalf of the Iraqi Information ministry because the US government wanted him to.

The strange twisted logic that turns CNN into a US proganda organ while simultaneously praising their coverage of the 'human cost of war' under the barrel of an Iraqi gun is beyond this writers ability to understand. Then again, its lately become the spin of the Left to praise 'Baghdad Bob' for his truthful and accurate information.

As further proof of the useful shorthands I've picked up for CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/

"Suspected Taliban ambush, 25 dead"

You have to click on the link to see
"25 insurgents dead"

For anyone simply scanning CNNs home page, the picture would be much less optimistic, don't you think ? Only when you dig down do you find the "25 dead" darned-well ought to be dead.

Let's hypothesize another blurb, instead, shall we ?

"Taliban ambush fails."

No less accurate. No hyping (based on my actually reading the 'story' -- it failed). The descriptions is still succinct. But it puts a different face on things, doesn't it ?

Yeah, tell me all about how unbiased CNN is. . . How it's a propoganda arm of the USA. . .

So, here's my useful shorthand: Whenever CNN, AP, or Reuters leads with "nnn dead" without "Coalition," "British," "US" or some other nationalities in the sound bite, insert "bad guys" after the integer. You won't be wrong often.

SJ and RSS are simply on the other side, and all their comments should be evaluated on that basis.

Let me note for the record that I do not "trust" CNN or really anybody else in terms of actually reporting the facts in a wholly accurate and unbiased way. Basically, determining accuracy in what one reads is a "totality of the circumstances" test. Look at who they cite, who wrote it, what the mood of the country is realtive to the story. This last one accounts for a lot more than people give it credit for. In the run up to the war, the allegedly liberal NY Times, the old grey lady herself, was chering on the war via such luminaries as Judith Miller. They were not alone, virtually every news outlet was giddy with excitement. It was like 1991 all over again. People love a good war that we win quickly. People do not love a war that drags on for years with no end in sight. As the war becomes less popular, the coverage becomes less favorable. Official sources, however, report the same sunny pablum always at all times because it is their mission to keep up our morale, demoralize the other side, and win the hearts/minds to our cause. Bad news has no place in that mission whatsoever.

Now some specific comments:
1charlie2: I disagree with your analysis here as to CNN. I searched CNN's site and news soruces in general and found that when you have "nnn dead", it is not usally bad guys, but a mixed bag of civilians and who knows who else. For example, "Car bomb kills 27 in Baghdad commercial district".

SDN, if the other side is reality, that is certainly the side I am on.

Col Nathan Jessup: Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and curse the Marines; you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives and that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.
You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use then as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

For me, the most hideous aspect of this war is the venom, the sneering, the snark that spews from the side that refuses to accept that the Iraq mission is vital and justified.

Our brave, all-volunteer forces are fighting an enemy that makes the Waffen SS and the Imperial Japanese look like Victorian gentlemen, and what do so many Americans do? Belittle our troops' efforts. Defecate all over them. Laugh. Minimize their triumphs and maximize their mistakes.

It's enough to make me wish actual physical harm on certain people. At the very least, may they someday meet face to face with the terrorists they claim are both not a threat and at the same time vastly superior to our troops in fighting abilities.

A humane caveat: At the last moment, right before the blade comes down on their pencil necks, may a squad of marines burst in and rescue them.

But only after these languid cynics crap their pants, grovel, and weep for mercy.

There are TRAITORS IN OUR MIDST

The war CAN BE ONE and WILL BE dispite them

Our men are tough enough to win the war but the wounds that wont heel are those inflicted by the leftist freaks like SHOCHU JON. WHY DO THEY WANT TO LOSE???

Karl,
I agree the war can be WON, but for the sake of argument please tell me how. Please tell what is victory. Please tell me how long it will take. 5 year, 10 years, 15+ years? Is that acceptable to you?

Anyway, the article is about the media not reporting the victories of the ISI. My question is, if they are having victories without our help, why are we still helping them? And why would not helping them be considered a loss? As Bush said, there will be no clear cut victory (i.e. no surrender), so if there is no clear cut victory why is it so obvious there is a clear cut defeat?

5 year, 10 years, 15+ years? Is that acceptable to you?

I don't know about you guys but I'm willing to stick with it until we are FINISHED be it 20 or 50 years. Period.

If we turn tail and run, the entire middle east will consider us cowards, and arabs NEVER respect cowards. It's mostly because liberals refuse to accept that this war has NOTHING to do with politics, they hate us because of the trash morality and culture constantly being exported from the U.S. by the liberals. They think the can attack us with impunity because they know that few if any liberals in this country have the courage to do what is right for this country, as opposed to what is popular and right for their next campaign. That's right morons we're fighting to make sure you have a world that allows you to be as immoral as you want, and if the terrorists win and manage ever to take a stake in this country, I guarantee, you liberals will be beheaded by those psychos LONG before us moraly minded conservatives. But don't worry, we're still allowed to own guns *blows raspberry*, so we'll protect you when they come.

What "other side" am I on, SDN? The one populated by people who spent twenty years as combat soldiers? I don't want to hear your "support the troops" BS. I know a lot of those guys, and I am not the one who is "defecating" on them.

I am not the one who left people in charge of Walter Reed who care more about profit than about our wounded troops because I thought privatizing everything is a good idea.

I am not the one who institutionalized a system of diagnosing wounded soldiers with "personality disorders" so they could refuse them benefits.

I didn't send them to war without proper equipment, and I didn't decide to force a small number of troops to bear the entire burden because I was afraid to pay the political cost of bringing back the draft--or at least increasing the size of the force.

I didn't clamor for a tax cut even as the war against terrorism started because I was more worried about my investments, the stock market, and the economy than I was about winning.

