Media uncritically reported Bush's statement touting Iraqi success in Najaf
SUMMARY: Numerous media outlets reported -- as President Bush
claimed in an interview on National Public Radio -- that Iraqi troops took the
lead in the battle near Najaf against religious militia the Soldiers of Heaven,
without noting that the Iraqis were reportedly "overwhelmed" until U.S.
forces joined them.
While reporting on the recent battle between U.S. and Iraqi forces and a cult of religious extremists outside Najaf, Iraq, numerous media outlets -- including ABC News, The Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, CNN, and Fox News -- reported that, as President Bush claimed in a January 29 interview on National Public Radio, Iraqi troops took the lead in the battle, without noting that the Iraqis were reportedly "overwhelmed" until U.S. forces joined them. For instance, during the January 30 edition of CNN Newsroom, despite CNN's repeated reporting to the contrary, co-anchor Tony Harris asserted that "[t]he Iraqis were in the lead, and coalition forces were called in later to apply the knockout." He then suggested that the battle near Najaf may have showed that "the surge" of U.S. troops in Iraq could "actually work." In fact, according to The New York Times, "Iraqi forces were surprised and nearly overwhelmed" by the militia "and needed far more help from American forces than previously disclosed." Additionally, throughout the day on January 29, CNN video correspondent Arwa Damon repeatedly reported that because "[t]he enemy they faced [was] so fierce, senior Iraqi officials" said that "U.S. forces had to step in" and "tak[e] the lead on the battlefield."
On January 28, about 10 miles northeast of Najaf, Iraqi forces attacked a little-known religious militia -- the Soldiers of Heaven -- that was reportedly planning to kill top Shiite leaders in Iraq. On the January 29 edition of CNN Newsroom, Damon reported that "U.S. forces ... end[ed] up taking the lead in this operation." Similar reports aired that day on other CNN shows, including American Morning, Your World Today, Situation Room, and Anderson Cooper 360.
From the Times' January 30 article:
Iraqi forces were surprised and nearly overwhelmed by the ferocity of an obscure renegade militia in a weekend battle near the holy city of Najaf and needed far more help from American forces than previously disclosed, American and Iraqi officials said Monday.
They said American ground troops -- and not just air support as reported Sunday -- were mobilized to help the Iraqi soldiers, who appeared to have dangerously underestimated the strength of the militia, which calls itself the Soldiers of Heaven and had amassed hundreds of heavily armed fighters.
[...]
The Iraqis and Americans eventually prevailed in the battle. But the Iraqi security forces' miscalculations about the group's strength and intentions raised troubling questions about their ability to recognize and deal with a threat.
Nevertheless, during an interview with NPR senior correspondent and Fox News contributor Juan Williams on January 29, Bush pointed to Najaf as a source of encouragement, stating: "[T]he Iraqis are beginning to show me something." While Williams uncritically reported Bush's comment throughout the day on NPR and Fox News, on the next day's edition of NPR's Morning Edition, Williams noted, while discussing Bush's remarks, that "reports from Baghdad later indicated that the Iraqi forces did not perform all that well in Najaf."
Yet, numerous other media outlets uncritically reported that the Iraqis led in the fighting near Najaf, without noting that U.S. troops reportedly had to take charge. For instance:
- Despite CNN's repeated reporting to the contrary, on the January 30 edition of CNN Newsroom, Harris asserted that in Najaf, "[t]he Iraqis were in the lead, and coalition forces were called in later to apply the knockout," and because of this, asked Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, "Couldn't the surge actually work?"
- In a January 30 article, "Iraqis Describe Plot to Kill Shiite Clerics," The Washington Post reported only that "Iraqi and U.S. military officials characterized the attack as a positive signal that the Iraqi security forces were able to lead a major battle and were willing to target extremists from the same Muslim sect that runs the central government." The Post did not mention reports that the Iraqis were in danger of losing the battle and had to call in U.S. reinforcements, who then took the lead.
- In another January 30 article, "Iraqi Forces Showing Initiative, Bush Says," the Post uncritically reported that "Bush said yesterday that Iraqi forces 'are beginning to show me something,' " without noting the difficulties the Iraqi forces reportedly experienced in battling the militia.
- Similarly, in a January 30 article, the Chicago Tribune reported Bush's claim, noting only that "[t]he battle, five weeks after the U.S. military transferred authority in the province to the Iraqi army, demonstrated the capabilities of the new army, President Bush told National Public Radio on Monday. 'My first reaction to this report from the battlefield is that the Iraqis are starting to show me something,' he said."
