About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

Associated Press Memo Warns: Do Not Report Iraq Combat Over

September 03, 2010 12:30 pm ET by Joe Strupp

Associated Press is advising its staff not to refer to the combat mission in Iraq as being completed.

An internal memo sent to global staff from Tom Kent, AP standards editor -- and obtained by Media Matters -- declares:

To begin with, combat in Iraq is not over, and we should not uncritically repeat suggestions that it is, even if they come from senior officials. The situation on the ground in Iraq is no different today than it has been for some months. Iraqi security forces are still fighting Sunni and al-Qaida insurgents. Many Iraqis remain very concerned for their country's future despite a dramatic improvement in security, the economy and living conditions in many areas.

It also adds:

As for U.S. involvement, it also goes too far to say that the U.S. part in the conflict in Iraq is over. President Obama said Monday night that "the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country."

However, 50,000 American troops remain in country. Our own reporting on the ground confirms that some of these troops, especially some 4,500 special operations forces, continue to be directly engaged in military operations. These troops are accompanying Iraqi soldiers into battle with militant groups and may well fire and be fired on.

The entire memo is below:

Colleagues,

Many AP staffers are producing content that refers to the situation in Iraq. It might be a local story about Iraq veterans, an international diplomatic story that mentions the Iraqi conflict or coverage on the ground in Iraq itself.

Whatever the subject, we should be correct and consistent in our description of what the situation in Iraq is. This guidance summarizes the situation and suggests wording to use and avoid.

To begin with, combat in Iraq is not over, and we should not uncritically repeat suggestions that it is, even if they come from senior officials. The situation on the ground in Iraq is no different today than it has been for some months. Iraqi security forces are still fighting Sunni and al-Qaida insurgents. Many Iraqis remain very concerned for their country's future despite a dramatic improvement in security, the economy and living conditions in many areas.

As for U.S. involvement, it also goes too far to say that the U.S. part in the conflict in Iraq is over. President Obama said Monday night that "the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country."

However, 50,000 American troops remain in country. Our own reporting on the ground confirms that some of these troops, especially some 4,500 special operations forces, continue to be directly engaged in military operations. These troops are accompanying Iraqi soldiers into battle with militant groups and may well fire and be fired on.

In addition, although administration spokesmen say we are now at the tail end of American involvement and all troops will be gone by the end of 2011, there is no guarantee that this will be the case.

Our stories about Iraq should make clear that U.S. troops remain involved in combat operations alongside Iraqi forces, although U.S. officials say the American combat mission has formally ended. We can also say the United States has ended its major combat role in Iraq, or that it has transferred military authority to Iraqi forces. We can add that beyond U.S. boots on the ground, Iraq is expected to need U.S. air power and other military support for years to control its own air space and to deter possible attack from abroad.

Unless there is balancing language, our content should not refer to the end of combat in Iraq, or the end of U.S. military involvement. Nor should it say flat-out (since we can't predict the future) that the United States is at the end of its military role.

Tom

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by nerzog (September 03, 2010 12:53 pm ET)
      9  
      I wonder... were they equally skeptical when Numbnuts declared "Mission Accomplished"?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by smarshall1432997 (September 03, 2010 2:55 pm ET)
      2 3
      Associated Press must be like FoxNews and gave the Republican Party $1 Million for campaigns, so of course good news by Democrats will be under-reported if at all reported. Hmmm, how sad indeed.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by dkylep (September 03, 2010 5:51 pm ET)
        2  
        How's that? Because they're actually advocating telling the truth about the tens of thousands of American troops still in Iraq? Or because they want to inform about the tens of thousands of contract mercenaries still in Iraq? How is this a bad thing? And I'm assuming that you have proof to back up your claim about the donations? ANY proof whatsoever?

        Or are you just like the people you criticize on the right? So hopelessly inured to your 'side' winning that you're willing to ignorantly accept whatever Obama's government says if it makes them look better?

        If you'd simply claimed that the AP didn't report on the Iraq mission fully, or that they'd simply transcribed what Bush's government (and other governments around the world) were saying, I'd have thought your post relevant. But the facts are that there are still American combat troops in Iraq, taking part in fighting and going on missions. It's a fact. Covered up by different names, but they're doing the exact same things, not to mention all the private mercenaries in there doing the exact same thing they've been doing since the war started.

        This isn't 'good news' for the Democrats being under-reported. This is REAL news unhindered by government propaganda or spin being reported. Just because the spin in this case happens to be coming from the Obama government, apparently it means that you're unwilling to try and see through it. JUST like what you no doubt accuse the other side of doing, time and again.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by juliajayne1 (September 03, 2010 8:18 pm ET)
          1  
          I agree with you 100 percent. Well said.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by ajzito (September 04, 2010 9:28 am ET)
          1  
          It is unfortunately true that this "official" end to the US combat role is artificial, and AP is right to have issued this memo (although 4500 special forces soldiers in combat backing up Iraqi's is better than a couple hundred thousand giving it away for free). What I would like know is, how common are memos warning reporters not to succumb to spin at the source? One could well imagine a need for such a communication every day, since everyone out there is throwing frisbees.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (September 03, 2010 4:18 pm ET)
      6  
      "... we should not uncritically repeat suggestions that it is, even if they come from senior officials."

