Bob Owens at Conferedate Yankee has received, from an anonymous tipster claiming to be inside Bagdhad’s Green Zone, a memo purportedly from the office of PM Nouri Al-Maliki directing “official speakers or the media advisors” within the Defense and Interior ministries to freeze out the media with respect to security questions.
Owens has scanned copies of the memo available at his site, both in the original Arabic and in an English translation.
While acknowledging that no other context was provided him, Owens concludes, based on the text of the memo, that
This is not a good development for transparent government nor for Iraqi democracy.
I’m not yet ready to make that leap—some context for the memo would be nice, and as we’ve all learned by now, it is prudent to remain skeptical over anonymous sources funneling information out of Iraq—so for now I’ll just leave you to discuss the questions raised in the title of this post.
I can’t remember where, but someone yesterday raised a hypothetical in the comments that I’ll paraphrase this way: what is likely to save more lives in the long run and help bring stability to the war-torn country—a redeployment of our troops to the Iraqi borders, so that the “civil war” within Iraq can play itself out? Or a press blackout that lasts for a few weeks?
Process is indeed important. And war crimes need to be exposed—which is one of the reasons we value transparency in the media. At the same time though, is it possible the Maliki government has become aware of a propaganda effort within those ministries that is helping to sow dissent, weaken support for a unified Iraq, and undermine efforts to disband militias and fight the insurgents effectively?
And if so, what, exactly, should Maliki do if his first mandate is to protect the fledgling republic? Would a republic lost to its own idealism be a victory for integrity and transparency? And should Maliki be willing to perhaps lose the war to win what might amount to a Pyrrhic victory—one the would most certainly be applauded by moralists, but one that, in the end, might have the net effect of being less moral, and so should have been approached pragmatically rather than idealistically?
I have no opinion just now on the matter—I tend toward idealism when possible, but I don’t believe that idealism is necessarily a virtue if it means the slaughter of innocents and a return to totalitarian rule. In fact, everything I’ve ever learned about these competing philosophical impulses I learned from Alec Guinness’s face at the pivotal moment of Bridge on the River Kwai.
At any rate, I’m doing a lot of speculating, so consider this post a thought experiment —the end game being, just how much latitude do we give the Maliki government?
Lemme get this straight – – are you asking whether American moral mission would be, in some cases, best served by our turning a blind eye and allowing the Iraqi PM to kill people without American interference?
Roughly eight degrees.
Oh.
Well, I think that the Maliki government can do as it pleases, pretty much. But I also think that we ought to strongly oppose activities that, for example, are in direct violation of their own laws. How we’d do that, I can’t begin to guess.
Kill insurgents and militiamen who refuse to disarm, beetroot. Who, while certainly “people,” are people dedicated to undermining the duly elected government.
And the question is being posed as a hypothetical. So try not to get hysterical and run around accusing me of wanting “indiscriminate carpet bombings” on orphanages again.
To rephrase it: what is more morally acceptable? An adherence to the trappings of a democratic government (allowing free access to a press that may, in fact, have been compromised), or a pragmatic approach that recognizes that compromised situation and seeks to mitigate its effectiveness as a propaganda tool in order to crackdown on the insurgency and disarm the various militias?
Or, to put it another way, do—and/or should—the rules established for times of peace differ in times of war, particularly if the changes end up winning the war at the expense of losing some of the (idealistic) battles?
I think it likely the second option is the winner. I also think we need to remember the disdain that FDR had for the press and that his refusal to even approach some subjects with them was wise. The press has proven that they believe their own interests outweigh anything being attempted in Iraq.
I can tell all ready. Saddam and I are going to like Beetroot’s take on this matter the best.
If the media has been infiltrated and is issuing proganda for the terrorists and disinformation against the elected government, then it is an agent of the opposition in a time of war.
Few idealistic battles are won if the war for freedom is lost.
PASTY WRITES GIBBERISH: OPEN THREAD!
Just wanted to get that erudite Duncan Black response out of the way. Obligatory link to Lawyers Guns and Money pre-supposed.
Well, it was idealistic of Jimmah to pull the plug on the Shah, because of his secret police.
Hey Zarkman!! Do me a favor, ask Saddam “How’s it hangin?”
Too soon?
Once upon a time, I was involved in security work for some of our very boomiest toys. One of the things I learned about security is that it works best when YOU DON’T TELL THE WHOLE FUCKING WORLD EVERY GODDAMNED THING YOU’RE DOING, a nuance that has been lost on the New York Times, and apparently on Bob Owens. The media has proved itself to be wholly disinterested in anything that might calm things down.