- Likewise, on the January 29 edition of ABC's World News, anchor Charles Gibson stated: "U.S. and Iraqi troops defeat a religious army in Najaf. President Bush declares it a sign of progress." ABC senior national security correspondent Jonathan Karl added: "U.S. commanders say they, too, are pleased with how the Iraqis performed. This was an Iraqi-led fight, but it was one that was backed with a lot of American firepower." Karl further aired a video clip of retired Gen. Jack Keane, former Army vice chief of staff and ABC News contributor, who strongly advocated for an increase in U.S. troops in Iraq, stating: "This force reacted well to a force that was very sizeable and was willing to fight. The Iraqi security forces handled themselves well, used the air power effectively. We should feel good about it."
- Also, on the January 29 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Fox News national security correspondent Mike Emanuel aired Bush's statement without comment and concluded his report on the battle by saying: "Najaf was turned over by U.S. forces to Iraqi forces last month, and U.S. military commanders say this worked the way it was supposed to, with Iraqi forces responding aggressively to a threat and calling in coalition forces for support. Too early to call this a trend, but U.S. officials say it is a positive sign."
From the January 30 edition of CNN Newsroom:
HARRIS: Representative, let me stop you there for a moment and take a case in point here. Maybe it's a pretty good case study, in fact: the fighting Sunday in Najaf. Now, it looks like it played out just the way the administration envisions the surge of new troops, moving into as many as 23 neighborhoods around Baghdad and Anbar province -- that the fighting in Najaf played out just the way the administration envisions this. The Iraqis were in the lead, and coalition forces were called in later to apply the knockout. Couldn't the surge actually work?
LANTOS: No, this was not at all an analogous situation. As a matter of fact, it was exactly the opposite. This was not urban guerrilla warfare, which is what is taking place within Baghdad. Moreover, we have more than enough troops to deal with 2-300 insurgents. So that clearly is not a rationale for sending in 21,000 more troops.
From the January 29 edition of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:
GIBSON: Trial by fire: U.S. and Iraqi troops defeat a religious army in Najaf. President Bush declares it a sign of progress.
[...]
GIBSON: Well, to Iraq now. There are new details today about one of the biggest battles in Iraq in recent years: the clash between U.S. and Iraqi forces outside of Najaf yesterday. Two hundred militants were killed. President Bush seemed buoyed by the performance of the Iraqi troops, telling National Public Radio, "My first reaction ... is that the Iraqis are beginning to show me something."
Our national security correspondent, Jonathan Karl, joins us tonight from Washington. Jon?
KARL: Charlie, U.S. commanders say they, too, are pleased with how the Iraqis performed. This was an Iraqi-led fight, but it was one that was backed with a lot of American firepower.
[begin video clip]
KARL: The battle raged all day long. An Iraqi police officer captured some of the action with his cell-phone camera. It started when Iraqi forces responded to a tip that an armed group had gathered north of the city of Najaf. An Iraqi unit that included a handful of American troops went to investigate. They came under fire and called in U.S. Apache attack helicopters. One of the Apaches was brought down, apparently by heavy machine-gun fire. The two soldiers on board were killed.
KEANE: The insurgents were fighting out of dug-in positions, and they stayed to fight. That means that they believe they could probably win this battle.
KARL: Coalition forces responded with a massive display of firepower, including F-16, A-10, and British Tornado fighter jets, and an AC-130 gunship. The planes dropped several 500-pound bombs. About three dozen armored Stryker vehicles were also sent from Baghdad to join the fight. Iraqi officials say about 200 gunmen were killed; another 100 captured.
KEANE: This force reacted well to a force that was very sizable and was willing to fight. The Iraqi security forces handled themselves well, used the air power effectively. We should feel good about it.
KARL: Iraqis may have been in the lead here, but several hundred American troops were involved, and most of the killing ultimately done by U.S. air power. Iraqi officials say the gunmen were part of a religious cult composed of Shias, Sunnis, and foreign fighters. Iraqi officials say the group planned to attack Shiite religious leaders and pilgrims gathered for the Shia holiday of Ashura.
[end video clip]
KARL: In an indication of just how difficult it is to understand the enemy in Iraq, U.S. officials have a different version of who they were fighting in this battle. They say it was a group of Shia extremists, or, in the words of one official, Charlie, "a bunch of thugs."
From the January 29 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
EMANUEL: Near the Shiite holy city of Najaf, Iraqi forces with U.S. support killed some 200 fighters that Iraqi officials say belong to a religious cult called Soldiers of Heaven. Iraqi officials say the cult members were plotting to dress up as religious pilgrims gathering for Ashura, the holiest day on the Shiite calendar, and then planning to kill leading clerics and Shiite faithful.
