Interesting read by a LTC in Iraq...

[MKSheppard]

Linka

Aiding and Abetting the Enemy: the Media in Iraq
By LTC Tim Ryan, CO, 2/12 Cav, 1st Cav Div

What if domestic news outlets continually fed American readers headlines like: "Bloody Week on U.S. Highways: Some 700 Killed," or "More Than 900 Americans Die Weekly from Obesity-Related Diseases"? Both of these headlines might be true statistically, but do they really represent accurate pictures of the situations? What if you combined all of the negatives to be found in the state of Texas and used them as an indicator of the quality of life for all Texans? Imagine the headlines: "Anti-law Enforcement Elements Spread Robbery, Rape and Murder through Texas Cities." For all intents and purposes, this statement is true for any day of any year in any state. True -- yes, accurate -- yes, but in context with the greater good taking place -- no! After a year or two of headlines like these, more than a few folks back in Texas and the rest of the U.S. probably would be ready to jump off of a building and end it all. So, imagine being an American in Iraq right now.

I just read yet another distorted and grossly exaggerated story from a major news organization about the "failures" in the war in Iraq. Print and video journalists are covering only a small fraction of the events in Iraq and more often than not, the events they cover are only the bad ones. Many of the journalists making public assessments about the progress of the war in Iraq are unqualified to do so, given their training and experience. The inaccurate picture they paint has distorted the world view of the daily realities in Iraq. The result is a further erosion of international public support for the United States' efforts there, and a strengthening of the insurgents' resolve and recruiting efforts while weakening our own. Through their incomplete, uninformed and unbalanced reporting, many members of the media covering the war in Iraq are aiding and abetting the enemy.

The fact is the Coalition is making steady progress in Iraq, but not without ups and downs. War is a terrible thing and terrible things happen during wars, even when you are winning. In war, as in any contest of wills with capable opponents, things do not always go as planned; the guys with the white hats don't always come out on top in each engagement. That doesn't mean you are losing. Sure, there are some high profile and very spectacular enemy attacks taking place in Iraq these days, but the great majority of what is happening in Iraq is positive. So why is it that no matter what events unfold, good or bad, the media highlight mostly the negative aspects of the event? The journalistic adage, "If it bleeds, it leads," still applies in Iraq, but why only when it's American blood?

As a recent example, the operation in Fallujah delivered an absolutely devastating blow to the insurgency. Though much smaller in scope, clearing Fallujah of insurgents arguably could equate to the Allies' breakout from the hedgerows in France during World War II. In both cases, our troops overcame a well-prepared and solidly entrenched enemy and began what could be the latter's last stand. In Fallujah, the enemy death toll has already exceeded 1,500 and still is climbing. Put one in the win column for the good guys, right? Wrong. As soon as there was nothing negative to report about Fallujah, the media shifted its focus to other parts of the country. Just yesterday, a major news agency's website lead read: "Suicide Bomber Kills Six in Baghdad" and "Seven Marines Die in Iraq Clashes." True, yes. Comprehensive, no. Did the author of this article bother to mention that Coalition troops killed 50 or so terrorists while incurring those seven losses? Of course not. Nor was there any mention about the substantial progress these offensive operations continue to achieve in defeating the insurgents. Unfortunately, this sort of incomplete reporting has become the norm for the media, whose poor job of presenting a complete picture of what is going on in Iraq borders on being criminal.

Much of the problem is about perspective, putting things in scale and balance. From where I sit in my command post at Camp Fallujah, Iraq, things are not all bad right now. In fact, they are going quite well. We are not under attack by the enemy; on the contrary, we are taking the fight to him daily and have him on the ropes. In the distance, I can hear the repeated impacts of heavy artillery and five hundred-pound bombs hitting their targets in the city. The occasional tank main gun report and the staccato rhythm of a Marine Corps LAV or Army Bradley Fighting Vehicle's 25-millimeter cannon provide the bass line for a symphony of destruction. Right now, as elements from all four services complete the absolute annihilation of the insurgent forces remaining in Fallujah, the area around the former stronghold is more peaceful than it has been for more than a year. The number of attacks in the greater Al Anbar Province is down by at least 70-80% from late October -- before Operation Al Fajar began. The enemy in this area is completely defeated, but not completely gone. Final eradication of the pockets of insurgents will take some time, as it always does, but the fact remains that the central geographic stronghold of the insurgents is now under friendly control. That sounds a lot like success to me. Given all of this, why don't the papers lead with "Coalition Crushes Remaining Pockets of Insurgents" or "Enemy Forces Resort to Suicide Bombings of Civilians"? This would paint a far more accurate picture of the enemy's predicament over here. Instead, headlines focus almost exclusively on our hardships.

