Only a few days ago, in response to a Washington Post editorial, I noted that the press was beginning to call for decisive action in the so-called "no go zones" in Iraq, and that the irony there was that (mistaken or not) since the Marines were pulled back from Fallujah in April because of negative coverage about casualties, it wouldn't take long once "decisive action" got going before the same kind of negative coverage got rolling all over again.
Sure enough, there's a front page story in today's Times headlined, "Raising the Pressure in Iraq."
But as the Americans and their allies raise the pressure on the insurgents, they are rapidly finding themselves in the classic dilemma faced by governments battling guerrilla movements: ease up, and the insurgency may grow; crack down, and risk losing the support of the population. The additional quandary facing the Americans is the need to break the deadlock before January, the self-imposed deadline for elections. (My emph.)
(Of course, the third possibility that gets left out is: don't do enough, and lose the population because you've failed to "provide security." That's an astonishing lapse, given the enormous amount of attention the press has lavished on the population's demand for security, frustration with a lack of security, anger at the Americans for failing to provide security. All of a sudden that attitude, which was the centerpiece of so many news stories, is completely off the table?)
But look at the way the April decision about Fallujah is discussed, because this is critical:
How long the Americans can stick to their newly aggressive strategy is open to question: last April, as marines moved on Falluja, and Iraqi casualties soared into the hundreds, the Americans called off the attack and let a gang of insurgents take over.
First, of course, although the insurgent take over was the direct result of the Americans decisions, it was not the decision to let them take over. They put in place an Iraqi force. Now, I'm not defending that decision, which I think was a bad one, but the Times here simply misrepresents the choices made, making it seem as if the Americans simply gave up and withdrew.
More important is the first part of that setence. Notice what's done here: it's important because the reporters covering the war and the GWOT do it all the time. Some claim is hotly disputed at the time, and the press reports on the fact that the claim in question is in dispute, more or less. But after some time has gone by, when they refer back to the situation, they refer to the fact as if it is simply accepted as true, with no qualifiers or conditions. Oh, yeah, hundreds were killed in the "seige" of Fallujah. We all know that.
The hell we do. The claims of hundreds of deaths were unconfirmed -- and contested -- reports coming from inside the city. The real story wasn't well reported, but any decent reporter should know -- would know -- that that figure cannot simply be quoted as fact. It remains unconfirmed, period.
The Times argument is in part that when something happens, the Americans are losing support because they lack fire discipline.
On Monday, the scene repeated itself in another corner of Baghdad. When three insurgents opened fire on an American sport utility vehicle, American soldiers sprayed the area with gunfire, destroying three cars and killing at least one Iraqi civilian and wounding three others.
"When the Americans fire back, they don't hit the people who are attacking them, only the civilians," said Osama Ali, a 24-year-old Iraqi who witnessed the attack. "This is why Iraqis hate the Americans so much. This is why we love the mujahedeen."
Forgive me if I don't jump right on that particular bandwagon just because the New York Times says its so. I've no doubt that perception exists. But it's going to take more for me this time around than the Times' word.
Look what the reporter does here:
As American forces try to retake the cities of the so-called Sunni triangle west of Baghdad - places like Falluja and Ramadi that were strongholds of support for Saddam Hussein - some Iraqi leaders warn that they will meet stiff opposition. Separate problems have arisen in the Sadr City section of Baghdad and in southern cities where Iraq's Shiite Muslims, who make up a majority of the population, are concentrated.
That's an effort to rhetorically link the entire Shi'ite south with the cities that are in open rebellion. But it just ain't so.
The problem in the south in al-Sadr. But in those cities where he made his move, such as Najaf and Kut, the indigineous inhabitants don't like him and wanted the Americans to take strong action to get rid of him. That's what previous reporting from the Times itself has said.
This article today is certainly correct that Sadr could interrupt elections, but that paragraph implies that there's a level of popular support that's just false.
But, be that as it may, lets go back to my first and larger point: the Times' article is handwringing over the possibility of casualties involved in acting decisively. But if the military doesn't act decisively, then they take it for allowing the no-go zones to fester. (Appropriately, I believe.) But the press will react so strongly to the prospect of any casualties -- enemy, civilian, or American -- as to make almost any action, even action they themselves call for, almost impossibly difficult.
Comments