I’m not the least bit bothered by this, and I wish we’d see more of it at home.
Well, I would have shot the bastard long ago if given the chance.
Come on, this is Bush’s last chance. Maliki is an Arab who thinks raping the children of your enemey is a legitimate fringe benefit of victory. The only problem with Maliki and the Shiites is they aren’t really good at it like I was.
Because the Shiites are followers of pigs and monkeys.
Yeah, he’s still a little sensitive about it, but that will pass with time. Mussolini can look back and chuckle now. Hitler still has no sense of humor about the way things wound down for him, but what can I say, aside from the Jewish thing he’s a prick.
Well, gotta ago. We’re putting together a welcoming committee for Fidel. Man talk about your stubborn bastards. He should have been here weeks ago.
There’s a difference between the kind of transparency that’s good for a democratic system, and the kind that’s created by some militant blowing a fist-sized hole through the government.
If keeping secrets can prevent that second kind of transparency, then keep the damn secrets.
Hey Saddam you dickweed, that is my line! You are just some secular socialist Baathist wannabe. I am the true voice of Islamic Jihad! Shiites are appostate Muslims who follow Jews and Crusaders like dogs.
I have no idea how things got screwed up and I ended up down here. Where are my 72 virgins? This place sucks worse than Jordan and Iraq.
I can’t even get 24 down here. I love that show. Bauer is such a bad ass. That and of course reruns of Baywatch.
What do you give a shit? It’s never about morality, it’s always about political opportunity. The American left has yet to miss a chance to capitalize on Iraq, the consequences in lives (and principles) be damned.
I still think the most tragically humorous thing would be for, as somebody once said on these pages, for Dubya to just drive the truck back to Crawford and thereby hand the Democrats their biggest nightmare. Which was to depose Sadam Hussein and presumably, deal with the aftermath. In their omniscience.
To my knowledge, a question the likes of which few leftists could ask. Or probably even conceive of.
I did not know I had a ghost. It is pretty cool though. It is like a separate “me.” Like having a twin. An evil sick twisted twin.
I love you man.
BTW–they are serving Mojitos and chicken wings when Fidel shows up!
Waitaminnit. I dunno if “beetroot” is one of the “bring the boys home” brigade, but isn’t that precisely what the result of the US leaving Iraq would be? A mass slaughter?
And it wouldn’t even result in even a vague resemblance of a consensual government.
When close to 50% (many various estimates of course) of the Sunni population has already abandoned the country – I’d say that the writing was on the wall on this issue for quite some time.
How many Americans whined when nearly ALL Germans were forced out of the western Polish provinces post WW II?
None, because there wasn’t anything we could do about it.
There really isn’t a hell of a lot we can do in this situation either.
Let’s face it, people are paying for their allegiances whether for logical reasons or not.
The hypothesis here is, once again, simply this: Sometimes killing is the pragmatic solution to the problem of an immoral state of affairs (i.e. civil war), making it moral to do what is outwardly immoral.
(Or conversely, it is sometimes immoral to be moral.)
I understand this question, and in the abstract it represents a truly profound one; I’m sure wise heads have struggled for centuries with it, and I won’t address it in the abstract, as I’m sure situations of all kinds can be imagined in which it would be “immoral” to hold to one’s “moral code” (“I respect all life, so I won’t kill this mosquito, even though i know it’s full of malaria and is about to bite my sleeping daughter”).
But to address it in the context of the war, let me just point out that once again, the Goldstein hypothesis assumes that the pragmatic course of action at this moment is to kill more people.
That remains an assumption on Jeff’s part that can’t be demonstrated to be true; we cannot, for example, point to a place in Iraq and say, “Here is where we were able to kill without moral restrictions, and here is the morally superior result.”
And on that pesky other hand, we have many examples in Iraq of lots of killing, and lots of suspension of our normal moral codes (i.e. fighting a war), that have NOT resulted in the implementation or even the shadow of a more moral state in Iraq.
You guys know me as a practical and level-headed snot-bubbling leftard hysteric, so you know that I don’t deny that killing is sometimes a legitimate and moral response to threats to collective security. Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.
But in this case, allow me to cut through the bullshit and point out that once again, the Jeff Goldstein response to the Iraq bloodbath, where there’s been nothing BUT killing for years now, is to muse:
“Wouldn’t it be the right thing to do to suspend all tenets of morality and just blow the shit out of all those motherfuckers once and for all?”