I didn't recommend shopping as a way to win a war because I preferred a polarized electorate and narrowly decided political victories to leading the American people as a team in a fight for our way of life.

I didn't abandon the search for the perpetrator of the WTC attacks so that I could go after a petty dictator--one of many in the world killing his own people--in a misguided attempt to force democracy on people at the point of a gun.

I didn't degrade a war hero's purple heart--and by implication call the US Navy a pack of liars--and reduce it to a political symbol on a band-aid. I didn't accuse a decorated veteran of lying for political purposes even as I supported a candidate for president who could not even be bothered to finish his BS National Guard job because he was too busy working on the political campaign of his father's pal.

I dissented from all of these policies and arguments. The leaders you follow so blindly are the ones who hate--or at least disdain the sacrifice--of our brave men and women in uniform. At least until they need a nice background for a political speech.

If all you got is "SJ and RSS are traitors who hate the troops," then your argument that this war is necessary and that we are winning is a weak one. If cognitive dissonance won't let you face the prospect that the media isn't reporting anything good out of Iraq because nothing good is happening in Iraq, then nothing I can say will get through.

But the best part is that even as you folks accuse dissenters from Decider Bush of treachery and of defecating on the troops, you also fret about the "venom, the sneering, and snark" from those with opposing views.

Thanks, CY. It's been fun.

Well said, Tom W. Methinks you touched a nerve, there.

And, R. Stanton Scott, Thanks for proving Tom W's point with your snarky "dissenters from Decider Bush". It really is all about BDS and two lost presidential elections, isn't it.

"..FINISHED be it 20 or 50 years. Period."

"If we turn tail and run, the entire middle east will consider us cowards, and arabs NEVER respect cowards."

I guess I just do not see how staying forever makes us look strong if we cannot create security. Also I wonder how you think that Americans (who are lighting rods even in the best of circumstances in the Middle East) can militarily convince people to stop fighting each other. I just don't get it.

I quote for you the POTUSA: "Bush believes if we are going to commit American troops we must be sure there is a clear mission and an achievable goal and an exit strategy." Do you think we have the above? A clear mission? An Achievable goal, and an Exit Strategy?
(I would be glad to give you the URL of Bush's quote, but posting it triggers the spam filter..)

What about this quote from Pat Buchanan: “And what are we doing bombing and attacking this
tiny country that has never attacked the United States to rip away from them a province that does not
belong to us? I believe it is an unjust war. I think we have failed in our strategic objectives, and it is now
becoming basically no longer a war for Kosovo but a war to save NATO’s credibility and NATO’s face.
And that does not justify sending in an army of 100,000 American ground troops into the Balkans.”

Humm, seems the "venom, the sneering, the snark that spews from the side that refuses to accept that the Iraq mission is vital and justified." as Tom W. is quoted as saying seems to run on both sides of isle. I would think that genocide would fall into the category of vital and justified, but those opposing the president did not seem to think so.

Don't I hear from military experts that defeating insurgencies can be expected to take 10 to 20 years? If that's how long it takes, that is how long it takes. We cannot leave the job unfinished.

And, being of a conservative bent, I don't look to Pat Buchanan as a voice of reason. That being said, the national security interests of intervening in the Balkans under Clinton were a lot less apparent than the national security interests of going into Iraq in 2003. Just this morning, I read a post relating to the real threat that was the Hussein regime in Iraq that I think puts the lie to a lot of the "we shouldn't have done it" arguments: http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2007/05/in_todays_wall.html

Al Queda doesn't have elections, nor do they ask themselves how long it will take. They don't have to worry about public perception because besides not really giving a rip what people think they have our MSM providing cover. If instead of every grievance they can put on the front pages slamming our leaders and soldiers they would devote all that ink to all of the attacks worldwide carried out by these extremist there would scant room to report anything else.
The Islamofascists are not only killing Americans. They are killing Thais, Indians, Buddhists, other Muslims (mostly), Africans and anybody else who dares to challenge them.

May I remind everyone that CNN, a generally left-wing source, has also reported this story.

Anyways, it does not surprise me that the Iraqi Security Forces are doing better. May I remind you they are protecting their children too, and as sick and bloodthirsty as the Iraqi public was in 2003, it appears that the sheer magnitude of the human tragedy known as Islamicist intervention has finally sunk in and they may be soon out of their psychosis, as recent events in Anbar with the blessings of tribal big men given to our millitary reflect. Also, the ISF may have seen their own pathetically high casualty rates and taken some lessons. From the description of the operation, it can be conluded that some discipline has been bestowed on the ISF. A few more of these victories, and Bush may not hand a mess to his successor after all.

What constitutes victory?

When there are no more members of Islamic terror gangs to hunt down and kill. Then the war will be over.

"I don't know about you guys but I'm willing to stick with it until we are FINISHED be it 20 or 50 years. Period."

We still have troops stationed in Germany and Japan after 60 years. Why should Iraq be any different?

"We still have troops stationed in Germany and Japan after 60 years. Why should Iraq be any different?"

Big difference. Those troops are on a military BASE not patrolling the streets in a hostile country. We are not running elections and providing "security" for the German and Japanies governments.

My question to you is this: Do you think pulling troops out of Afghanistan to put in Iraq should be viewed as a defeat? I mean we pulled troops out of Afghanistan before that job was finished, or did we catch UBL and I wasn't aware of it?

"We still have troops stationed in Germany and Japan after 60 years. Why should Iraq be any different?"

Big difference. Those troops are on a military BASE not patrolling the streets in a hostile country. We are not running elections and providing "security" for the German and Japanese's governments.

My question to you is this: Do you think pulling troops out of Afghanistan to put in Iraq should be viewed as a defeat? I mean we pulled troops out of Afghanistan before that job was finished, or did we catch UBL and I wasn't aware of it?