What about the media's portrayal of the enemy? Why do these ruthless murderers, kidnappers and thieves get a pass when it comes to their actions? What did the media not show or tell us about Margaret Hassoon, the director of C.A.R.E. in Iraq and an Iraqi citizen, who was kidnapped, brutally tortured and left disemboweled in streets of Fallujah? Did anyone in the press show these images over and over to emphasize the moral failings of the enemy as they did with the soldiers at Abu Ghuraib? Did anyone show the world how this enemy had huge stockpiles of weapons in schools and mosques, or how he used these protected places as sanctuaries for planning and fighting in Fallujah and the rest of Iraq? Are people of the world getting the complete story? The answer again is no! What the world got instead were repeated images of a battle-weary Marine who made a quick decision to use lethal force and who now is being tried in the world press. Is this one act really illustrative of the overall action in Fallujah? No, but the Marine video clip was shown an average of four times each hour on just about every major TV news channel for a week. This is how the world views our efforts over here and stories like this without a counter continually serve as propaganda victories for the enemy. Al Jazeera isn't showing the film of the CARE worker, but is showing the clip of the Marine. Earlier this year, the Iraqi government banned Al Jazeera from the country for its inaccurate reporting. Wonder where they get their information now? Well, if you go to the Internet, you'll find a web link from the Al Jazeera home page to CNN's home page. Very interesting.

The operation in Fallujah is only one of the recent examples of incomplete coverage of the events in Iraq. The battle in Najaf last August provides another. Television and newspapers spilled a continuous stream of images and stories about the destruction done to the sacred city, and of all the human suffering allegedly brought about by the hands of the big, bad Americans. These stories and the lack of anything to counter them gave more fuel to the fire of anti-Americanism that burns in this part of the world. Those on the outside saw the Coalition portrayed as invaders or oppressors, killing hapless Iraqis who, one was given to believe, simply were trying to defend their homes and their Muslim way of life.

Reality couldn't have been farther from the truth. What noticeably was missing were accounts of the atrocities committed by the Mehdi Militia -- Muqtada Al Sadr's band of henchmen. While the media was busy bashing the Coalition, Muqtada's boys were kidnapping policemen, city council members and anyone else accused of supporting the Coalition or the new government, trying them in a kangaroo court based on Islamic Shari'a law, then brutally torturing and executing them for their "crimes." What the media didn't show or write about were the two hundred-plus headless bodies found in the main mosque there, or the body that was put into a bread oven and baked. Nor did they show the world the hundreds of thousands of mortar, artillery and small arms rounds found within the "sacred" walls of the mosque. Also missing from the coverage was the huge cache of weapons found in Muqtada's "political" headquarters nearby. No, none of this made it to the screen or to print. All anyone showed were the few chipped tiles on the dome of the mosque and discussion centered on how we, the Coalition, had somehow done wrong. Score another one for the enemy's propaganda machine.

Now, compare the Najaf example to the coverage and debate ad nauseam of the Abu Ghuraib Prison affair. There certainly is no justification for what a dozen or so soldiers did there, but unbalanced reporting led the world to believe that the actions of the dozen were representative of the entire military. This has had an incredibly negative effect on Middle Easterners' already sagging opinion of the U.S. and its military. Did anyone show the world images of the 200 who were beheaded and mutilated in Muqtada's Shari'a Law court, or spend the next six months talking about how horrible all of that was? No, of course not. Most people don't know that these atrocities happened. It's little wonder that many people here want us out and would vote someone like Muqtada Al Sadr into office given the chance -- they never see the whole truth. Strange, when the enemy is the instigator the media does not flash images across the screens of televisions in the Middle East as they did with Abu Ghuraib. Is it because the beheaded bodies might offend someone? If so, then why do we continue see photos of the naked human pyramid over and over?