Yeah, Jeff, that would be great. Just like it’d be great if you could slap people in the face with your cock whenever you wanted.
Jeff,
asked another way – should Lincoln have trampled on the constitution to save the Union?
That is essentially what you are asking.
– GB
You know, I hate to fall into the category of “Minuteman”, but what could be better than barring the MSM from Iraq? These idiots spend their time getting drunk in the green zone, and relying on Iraqi stringers.
With a ban on press, maybe some people would know that we are not losing this war. Like ‘Nam, this war is being lost by the “press”. It makes me nuts that these press pussies are the ones who are losing this war. Without the support of the MSM, the “insurgents” would be yesterdays news. Without the MSM, they wouldn’t have the hair to do what they are doing. But they now know that they just have to wait us out, thank you MSM!
Boy. Am I in a bad mood, or what?
Oh yeah. Jeff – please suck it up. We all have our bad days, but you are truly unique. Hang in, please. PW is waqy beyond ordinary. Way.
Nice comprehension skills you’ve got there, beetroot. Can you build the next guy out of bricks instead of straw?
Beetroot, do you believe what’s going on in Iraq is still “war” or do you believe the actual war ended after about three weeks?
‘Cause if it’s still war, then yes—the pragmatic course of action at this moment is to kill more people.
Then again, if you would say the actual war ended after only three weeks, I sincerely hope I never see your name under any commentary equating Iraq with Vietnam.
But in this case, allow me to cut through the bullshit and point out that once again, the Jeff Goldstein response to the Iraq bloodbath, where there’s been nothing BUT killing for years now, is to muse:
“Wouldn’t it be the right thing to do to suspend all tenets of morality and just blow the shit out of all those motherfuckers once and for all?â€Â
I love it when instead of arguing the issue raised, leftists have to change the position of the party they are arguing with and argue against a straw man. They do it every time. Which, basically, proves they know they are wrong on the merits of whatever argument it is. I mean, if they had an argument to make, they would make it, instead of calling names and arguing against straw men, right?
– GB
Yo Pablo,
I think you’r mixing your apples and oranges a bit with your comparison between me and the Times.
The Times was doing what it did to hurt the war effort and hamstring us in winning the fight against terrorism.
Instead of getting the media to rely more upon official government spokespeople, Makiki’s directive is going to force the media even deeper into the arms of the “Jamil Hussein’s” of the world, where the media will potentially run even more disinformation and inaccurate information, completely unanswered or countered by those with information that is probably far more accurate (or at least provides a different spin to consider).
Maliki is ceding the field to the rumor-mongers. That is a bone-headed decision, one that the media is most likely already aware of (you’ll note this went out January 8, so it has impacted them already), and one that the media probably relishes.
The media are now pretty much able to say whatever they want, without being rebutted.
My motives are quite a bit different from what the Times had in mind when the went to print.
In terms of pursuing an idealistic goal, I think Maliki would be well served in strongly supporting and developing a judiciary, one to which he and his successors must answer. Pragmatically, this need not be of a piece with provincial jurisprudence at first. If Maliki can successfully develop a respected judicial check and balance, he could have a great deal of room to negotiate whatever latitude he feels he needs to quell the insurgency, spay and neuter the militias, and protect the borders. This would hopefully have the effect of enabling the US and the world to direct criticism and comment at the process, and not in personalized or sectarian terms.
Locking down communication with the media strikes me as a sign that he understands the nature of the propaganda war, and is looking to mitigate his government’s disadvantage in this area without moving towards overt or, worse, Russian-style repression.
Maliki would also be well-served to cultivate an iconic first lady. Wikipedia has an intriguing little question mark next to “spouse”, so it looks like he may have a tabula rasa here and could build a first lady to order. Surely there are consultants who could help with that. An iconic woman who could symbolize a new era can go a long way to mitigate criticism from the Iraqi and international left, and could help Maliki acquire a certain amount of latitude in many areas.
Re: Beetroot, otherwise known as my favorite little snot bubbling hysteric. Told you.
Leftards can’t read, example number… I lost count.
Pretty much nailed that, beet.
I recommend nice breasts.
Jeff,
If it is true, all that an objective observer can take way from this anonymous tip is, Maliki has determined that unfettered “press-access” is the problem.