      I guess they only do that during Republican administrations.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by juliajayne1 (September 03, 2010 8:28 pm ET)
        1  
        There's room for 100 percent agreement there was well, unfortunately ;-)
        Report Abuse
    • Author by wanderwoman (September 03, 2010 9:01 pm ET)
         
      And I'm assuming that you have proof to back up your claim about the donations? ANY proof whatsoever?



      Here's the IRS filing. Scroll down to "News America Inc." on page 54.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by juliajayne1 (September 03, 2010 10:46 pm ET)
        1  
        I think dkylep was meaning smarshall's assertion that the AP gave donations, not Murdoch's outfit.

        And he's correct, combat operations have NOT ceased over there. We have many more contractors filling the boots of the troops coming home. As much as I'd like to believe otherwise, this pullout is a sham. And since we want the press to do it's job, it's a start for the AP to attempt some accuracy here.

        This article tells the tale:
        http://www.truth-out.org/media-manipulates-end-war-iraq62826
        Report Abuse
        • Author by juliajayne1 (September 03, 2010 10:58 pm ET)
          1  
          Of course I think was smarshall was ad libbing, not asserting. My bad for stating a fact not in evidence.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by wanderwoman (September 04, 2010 8:14 am ET)
          1 1
          Anybody who thought that this declaration meant that everything was peachy in Iraq hasn't been paying attention. It was a no-win situation from the moment Bush decided to invade.

          I am not among those who thought Obama could work miracles. He inherited a sh!t sandwich, and there's no way he can make it taste good. Those who had unrealistic expectations are going to help drive the U.S. back into the arms of the Republicans. I'm sure we'll all enjoy reliving that experience.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by juliajayne1 (September 04, 2010 12:03 pm ET)
               
            I hate to sound like a broken record, but I agree with you 100 percent...;-)
            Report Abuse
          • Author by dkylep (September 04, 2010 6:37 pm ET)
            2  
            Nothing to do with "everything was peachy" in Iraq now. Obama's administration is spinning and propagandizing when it says that combat operations in Iraq have ended. They haven't. THAT is my point, not that everything is suddenly happy and gay over in Iraq.

            I don't care if Obama can or cannot perform miracles. I never expected him to. What I DID expect of him was to tell the truth, especially since during his campaign he displayed such antipathy towards Bush and co. and their deceit. Expecting a politician to tell the truth and to keep the promises he was elected on is not an "unrealistic expectation". It's a simple judge of a man or woman, politician or not.

            Obama and his administration is spinning and propagandizing here. They're saying something that is patently untrue. It's wrong, and the people that are making excuses for him and trying to cover for it by providing justification are wrong. Stop it, and stop trying to hold the spectre of the Republicans winning in some future election as a threat. Obama should do his job, keep his promises, and tell the truth. In short, he should be more worried about doing his job than keeping his job in two years. I think it's pretty obvious that he's not doing his job when he puts out totally untrue press releases when even the pentagon spokesman for Iraq admits that nothing has changed in Iraq beyond the re-naming of the troops stationed there.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by wanderwoman (September 04, 2010 6:40 pm ET)
                1
              I didn't make excuses for him I stated the facts. Some people, and you are apparently one of them, are naive about how our political system works.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by dkylep (September 05, 2010 11:10 am ET)
                1  
                On the contrary, I actually comprehend how the system is supposed to work, and how it's being perverted and distorted by those in power. Some people, and you are apparently one of them, feel that lies and spin in the political system is not only necessary but also laudable (at least based on how you're adamantly refusing to admit Obama is spinning this for his own gain).

                Apparently holding politicians accountable for what they've promised is, according to you, 'naive'. Really? Interesting that the very thing that people screamed about 'hope and change' should now be discarded because it's naive to think that the political system operates on such things.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by wanderwoman (September 05, 2010 6:47 pm ET)
                     
                  You have indulged in your own brand of propaganda here, so apparently your principles end where your own words do, and only extend to others. Would you care to post the exact quote from that pentagon spokesman? Because if it's the one I'm thinking of, he didn't say what you said he said.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by wanderwoman (September 04, 2010 7:41 pm ET)
                1
              Here's part of what the president said about Iraq.

              We have removed nearly 100,000 U.S. troops from Iraq. We have closed or transferred hundreds of bases to the Iraqis. And we have moved millions of pieces of equipment out of Iraq.