So, why doesn't the military get more involved in showing the media the other side of the story? The answer is they do. Although some outfits are better than others, the Army and other military organizations today understand the importance of getting out the story -- the whole story -- and trains leaders to talk to the press. There is a saying about media and the military that goes: "The only way the media is going to tell a good story is if you give them one to tell." This doesn't always work as planned. Recently, when a Coalition spokesman tried to let TV networks in on opening moves in the Fallujah operation, they misconstrued the events for something they were not and then blamed the military for their gullibility. CNN recently aired a "special report" in which the cable network accused the military of lying to it and others about the beginning of the Fallujah operation. The incident referred to took place in October when a Marine public affairs officer called media representatives and told them that an operation was about to begin. Reporters rushed to the outskirts of Fallujah to see what they assumed was going to be the beginning of the main attack on the city. As it turned out, what they saw were tactical "feints" designed to confuse the enemy about the timing of the main attack, then planned to take place weeks later.

Once the network realized that major combat operations wouldn't start for several more weeks, CNN alleged that the Marines had used them as a tool for their deception operation. Now, they say they want answers from the military and the administration on the matter. The reality appears to be that in their zeal to scoop their competition, CNN and others took the information they were given and turned it into what they wanted it to be. Did the military lie to the media: no. It is specifically against regulations to provide misinformation to the press. However, did the military planners anticipate that reporters would take the ball and run with it, adding to the overall deception plan? Possibly. Is that unprecedented or illegal? Of course not.

CNN and others say they were duped by the military in this and other cases. Yet, they never seem to be upset by the undeniable fact that the enemy manipulates them with a cunning that is almost worthy of envy. You can bet that terrorist leader Abu Musab Al Zarqarwi has his own version of a public affairs officer and it is evident that he uses him to great effect. Each time Zarquari's group executes a terrorist act such as a beheading or a car bomb, they have a prepared statement ready to post on their website and feed to the press. Over-eager reporters take the bait, hook, line and sinker, and report it just as they got it.

Did it ever occur to the media that this type of notoriety is just what the terrorists want and need? Every headline they grab is a victory for them. Those who have read the ancient Chinese military theorist and army general Sun Tsu will recall the philosophy of "Kill one, scare ten thousand" as the basic theory behind the strategy of terrorism. Through fear, the terrorist can then manipulate the behavior of the masses. The media allows the terrorist to use relatively small but spectacular events that directly affect very few, and spread them around the world to scare millions. What about the thousands of things that go right every day and are never reported? Complete a multi-million-dollar sewer project and no one wants to cover it, but let one car bomb go off and it makes headlines. With each headline, the enemy scores another point and the good-guys lose one. This method of scoring slowly is eroding domestic and international support while fueling the enemy's cause.

I believe one of the reasons for this shallow and subjective reporting is that many reporters never actually cover the events they report on. This is a point of growing concern within the Coalition. It appears many members of the media are hesitant to venture beyond the relative safety of the so-called "International Zone" in downtown Baghdad, or similar "safe havens" in other large cities. Because terrorists and other thugs wisely target western media members and others for kidnappings or attacks, the westerners stay close to their quarters. This has the effect of holding the media captive in cities and keeps them away from the broader truth that lies outside their view. With the press thus cornered, the terrorists easily feed their unwitting captives a thin gruel of anarchy, one spoonful each day. A car bomb at the entry point to the International Zone one day, a few mortars the next, maybe a kidnapping or two thrown in. All delivered to the doorsteps of those who will gladly accept it without having to leave their hotel rooms -- how convenient.

The scene is repeated all too often: an attack takes place in Baghdad and the morning sounds are punctuated by a large explosion and a rising cloud of smoke. Sirens wail in the distance and photographers dash to the scene a few miles away. Within the hour, stern-faced reporters confidently stare into the camera while standing on the balcony of their tenth-floor Baghdad hotel room, their back to the city and a distant smoke plume rising behind them. More mayhem in Gotham City they intone, and just in time for the morning news. There is a transparent reason why the majority of car bombings and other major events take place before noon Baghdad-time; any later and the event would miss the start of the morning news cycle on the U.S. east coast. These terrorists aren't stupid; they know just what to do to scare the masses and when to do it. An important key to their plan is manipulation of the news media. But, at least the reporters in Iraq are gathering information and filing their stories, regardless of whether or the stories are in perspective. Much worse are the "talking heads" who sit in studios or offices back home and pontificate about how badly things are going when they never have been to Iraq and only occasionally leave Manhattan.