In demonstrating this, I think that Maliki is just two-steps ahead of most engaged Americans’ opinions on the matter.
It is obvious to me that the caricature of “Iraq” as a “mess” is purely a medio-politico fabrication, that provides the (coincidental?) beneift of absolving Anti-war politicians from having to answer the questions that real events – both positive and negative ones – might evoke.
Because I was once 6-years old, this is old-hat. The “Iraq Mess”-meme is just a “he who smelt it, dealt it” – grade-school rehash. Exhorting that Bush had “No Plan” immunizes some from discussiing the fact that Bush invaded Iraq with Clinton’s war-plan. Moaning about “No WMD’s” is supposed to deflect our scrutiny from the U.N.s non-enforcement of its S.C. resolutions, and the Anti-warriors’ exhaltation of this institutional ineptitude after 9/11. And “Don’t question our patriotism!!” is used to deflect reasoned criticism of liberals’ pacifism, while the truth is the Democrats voted to authorize the Iraq-war. The list could go on and on.
End word is, you don’t have to be a rocket-scientist to figure out that the established media-relations OP just ain’t workin’. So, bully for Maliki, for tryin a “new-way forward.”
beetroot
How much influence do you think that people like you have on the “insurgents”?
We ran from ‘Nam, and as a consequence, about two million people lost their lives. If we run from Iraq, that will look like a picnic. If you idiots could understand normal thinking, you would realize that running away is the absolute worst thing we could do.
All I can give to your side is that you have forced Bush to fight this war like Viet Nam. Politics as usual. Bush has made some major mistakes, but he is determined to see this through. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are nothing more than opportunists, who don’t give a shit about the USA. Whatever brings them power is what they will choose. Like most of the left, their motto is: “Fuck right and wrong. How can I fuck Bush?”
I still believe in right and wrong – not a good position to take in the new millennium. We are all born with a sense of righty and wrong, but new millennium pussies obstinately deny it. Cutting peoples heads off is OK with you and yours, because who are we to judge? Asshole. People like you make me sick.
It hasn’t been a good day. Nothing personal.
Just a linguistic quibble- but is there such a thing as DISCRIMINATE carpet bombing? I want to be sure to get these things right.
Heck, the US government has no Constitutional obligation to talk to the press why the heck should we care about some other country’s government talking to the press. As to that just sending the press to the arms of the enemy propagandist and rumor mongers…umm, if you don’t think we’re already there then you haven’t been paying attention. Besides the press is just as happy to make things up out of whole cloth too.
I think discriminate carpet bombing exempts the media.
I’m still agog at how beetroot managed to accuse me of wanting a bloodbath AND getting a cockslapping reference into his responses.
But then, I guess when you are working from a limited playbook…
The hypothetical here is what it is, beetroot. Either address it or don’t. After all, I have no say in the matter, from a practical perspective; I’m just trying to suss out how others think.
There are many speculative “ifs” in this post. But “if” Maliki’s dictate is intended to undermine the propaganda victories of the insurgency, then I’d be all for it. Would you or wouldn’t you? Or would you rather have a “transparent” media that, as we’ve seen, is being routinely suckered by dubious sources into reporting false stories that undermine the fledgling Iraqi government? This is the choice I’m positing. If you wish to detail for us some middle ground, I’m certain we be willing to listen to that, too.
As I said, killing more “people” is only a correct (and powerful as an emotional appeal) characterization once we forget that the “people” being targeted are those fighting against a duly elected government and/or for foreign powers.
Still, if it makes you feel better about yourself, go run over to the leftwing sites and tell them I’m advocating slaughter again—and then you can all pretend that the qualifications in my post were meant solely to cover my bloodthirsty ass. I so do like it when you light your torches and grab your pitchforks—though for the record you’d be far more intimidating as a mob if you weren’t all dressed in paisley.
Bob, my criticism is solely on that point and in no way did I intend to say such a nasty thing about you as comparing you to the NYT. You’ve done good work, and I appreciate that.
That said, there are rumor-mongers within the security apparatus as well. Iraq runs on rumors. This Vent at Hot Air, which I imagine you’ve seen, speaks to that point.
I don’t see the media doing anything terribly helpful in Iraq, and if they get stonewalled, I really don’t care. I don’t see it hurting the effort. The pros of doing it outweigh the cons, IMHO.
Sanctuary?