SHERWAN ALWAELI (Iraqi national security minister) [through translator]: Today, we have almost finished the security operations in Najaf. Our army is currently continuing its search for insurgents and any other hostile activity in the area.
EMANUEL: U.S. F-16s and A-10s and British fighter planes were called in for close air support, and U.S. officials emphasize this was an Iraqi-planned and Iraqi-led operation, with American training teams and air power assisting. In a radio interview with NPR's Juan Williams, President Bush said he wants to see more of this from Iraqi commanders and security forces.
BUSH: One of the things that I expect to see is the Iraqis take the lead and show the American people that they're willing to do the hard work necessary to secure their democracy. And our job is to help them. So, my first reaction from the -- on this report from the battlefield is that the Iraqis are beginning to show me something.
[...]
EMANUEL: Najaf was turned over by U.S. forces to Iraqi forces last month, and U.S. military commanders say this worked the way it was supposed to, with Iraqi forces responding aggressively to a threat and calling in coalition forces for support. Too early to call this a trend, but U.S. officials say it is a positive sign. Brit.

















This story had propaganda written all over it from the beginning. Yes, comrades, our glorious Iraqi troops attacked a village and killed 300 bad guys while U.S. forces stood by and took notes. Oh, really? The whole thing smells really bad.
That is hardly the way it was reported. Look at all the examples above........CNN had a Democratic representative on to offer his point of view and the articles referenced said no such thing - that we just stood by and did nothing while the Iraqis fought the battles.
Tommy,
you may find this version interesting...
http://www.rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.independent.co.uk%2Fworld%2Fmiddle_east%2Farticle2201103.ece
Thanks, Other than really having nothing to do with my reponse to Nerzog - it was interesting. If and when this is corroborated by news outlets other than "independent Iraqi websites and Arabic newspapers", then it should be considered.
This always happened when a militia get destroyed by our forces. It is painted as a massacre.
Yes, most tribes (probably all men) on a mission of peace travel at night fully armed to the gills.
I doubt the Iraqi army was prepared to face a 600-man militia armed by Iran.
Tommy, I was exaggerating for effect, but the early reports I heard on the news stated that the Iraqi forces "took the lead" while U.S. forces merely supplied armor and air support. I think we've heard this "Iraqi's took the lead" crap before. It wasn't true then, and probably isn't true in this case, either.
President Bush: “Yippie Yi Yo Ki Yay!”
“Mission Accomplished!”
Where’s my Banner!? Quick, put it back up again! Them I-Rack-eeees are a showin me sumpthin.
Bush staffers probably had the infamous banner obliterated to ashes so it won’t wind up in the Bush Library.
DALLAS - Methodist bishops and clergy are circulating a petition opposing plans by Southern Methodist University (SMU) in Dallas, Texas, to build a Bush presidential library.
Some SMU faculty members strenuously object to the library being built there because, they say, the president's policies are contradictory to Methodist beliefs.
"Iraqi officials say the gunmen were part of a religious cult composed of Shias, Sunnis, and foreign fighters."
That's the part of the story that bothers me. First reports of the battle suggested that we did not even know whom we were fighting. This report indicates the battle was waged against Iraqis, Sunnis and Shia, and foreign fighters. Sometimes we fight Sunnis... sometimes we fight Shia... sometimes we fight AlQaeda... and now, apparently, there are cults formed by a combination of all three. How can we possibly formulate a coherent political game plan to extricate ourselves from Iraq when we are fighting so many diverse interests. That only leaves the military solution of kill'em all... and that not only ain't gonna work, it insures that we will be in Iraq for a long, long time. So long as any Iraq plan is solely military this tragic adventure is not going to end.
More...
I meant to add that we cannot formulate a political plan without the cooperation of the Iraqi government and unless we bring other countries in the region for help. There are no guarantees but the military solution is not the answer. And all of this was avoidable because there were no compelling reasons to invade Iraq when we did.
The new meme, maybe its not so new, in the right blogs is that we are just not using enough force. BC we all know all the arabs understand is force (yes these are the same people touting the cure all purple finger vote 3 years ago, excoriating those who had doubts about democracy in ME). They advocate blowing up and or storming mosques, massive airstrikes. I dont believe they are following the same war.