Almost on a daily basis, newspapers, periodicals and airwaves give us negative views about the premises for this war and its progress. It seems that everyone from politicians to pop stars are voicing their unqualified opinions on how things are going. Recently, I saw a Rolling Stone magazine and in bold print on the cover was, "Iraq on Fire; Dispatches from the Lost War." Now, will someone please tell me who at Rolling Stone or just about any other "news" outlet is qualified to make a determination as to when all is lost and it's time to throw in the towel? In reality, such flawed reporting serves only to misshape world opinion and bolster the enemy's position. Each enemy success splashed across the front pages and TV screens of the world not only emboldens them, but increases their ability to recruit more money and followers.
So what are the credentials of these self proclaimed "experts"? The fact is that most of those on whom we rely for complete and factual accounts have little or no experience or education in counter-insurgency operations or in nation-building to support their assessments. How would they really know if things are going well or not? War is an ugly thing with many unexpected twists and turns. Who among them is qualified to say if this one is worse than any other at this point? What would they have said in early 1942 about our chances of winning World War II? Was it a lost cause too? How much have these "experts" studied warfare and counter-insurgencies in particular? Have they ever read Roger Trinquier's treatise Modern Warfare: A French View on Counter-insurgency (1956)? He is one of the few French military guys who got it right. The Algerian insurgency of the 1950s and the Iraq insurgency have many similarities. What about Napoleon's campaigns in Sardinia in 1805-07? Again, there are a lot of similarities to this campaign. Have they studied that and contrasted the strategies? Or, have they even read Mao Zedung's theories on insurgencies, or Nygen Giap's, or maybe Che' Gueverra's? Have they seen any of Sun Zsu's work lately? Who are these guys? It's time to start studying, folks. If a journalist doesn't recognize the names on this list, he or she probably isn't qualified to assess the state of this or any other campaign's progress.

Worse yet, why in the world would they seek opinion from someone who probably knows even less than they do about the state of affairs in Iraq? It sells commercials, I suppose. But, I find it amazing that some people are more apt to listen to a movie star's or rock singer's view on how we should prosecute world affairs than to someone whose profession it is to know how these things should go. I play the guitar, but Bruce Springsteen doesn't listen to me play. Why should I be subjected to his views on the validity of the war? By profession, he's a guitar player. Someone remind me what it is that makes Sean Penn an expert on anything. It seems that anyone who has a dissenting view is first to get in front of the camera. I'm all for freedom of speech, but let's talk about things we know. Otherwise, television news soon could have about as much credibility as "The Batchelor" has for showing us truly loving couples.

Also bothersome are references by "experts" on how "long" this war is taking. I've read that in the world of manufacturing, you can have only two of the following three qualities when developing a product -- cheap, fast or good. You can produce something cheap and fast, but it won't be good; good and fast, but it won't be cheap; good and cheap, but it won't be fast. In this case, we want the result to be good and we want it at the lowest cost in human lives. Given this set of conditions, one can expect this war is to take a while, and rightfully so. Creating a democracy in Iraq not only will require a change in the political system, but the economic system as well. Study of examples of similar socio-economic changes that took place in countries like Chile, Bulgaria, Serbia, Russia and other countries with oppressive Socialist dictatorships shows that it took seven to ten years to move those countries to where they are now. There are many lessons to be learned from these transformations, the most important of which is that change doesn't come easily, even without an insurgency going on. Maybe the experts should take a look at all of the work that has gone into stabilizing Bosnia-Herzegovina over the last 10 years. We are just at the eighteen-month mark in Iraq, a place far more oppressive than Bosnia ever was. If previous examples are any comparison, there will be no quick solutions here, but that should be no surprise to an analyst who has done his or her homework.

This war is not without its tragedies; none ever are. The key to the enemy's success is use of his limited assets to gain the greatest influence over the masses. The media serves as the glass through which a relatively small event can be magnified to international proportions, and the enemy is exploiting this with incredible ease. There is no good news to counteract the bad, so the enemy scores a victory almost every day. In its zeal to get to the hot spots and report the latest bombing, the media is missing the reality of a greater good going on in Iraq. We seldom are seen doing anything right or positive in the news. People believe what they see, and what people of the world see almost on a daily basis is negative. How could they see it any other way? These images and stories, out of scale and context to the greater good going on over here, are just the sort of thing the terrorists are looking for. This focus on the enemy's successes strengthens his resolve and aids and abets his cause. It's the American image abroad that suffers in the end.

Ironically, the press freedom that we have brought to this part of the world is providing support for the enemy we fight. I obviously think it's a disgrace when many on whom the world relies for news paint such an incomplete picture of what actually has happened. Much too much is ignored or omitted. I am confident that history will prove our cause right in this war, but by the time that happens, the world might be so steeped in the gloom of ignorance we won't recognize victory when we achieve it.