I think the whole slaughter idea is silly. I think any serious overture to slaughter would precipitate a mass exodus of the non-slaughtered. So you’d have to posit a very well-orchestrated and centrally-administered slaughter to forestall the exodus. Iraqis just haven’t shown the aptitude for an operation like that.
I will go ahead and answer my own question. Yes, I think Lincoln was correct in trampling on the Constitution to preserve the Union.
Sometimes, people must do unsavory things for the greater good. Things that out of the big-picture context would seem immoral or evil. That is not to say that the end always justifies the means, but that sometimes a good end (peaceful, secure, free country) cannot be acheived without some messy means (bloodshed, temporary restraint of some liberty). Mature adults generally understand this to be true.
Now, whether or not in this particular circumstance, the means chosen will serve to ensure the ends needed – I don’t have enough information to make a judgment.
They’re at my house and refuse to take off their burkas. What fun is that? Besides, virgins are absolutely no fun. They always ask “What is that, and what are you trying to do with it?”
I must be old, huh?
Jeff
It’s clear beetroot doesn’t understand what’s being asked. His “levelheaded” response is an excercise in spin by someone who has no clue what morality even is.
On the plus side he is getting out of your writing exactly what he want to, so you know, score!
Posted by Jeff Goldstein on 01/23 at 11:13 AM:
I knew it!!!
What would Peggy Noonan do?
OK, guess: is it alphie, Jim Fraud Montague or Timmy? Nancy Pelosi, Murtha or Dennis Kucinich?
It’s Al Zawahri….
The only difference between Al Qaida and the American left is that the filthy leftists are too chickenshit to actually shoot at us.
What would we call them? Chickenhadeen? Those who would be mujahadeen against America but are too chicken?
I like that: “Chickenhadeen”!
TW: The only difference between a peacenik and a traitor is that at least98 the traitor isn’t also a coward!
“Shutting out the press clearly means government-approved genocide. There can be no other explanation.”
Jeff,
You might want to take a look at Wikipedia’s seamier side, and read the entry on Fr. Charles Coughlin. Coughlin was a bad man, quite likely a Nazi sympathizer, and the Roosevelt Administration did not hesitate to lean on him. Wikipedia has a fairly solid account of the method, which amounted to careful enforcement of the laws in a manner calculated to reduce his ability to broadcast his message. And somehow, our freedoms managed to survive that little piece of censorship.
That’s a fact worth noting, particularly since we’re now in the fifth year of war: censorship has often been a tool governments use in wartime – oftentimes democratic governments, and often unapologetically – and not just to protect militarily significant information. Maliki is in a much tougher position than we are, his need is correspondingly greater – and, it should be noted, his opponents’ strategy depends for its success on a successful propaganda campaign. Under the circumstances, his desire to prevent a hostile media from using government information to his disadvantage is strategically sound.
And really, is it ANY worse than the restrictions British civil servants have faced, in war and in peace, since the enactment of the Official Secrets Act in 1911? Not really.
So I’m for it, is what I’m saying.
Here is a perfect example of where media-access can be unhelpful.
In the LAT piece I link below, an embedded journalist reports that “scant” evidence of Iranian arms smuggling existsl, thus countermanding the credibility of the President’s direct, professional, military advisors,. just when we’re tightening the thumb-screws on the mullahs.
Although the reports come from only one border-zone on a very long border, it is carefully clipped and spun to propagate the “Bush-Lacks-Credibiltiy”-meme.
This meme needs a stable base to sit on, though. So it rests on the tri-pod, “Bush-Lied,” “Sixteen-words,” “No WMD” -memes that the anti-warriors have successfully seeded into the “public record”.
The LAT piece linked below strives to pick some early tomatos from a plant they’ve been watering for months.
Link.
The two most likely reasons for a press blackout in Iraq are to hide bad news that the Bush Administration doesn’t want out there, since it will make his surge look like even more of a bad idea or, secondly, to hide something egregious that the military is about to do, like carpet bomb some area where multiple civilians will be killed. In this case, I think both reasons apply.
The point I was making yesterday about a press black-out, by the way, was more in reference to that faction of the insurgents who are primarily using violence to influence press coverage back here in hopes we will lose resolve. Would outlawing the coverage of IED attacks actually lessen the number of attacks if the terrorists knew they weren’t getting and exposure from them.
You don’t disappoint, Steve xx:
So that pretty much sums up your position….
You’re a member of the Chickenhadeen—those who hate America, agree with the goals of the enemy, but are too chickenshit to actually shoot at us.