The Sunni insurgents are playing spoiler. Battles are defined by sound. When you hear more incoming enemy fire then outgoing friendly fire you know you are in trouble. The insurgents have the option of ending uneven fights and fading into population, or prosecuting unfair fights if the numbers are favorable. Similar to VC tactics in Vietnam. I have been watching all the NYT multimedia with the embed reporters, quite illuminating. You see the daily sacrafices by our soldiers. These reports have shown we have destroyed minarets of mosques if we take fire from them. We have called in airstrikes on apt complexes. They show our troops taking fire from unknown areas, the shooting will then stop w/o our troops ever knowing where it came from at times. Other times brief, heavy fighting takes place and then will suddenly stop. Airstrikes are called in on suspected positions.
Mosques are no go zones for us unless fire is taken from them, higher ups need to give permission to fire on them but permission is given. Iraqi troops are allowed into mosques and they are searched. But I think some of the right blogs would like to kill them all, waiting for one to just come out and say it.
You have successfully identified the corner into which the BushCheney monster has painted itself. By making such a big deal of "liberating Iraq" after the WMD excuse dissolved, they have effectively hamstrung the military. The troglodytes who say we aren't using enough force are still living in 1944, when we were carpet bombing German cities. To sucessfully root out a guerilla force that is hiding in a city with civilian sympathy, you pretty much have to destroy the city, and the civilians with it. But, you can hardly claim to be liberating a people while you're killing them; only the 28% GOP base would believe that.
There are two schools of thought. One, that we did not use enough force.The mosques are nothing but forts. What should have been done was to capture the forts and not let anyone in them until there was peace. There should never have been any militias allowed and we should have taken some out when we had the opportunity. In an effort to form a political solution, we gave back territories such as Fallujah and others to try to appease and promote agreements. I assume what will be done now is to try to wipe out all militias of any size and eventually arm the Iraqi military to the teeth, good or bad.
Another line of thought by some conservatives is to move out of the cities and just let them slaughter each other for awhile. This is a minority view and may become a reality if the surge proves somewhat successful.
I am of the belief, that all of this would have happened eventually anyway. Iran will have to undergo a revolution sometime too.
I don't see where leaving Saddam was some wonderful stabilizing force since he started two wars and had planned to take over Saudi Arabia. Destabilization was bound to happen anyway.
"I don't see where leaving Saddam was some wonderful stabilizing force..."
But Saddam had nearly bankrupted his country and he was holding off Iran with smoke and mirrors. Considering that Saddam was, in fact, NOT an immediate threat to America's security the timing of the invasion was by choice, not by necessity. My belief is that with continuing international pressure Saddam would have been overthrown by his own generals. And, yes, I am aware of how Saddam was attempting to circumvent economic sanctions (illustrating how bankrupt his country was) but in my opinion that shows how weak Saddam had become. But, to the point, we had time to wai, particularly when we had world-wide support after 9/11 and could have used that to come down harder on Saddam... we were not in immedaite danger from Saddam. Invading Saddam when we did demonstrated absolute incompetence by our leaders who were driven by ideolgical fervor.
>>I don't see where leaving Saddam was some wonderful stabilizing force since he started two wars and had planned to take over Saudi Arabia. Destabilization was bound to happen anyway.
This is a lie and as well as a post hoc justification for a lie based on lies. Saddam had never planned on taking over Saudia Arabia, so stop making things up and making him seem worse than he was. As for starting two wars, we fullly armed him in the Iran-Iraq conflict. Does that mean that since the US supported this war (not to mention our starting a war in Iraq) that we are a destabalizing force in the region and someone must attack us?
Leather there were discussions about how much force to use, but I havent seen any seen military commanders say we didnt us enough. We destroyed 2/3 thirds of Falluja and the consensus seems to be the amount of force was too extreme.
This whole war turned when the golden mosque was destroyed in Samarrah. So these Mosques are more than just "forts". We tried to secure the Golden Dome of Ali at the start of the war and Shias nearly became apopelitic with rage as we approached it. Thank God that Army Captain had his head on straight and had his men smile, wave and walk away. Mosques are used as shelters and weapons depots, and some are much more relevant than others. I think occupying or destroying would have done much more harm than good. Weapons depots are all over Iraq and insurgents can also use the neighborhood as shelter.
The Iraqi Army and police are infiltrated with death squads and militia members. Frequently the equiptment we give them ends up on the black market or used against our own troops. We have yet to infiltrate any militia group.
I'm shocked and awed... Despite the laughably murky facts surrounding this incident, especially who we were fighting against, one thing was clear to the President and the majority of mainstream media-- the surge could work and that those lazy Iraqis are finally showing the President something. I mean thank god we've narrowed the opposition against us to either Shiites, a Shiite-Sunni cult, or just a bunch of thugs. That's progress. I'm surprised the MSM didn't have time to mention the schools that had been constructed and the electricity that had been restored during the middle of the battle. The only thing that has been shown to me is that we need F-16's, AC-130 gunships and British Tornados to whack this particular mole.