[Durandal]

Funny how the weekly reports of suicide bombings in Israel aren't simply brushed aside as "biased media coverage" like this by the right.

[Howedar]

There is the implication throughout the article that the reason that people are upset with the war is a poor US-to-Iraqi kill ratio. People are upset that they see US soldiers and marines dying for no apparent gain, not because their deaths didn't mean the deaths of a thousand insurgents.

[The Cleric]

Well said.

[Chmee]

It might come as some comfort to him to know that most international journalists do, in fact, know who Mao, Che, Giap, Sun and Napoleon were, and probably had to read works by many of them in college.

What's depressing is how many of them are still probably more familiar with the actual theories enunciated by those figures than our Commander in Chief is.

[Elfdart]

Whoever wrote this article could have summed it up better thusly:

"The truth hurts. Please stop telling it."

What a douchebag.

[HyperionX]

So this whole article consists of "La! La! La! I can't hear you!?" There is a war in Iraq, a bloody and ugly war, and it is plain that it isn't doing so hot for us right now and that is said within the Petagon. What this guy is saying is Ann-Coulterism and is a plain denial of reality.

[MKSheppard]

What this guy is saying is Ann-Coulterism and is a plain denial of reality.

So you're saying a guy who's seen combat in Iraq is in denial of reality?

[Howedar]

And Shep responds to the one invalid point in the thread. Raise your hand if you're surprised.

[Master of Ossus]

There is the implication throughout the article that the reason that people are upset with the war is a poor US-to-Iraqi kill ratio. People are upset that they see US soldiers and marines dying for no apparent gain, not because their deaths didn't mean the deaths of a thousand insurgents.

His primary assertions are that there is gain but no one is talking about it, and that the coverage of the war in the media has been distorted against the Americans.

[Howedar]

I phrased that poorly. Not that there is no gain, but that we really have no reason to be there.

[Beowulf]

I phrased that poorly. Not that there is no gain, but that we really have no reason to be there.

We have more reason to be there than many other times we've gone into other countries.

[Chmee]

I phrased that poorly. Not that there is no gain, but that we really have no reason to be there.

We have more reason to be there than many other times we've gone into other countries.

Doesn't exactly have a 'Shores of Tripoli' ring to it, does it?

[Hamel]

I phrased that poorly. Not that there is no gain, but that we really have no reason to be there.

We have more reason to be there than many other times we've gone into other countries.

Lollerslaps. No. Bogus as the domino effect.

[Elfdart]

I phrased that poorly. Not that there is no gain, but that we really have no reason to be there.

We have more reason to be there than many other times we've gone into other countries.

Which means most of the other invasions weren't justified, either.

[HyperionX]

What this guy is saying is Ann-Coulterism and is a plain denial of reality.

So you're saying a guy who's seen combat in Iraq is in denial of reality?

Are you kidding me? Is his long-ass rant nothing but a denial of reality? Is his argument for why the media is (seemingly to him) so negative the exact same one I hear a year ago? Is it me or did this guy say absolutely nothing about why we're winning this war?

Listen to what some military brass are saying: it ain't going so hot.

Howedar: Shut up. No offense but I feel that that is the main point: this guy's denying reality and it's the truth.

[Hamel]

The article summed up in one pic:

[Vympel]

At least he didn't regale us with tired old bullshit about all the nice schools they've opened up lately- though I do wonder what the hell he's talking about if he's not going to regale us with aforesaid tired old bullshit- what's the good news? You're killing lots of insurgents? That's your good news? Well then ... great. Let us know when you run out of them.

It's also interesting his ranting about all those unqualified media people saying the war is looking like shit. Well then ... what about the report a few months ago that said civil war in Iraq was bloody well likely? Were those folks ignorant too?

[Medic]

I would be more interested in what an NCO had to say then some fuck officer who, while in Iraq (was he?) probably never left the billets without some damn convoy I sincerely doubt my Drill's would lie about that, b/c they (and other enlisted personel) are the ones doing the shit work.
Interesting to know (I think) is that one of my Drill's was a DS in Iraq too, training some of the Iraqi's we are now fighting along. He went over there expecting to just do his job (training) but found out that he was in fact in a warzone and was living through the day to day fear, survival and combat.