Playing ‘what have you done for me lately’ with the media is hardly equivalent to the suspension of habeus corpus.
You are certainly free to assert that ‘(t)his is not a good development for transparent government nor for Iraqi democracy.’ But you really should provide some context and specifics for substantiation. Otherwise it borders on a platitude.
Accepting that the media is not a co-equal branch of government, and may actually have a competing agenda is not necessarily bad for transparent government nor democracy. Especially if it serves as notice to oppositional media types that their behaviors are not conducive to establishing a stable representative government and the rule of law or to their continued ability to function.
Before we ascribe ulterior motives to a government choosing to whom it will speak – news blackout to mask a coming slaughter – let us consider that the act may be an ends unto itself or a means to other unstated ends.
…Fr. Charles Coughlin.
The guy that played him on HBO is the scion of two generations of GOP Congressmen from Ohio.
Besides, virgins are absolutely no fun. They always ask “What is that, and what are you trying to do with it?â€Â
Ooooh! It looks like a penis….only smaller.
And, curiously, he had the same cast of characters around him as the current “anti-war” movement. There were the grieving mothers (who lost sons in WWI), the disgruntled “vets”, etc.
Gray,
When I read these types of accusations questioning my courage because of my opposition to the war, I have to ask something: Since it’s not my ass being shot off in Iraq or wherever else our troops are sent, why would I be afraid? Nothing happens to me. No one in my immediate family is currently serving in Iraq. Why would I oppose the war out of fear? It doesn’t really make much sense if you break it down.
There goes Steve, mind-reading again. You claimed not to have that power, but can’t stop from using it!
I would also like to ask a question of those about to hyperventilate because the Iraqi government appears to be considering getting medivel with the insurgents: What do you think is going to happen if we cut and run?
Timmy, you don’t need to answer since we already know you are anticipating the resurrected Saladin charging into the void on a golden unicorn.
No, my first impression wasn’t wrong, you really are an idiot.
Go learn something before trying to post here again, ‘mkay?
Ah, Steve-arino, if you’re not against the war out of fear because you’re not involved, what do you say to the people who ARE for the war, and ARE involved?
Maybe you should quit breaking it down then and just fucking learn to read, dumbass.
I like the term ChickenJihaddi, myself.
Because we’re BAD BAD BAD!!!!!!
te; hard25, maybe even more.
You purposefully missed my point because it’s too painful for you to face:
I’m saying that your rhetoric and your sympathies and goals obviously lie with our enemies in Iraq and around the world.
Why don’t you pick up an AK-47 and actually do something about getting the troops out of Iraq?
Instead of being a member of the keyboard mujahideen rooting for the terrorists and cheering American defeat why don’t you go the next logical step and take up arms against the ‘occupying troops’ in Iraq.
There was an International Brigade of Socialists fighting the Nazis in the Spanish Civil war, if we are the Nazis in Iraq, why don’t you actually go over there and shoot at us?
Chickenhadeen.
On more killing:
I actually think more killing would be a good thing, provided we could kill the people we want to kill without killing a whole lot of people we don’t. Unfortunately, if we knew where they were and had a clear shot at them, they’d already be dead. So the “more killing” bit is pie in the sky, unless you can think of some specific examples of where we could up our kill rate and aren’t doing so for…some reason or other. Just a general comment; not pointing it at anyone in particular.
What we could do that might be effective is enforce more restrictions on movement. Early curfew, restrictions on motor vehicle traffic into, out of, and inside major cities, etc. This would require more troops on patrol in Baghdad, for instance, and would probably piss off the general populace a bit, but it would also have the effect of slowing down the tempo of insurgent bombings and IED emplacements. Which, this being mainly a media war, would be a good thing.
As far as carpet-bombing goes, we haven’t carpet-bombed since GWI. Anyone thinks we have done anything resembling carpet-bombing in either Iraq or Afghanistan needs to show me something that contradicts the near certainty I have that they don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.
Holden: “You bastard!” (gasp, urk, etc. Dies.)
Guinness: “What? What have I done?…”
Do the Shia militias make any kind of effort to kill actual Sunni insurgents, or is it more of a catch as catch can sort of thing? You’d think this might be something I could learn from the news.
Virgins are overrated. I am a big MILF aficionado myself.
I have gotten neither since my short drop to hell. I can’t even have cigars.
I found out the Mojitos and chicken wings for Fidel’s Arrival Party are not even real, just those plastic fake food displayes they put in front of Japanese restaurants.