              This completes a transition to Iraqi responsibility for their own security. U.S. troops pulled out of Iraq's cities last summer, and Iraqi forces have moved into the lead with considerable skill and commitment to their fellow citizens. Even as Iraq continues to suffer terrorist attacks, security incidents have been near the lowest on record since the war began. And Iraqi forces have taken the fight to al Qaeda, removing much of its leadership in Iraqi-led operations.


              This year also saw Iraq hold credible elections that drew a strong turnout. A caretaker administration is in place as Iraqis form a government based on the results of that election. Tonight, I encourage Iraq's leaders to move forward with a sense of urgency to form an inclusive government that is just, representative, and accountable to the Iraqi people. And when that government is in place, there should be no doubt: the Iraqi people will have a strong partner in the United States. Our combat mission is ending, but our commitment to Iraq's future is not.


              Going forward, a transitional force of U.S. troops will remain in Iraq with a different mission: advising and assisting Iraq's Security Forces; supporting Iraqi troops in targeted counter-terrorism missions; and protecting our civilians. Consistent with our agreement with the Iraqi government, all U.S. troops will leave by the end of next year. As our military draws down, our dedicated civilians -diplomats, aid workers, and advisors -are moving into the lead to support Iraq as it strengthens its government, resolves political disputes, resettles those displaced by war, and builds ties with the region and the world. And that is a message that Vice President Biden is delivering to the Iraqi people through his visit there today.


              This new approach reflects our long-term partnership with Iraq-one based upon mutual interests, and mutual respect. Of course, violence will not end with our combat mission. Extremists will continue to set off bombs, attack Iraqi civilians and try to spark sectarian strife. But ultimately, these terrorists will fail to achieve their goals.


              What in this statement is not true?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Manny Yunker (September 05, 2010 2:38 pm ET)
                   
                What in this statement is not true?

                Paragraph #2: "This completes a transition to Iraqi responsibility for their own security."- if the transition were complete, we would not need a single US soldier there.

                Paragraph #3: "Our combat mission is ending..."- precisely the mistruth that the AP points out.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by wanderwoman (September 05, 2010 4:24 pm ET)
                     
                  Because you say it doesn't make it so. Surely you can find cites to support your points. We have a military presence in many countries that are responsible for their own security, and those are also places in which the U.S. is engaged in no combat mission. So the fact that there is still military there proves nothing, and the fact that you say something is untrue does not make it so. Prove it.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by juliajayne1 (September 05, 2010 5:24 pm ET)
                       
                    I proffered one article above. Did you read it? Here's another.

                    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/03/iraq/index.html

                    I'm not answering for Manny, just throwing this in ;-)



                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by wanderwoman (September 05, 2010 6:38 pm ET)
                         
                      We have as many military personnel in Germany as we have in Iraq right now. Does that mean we are engaged in combat operations in Germany?
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by juliajayne1 (September 05, 2010 7:06 pm ET)
                           
                        You did not just equate Germany with Iraq did you? Oy.

                        Let me ask you, did you read the articles? Have you been following what type of war is being waged in Iraq? Have we sent a private army of mercenaries/contractors to Germany to take over security for our troops there?

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by wanderwoman (September 05, 2010 10:35 pm ET)
                             
                          I did read the articles. Why do you think the issue of private contractors should be conflated with the issue of whether or not we are engaged in combat operations?

                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by juliajayne1 (September 06, 2010 12:28 pm ET)
                               
                            US Troops Fire Back as Suicide Bombers Kill 12 in Baghdad
                            Prashant Rao, Agence France-Presse
                            Report begins: "American troops were among those who fired back to repel a coordinated suicide attack on an Iraqi army complex that killed 12 people on Sunday, days after US forces officially ended combat operations in the country."

                            http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/308-12/3224-us-troops-fire-back-as-suicide-bombers-kill-12-in-baghdad

                            Doesn't sound like combat operations have ended to me. Just because a pronouncement has been made by certain people does not mean that the day before the "official" end of combat operation is any different than the day after. This is not Germany. The only conflation going on here is you comparing Germany with Iraq. The only naivete is you thinking that what was deemed official has any bearing on the reality on the ground, and the only propaganda is what the administration and Pentagon are doing, not any posters here. I wish it were otherwise, but as you said, this is a sh!t sandwich. You said it yourself. And now we have essentially the same combat mission going on with a much more expensive (and still tax payer footed bill)army of private contractors.
                            Report Abuse
                  • Author by juliajayne1 (September 05, 2010 5:26 pm ET)
                       
                    Try that again, ha! Sorry.

                    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/03/iraq/index.html

                    Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

About the Blog

Feed Icon
  • County Fair is a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary, breaking news and rapid response updates to major media events from Media Matters senior fellows and other staff.