[CJvR]

It might come as some comfort to him to know that most international journalists do, in fact, know who Mao, Che, Giap, Sun and Napoleon were, and probably had to read works by many of them in college.

At least the three first ones were very popular in the journalist corps.

[Mr Bean]

I do wonder what the hell he's talking about if he's not going to regale us with aforesaid tired old bullshit- what's the good news? You're killing lots of insurgents? That's your good news? Well then ... great. Let us know when you run out of them.

Even if I disagee with you thats a damn fine turn of phrase there

The point the guy was trying to drive home was the fact that the Media reports things done TO us not what WE do to them


Much like Vietnam, Which mind you is fucked today because we killed most of a generation of their young strong able'd body folks.
Sooner or later as long as you maintain the 50-1 ratio of Terrirosts dead to Americans, you will win simply due to lack of something to fight

Thats not a hard win its mearly winning a war of attrition

[Admiral_K]

What this guy is saying is Ann-Coulterism and is a plain denial of reality.

So you're saying a guy who's seen combat in Iraq is in denial of reality?

Are you kidding me? Is his long-ass rant nothing but a denial of reality? Is his argument for why the media is (seemingly to him) so negative the exact same one I hear a year ago? Is it me or did this guy say absolutely nothing about why we're winning this war?

Listen to what some military brass are saying: it ain't going so hot.

Howedar: Shut up. No offense but I feel that that is the main point: this guy's denying reality and it's the truth.

I believe his point was that while the military operations by and large are very successful (high kill to loss ratio, etc.), that the battle for the hearts and minds of not only the Iraqi people, but for the world itself is being severely hampered by new converage that consistently focuses on American losses without balancing that with American Success.

I don't see that as a "denial of reality". If you don't think most major media coverage is slanted to paint Iraq as nothing but a succession of failures then you aren't paying attention.

[Howedar]

Howedar: Shut up. No offense but I feel that that is the main point: this guy's denying reality and it's the truth.

The hell? Fuck off and die you little bitch.

[SyntaxVorlon]

I do wonder what the hell he's talking about if he's not going to regale us with aforesaid tired old bullshit- what's the good news? You're killing lots of insurgents? That's your good news? Well then ... great. Let us know when you run out of them.

Even if I disagee with you thats a damn fine turn of phrase there

The point the guy was trying to drive home was the fact that the Media reports things done TO us not what WE do to them


Much like Vietnam, Which mind you is fucked today because we killed most of a generation of their young strong able'd body folks.
Sooner or later as long as you maintain the 50-1 ratio of Terrirosts dead to Americans, you will win simply due to lack of something to fight

Thats not a hard win its mearly winning a war of attrition

So once all the insurgents are dead and gone and all militant antiAmerican activism has been stamped out, what's going to happen? The Iraq will have lost thousands of people.

Here's something I found interesting:

There is no good news to counteract the bad, so the enemy scores a victory almost every day. In its zeal to get to the hot spots and report the latest bombing, the media is missing the reality of a greater good going on in Iraq. We seldom are seen doing anything right or positive in the news.

He hasn't shown any evidence of this "greater good" going on. There may be restoration work going on in parts of the country where fighting has stopped, but guess what, they STILL don't want you there. The Iraqis want you to leave. And the longer the US is in Iraq, the greater the friction is going to come between the Iraqis and the americans. Until we get to Insurgency 2.

[Chmee]

<snip>Much like Vietnam, Which mind you is fucked today because we killed most of a generation of their young strong able'd body folks.
Sooner or later as long as you maintain the 50-1 ratio of Terrirosts dead to Americans, you will win simply due to lack of something to fight

Thats not a hard win its mearly winning a war of attrition

Uh, if the goal is to just kill everybody willing to put up a fight it seems like we could lower our casualty rate even FURTHER by just pulling out the troops and nuking the shit out of the place.

But I don't think it achieves any of our political ends.

I'd also suggest that the LTC might want to widen his reading sources a little, there is actually quite a bit of coverage in the American media about reconstruction work in Iraq. Now, does it come across as negative when those reports point out that we've barely touched the money budgeted for reconstruction because it's just not safe enough for civilian contractors to do the projects in too much of the country? Well ... how do you tell the truth and not be negative in that situation? The press isn't in the business of winning a propaganda war for the politicians, it's in the business of telling the citizens what's actually going on so they can make appropriate political decisions. I doubt we're getting ENOUGH of that, I think the war is too sugarcoated in the American media, too sanitized.