Hell really sucks.
I did get a kick out of Happy Feet’s “What Would Peggy Noonan Do.” That cracks me up. Now Noonan is my idea of prime “Grade A” MILF. I also like Katie Couric. I feel bad her ratings are so bad. I wish she was at CBS so she could have come interview me before the war instead of Dan Rather. That guy is a fucking weirdo.
Gray, there are good rhetorical ways to defeat stevexx. I mean, the average intellect here can use them all the time. Chickenjihadi smears really… that’s not merited.
Yes, he’s a dumbass for assuming that our government wants to go kill them up some brown folk carpet-bombing style, and for assuming that “Well, the press obviously is not at all harming the Iraqi war effort, then kicking them out must be some kind of MURDERKILLCONSPIRACY that Republicans like doing and not that, well, maybe the governments of Iraq and US think the same way conservative bloggers do about the press vis-a-vis the war effort”, but these “you’re the enemy” smears aren’t so much merited.
He’s a useful idiot at best.
I never go out and buy a dozen chocolate doughnuts, but when they happen to be around I think they’re delicious. Kinda like Dems and dead soldiers that way.
Hmmm.
*shrug* this is a media war after all. And the primary point behind many of the terrorist acts in Baghdad is to get bad news on the media for spinning.
Remove the media presence and the terrorist acts become rather pointless.
Frankly I think the very first step in any future war, particularly and anti-insurgent war, is to completely eliminate the media. While the US Constitution requires an unfettered media domestically, it has absolutely zero force in a war zone.
Seems like only yesterday the right was complaining that the “MSM” weren’t talking to official Iraqi government spokesmen.
That’s a given, that most of the Dems as a party, their objectives square perfectly with radical Islamists.
Steve hasn’t quite… shown… well, that level of sophistication, frankly. He’s a useful idiot who just takes potshots without even considering the consequences. If he had opinions of his own, I’d give you the “same as the enemy” smears free.
alphie, once again, proves that he is … maybe 12 years old. As such, I think I need to lay off him.
Sen. John Warner is a craven vagina. He’s like 90.
Unfettered? Sure, but nothing in the Constitution requires the government to recognize, endorse or cooperate with any particular media persons or organizations. We, the electorate may feel otherwise, and we may expect the government to interface with the media, but this is policy and politics and as such open to a wide degree of latitude amongst all involved.
I am so angry about this no virgin or pussy policy in hell. I am an angry guy to start with. I was not that worried about getting to paradise because I figured at least all the whores and bad girls would be down here. Nope. They must have them seggregated. Satan is keeping all the evil pussy to himself.
But Happy Feet raises an issue about John Warner. I am going to fuck him when he shows up. Shouldn’t be that long.
Slart —
An Iraqi military crackdown on some of these Shia militias, who might not just hand over their weapons, is one example.
Sure, that’d be great. But if it were as easy as “hey, why don’t you guys crack down on the Shia militias?”, I think it’d be already done.
I suspect that’s not your point. Is your point that the Iraqi military knows who’s got the guns and is doing the killing, but won’t do anything about it? Or is it something else?
Sure, they could do some sort of organized search-and-confiscate activity. That’s been done by us, on a limited scale, but I think that in order to do it right, everyone’s house, garage and place of work gets (in effect) body-cavity searched. And even then, you’re not going to get anywhere near all of it.
No one has ever really accounted for all the criminals that Saddam freed from Iraqi prisons on the eve of the invasion. I always reflect on that when I think about “Shia militias.”
ChickenJihaddi
Does that involve apricots and do you serve it over cous-cous? Never could get the hang of cous-cous.
The couscous available to buy in most Western supermarkets has been pre-steamed and dried, the package directions usually instruct to add a little boiling water to it to make it ready for consumption. This method is quick and easy to prepare by placing the couscous in a bowl and pouring the boiling water or stock over the couscous, then covering the bowl tightly. The couscous swells and within a few minutes is ready to fluff with a fork and serve.
Lt. Gen. Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee today that the additional U.S. troops sent to Baghdad would focus on securing the civilian population “rather than killing insurgents.” That leads me to think that a possibly bloody militia cleanup would fall to the Iraqi forces. I wonder if or how this relates to this media blackout.
Securing the civilian population.
Bloody militia cleanup.
Seems like our troops would end up killing Iraqi troops…
And? If they’re the problem, then, well, it’s their fault.
I agree with Jeff, although the Maliki government’s Interior Ministry doesn’t seem to fear the press. Someone needs to win a civil war before peace agreement can be reached.
With that said, this let them kill each other (a possibility raised by Jeff) or we can kill the Iraqi soldiers if they are in our way (a statement from Rob) seems to be a movement toward Realpolitik and away from the moral superiority generally expressed here on PW.
Wrong and right are tricky things in Iraq
So we’re going with the win-win option here?
I don’t think so. I posted on this a few days ago; I think Maliki has been walking a fine line, and I think cynn’s got the right idea, above.
That’s my feel on the situation, though. I asked Ardolino to see if he can get a handle on what the memo means to the troops and Iraqi army unit with which he’s embedded.
B Moe wrote, regarding beetroot’s predictability:
What an optimist you are. Odds are, beetroot knows exactly what Jeff really said, and is deliberately lying about it so he can manufacture something to be outraged about.
Hence: I suspect that’s not your point. Probably I should go and read your couple-of-days-ago post again, or for the first time. I’m not saying which.
And yes, of course it would be interesting to hear what Ardolino thinks, or has heard, provided that that doesn’t of itself constitute a leak.
Still, I think the matter of actually finding these guys and killing and/or detaining them (yeah, I know: deal) isn’t quite so easy as it might sound. Probably these guys are just smart enough not to have a hideout, and to just go home when there’s a crackdown in the offing. As for confiscation of weapons, there’s a kajillion AK-47s in Iraq. I suspect a mass confiscation wouldn’t go over all that well.
Slartibartfast,
I remember listening to an Iraqi exile explaining to some documentarian while gun contrl is so hard in Iraq. Seems every home had 2 AK-47’s. One for home and one for travel. I always wondered if the traveling AK was “gussied up” or fancier. Or did you leave the good one home and take your grandpa’s old spider-hunting AK-47 with you when you left home?
From what has happened since the invasion, I wonder if every home had 2 RPG launchers as well?
Hey, if we could figure out a way to find and confiscate all of the RPG launchers, plus stem the flow of new RPGs into the country, that’d be an achievement.
I’d suggest that we might want to acquire a few gross of bomb-sniffing dogs and ship them to Baghdad for a bit. It’s not the AKs we have to worry about, so much.
Plus, some surveillance systems, so we can track the bad guys back to their lair. I’m working on something like that right now, incidentally.
I dunno, Slart, but per Q&O, here is some evidence that it is, sometimes, as easy as deciding to do it.
In that case, maybe they ought to consider deciding to capture the whole lot of insurgents. And then, possibly, executing them.
Note the use of the modifier “sometimes”.
Noted, Phil. Also noted that a bit more was involved than decisions: opportunity, planning, coordination, intel, surveillance.
Et cetera.
Would that deciding was the hard part.
Right and wrong aren’t that tricky. It’s just NOT WRONG to kill people who are preventing everyone else from having a normal life by committing mass murder on a regular basis. There’s nothing wrong with eliminating the monsters, and everything wrong with not doing so.
Way to rain on his moral equivalence parade, Robert.
McGehee and Rob, the very idea we are engaged in ideology in Iraq (“we have to make everything wonderful before we leave”) and we invade countries to bring the “flower of democracy” is just anti-thetical to the world at large, yet rampant in many PW posters (Pablo, you rascal, how are you?)
And, it’s this weepy “finish the job” b.s. that I object to. We, and I say it again so you guys can reject it again, eliminated WMD’s, toppled Saddam, and instituted a democractically elected government. We can claim success and leave.
But, no, PW is rife with discussions about how a First World army needs to be created and one IED is one too many, etc. I applauded the realpolitik in your post, Rob, because, if we’ve trained them and they represent the government we help institute, then how can they be monsters? Answer: because in Iraq, right and wrong take a holiday and the Ministry of the Interior runs torture chambers under our noses and sells its uniforms to Shia militias, so they ambush Sunni families at checkpoints.
Your post eliminated the simple good guy/bad guy we are fed from the Right and the administration. I see that as a breath of fresh air.
Just my observation
Do they represent the government? And if we created them (which I don’t think we did), do we not have a responsibility to eliminate them?
And no one says we have to leave Iraq “wonderful”. Able to stand on its own is good enough. They’re not there yet, thanks in large part to their neighbors and the apparent willingness of the western Left to “teach the US a lesson” by abandoning the Iraqis. And, of course, by the tribal focus of the Iraqis themselves.