"...thank god we've narrowed the opposition against us to either Shiites, a Shiite-Sunni cult.."
That statement is almost laughable... Here's whom we are fighting:
1. Sunnis;
2. Shia;
3. AlQaeda; and then we have...
4. Sunnis and AlQaeda;
5. Shia and AlQaeda; and now we have...
6. Sunnis, Shia and AlQaeda.
When an American soldier gets blown apart by an IED or an RPG the first we have to do is figure out which of the above did... and the suspects are increasing. Don't you get it? We created this mess.
I'm all in favor of trying anything that might work... but I have such little confidence in any plan that comes from the Bush administration because they are the ones who got us into this tragic situation. They have been wrong about practically everything. Fighting only breeds more fighting... we need political and diplomatic solutions. And we need help from the region and the international community to fix this or else the consequences will most likely be exacerbated.
And...
I forgot to mention this... but if recent reports are correct then you can add Iranians to the list of enemies we are fighting in Iraq. The sitaution with Iran is both a separate issue and yet connected to Iraq. Do you really trust this administraion, which has displayed nothing but incompetence and an overly simplisitic approach, to address what is rapidly becoming an increasingly dangerous situation. Progress in Iraq... that is laughable. Opning a new school or water treatment plant is like installing a new toilet in a house that's about to collapse.
I do "get" it, Irony. I'm also well aware of the manifold group of adversaries that we've created in this ill-conceived and poorly executed misadventure. My point was merely to note how poorly this war has been covered by the MSM, to the point where it is so bad that we hear that the group was either "Shiite, some Shiite-Sunni cult, or just a bunch of thugs." Why didn't they just do us all a favor and just call them evildoers? Trust me, my laughter is the result of pain, not unlike when someone cries when they're happy, get it?
I think we basically agree on all the major points. I'm with you 100% (maybe 98%) of the way. Perhaps what I thought was thinly veiled sarcasm was not quite so clear.
Sorry for sounding contentious but I speak out of frustration with the insanity that has fueled this war. We need people with "big smarts" to be added to our team... but again (sigh...) this administration has resisted the input of anyone who is not ideologically pure.
That's so true, bat ask yourself this: If the MSM still hasn't shed its cheerleader status, why would Bush feel compelled to intall anybody but foaming, rabid-dog neocons in the prime policy positions? As long as the media trumpets the so-called success of clashes of actual dubious value to Bush's stated desire for a democratic Iraq we can expect more of the same. Isn't this like, the third time we've liberated, protected, and/or pacified Najaf?
Now if we can only get our scientists to figure out a way to get all of the Iraqi army's Toyota pickups to fly, carry the armament of an A-10 or F-16 while also surviving an IED attack, then we'll be all set.
Right?
"Now if we can only get our scientists to figure out a way..."
Sorry... this administration doesn't believe in science. Science has a liberal bias and stands in the way of big business and industry that contribute heavily to the Republican Party.
BUSH: So, my first reaction from the -- on this report from the battlefield is that the Iraqis are beginning to show me something.
Does he mean "something" like that the Iraqi military is incapable of handling 300 "thugs" without US support?
You know I was thinking about that as well. Here you have 3 to 5 hundred well armed men in Najaf, holiest of holy cities for Shia. The grand ayatollas are all there. The Iraqi army/Shia militias knew this splinter group was gathering nearby. They even initiated the attack, they struck the splinter group at dawn in the orchard. Still the battle raged for hours and we had to be called in. I think we would know what would happend if well trained Sunnis numbering several thousand could do if they decided to march on Bagdad. We have prevented that from happening. Despite the fact that Sunnis could do this many Shia politicians feel they are stronger militarily. My complaint is that we are essentially fighting the civil war for them in some ways. One Shia politician/cleric was quoted as saying "you need to let the weakest die" or something along those lines in regards to the Sunnis in Iraq recently.
Well you see, these aren't just 300 ordinary thugs-- they're Shiite-Sunni-Shiite-Al-Qaeda-insurgent-foreign fighter-suicide bomber-Baathists.
Lindenbully,
You have to remeber that not only are these 300 super cultists (sp?), but they are given superhuman powers by the actions of the evil liberal anti-war protesters.
(little side note, the media mentions anti-war protesters a lot, wouldn't those people be pro war? "anti" means against, protesters means to object to. So they are objecting to people against the war.)
Don't forget that their super-powers are amplified by the devious network of power transmitters (aka "mosques") that they have scattered across the country. A few tactical nukes should take care of that, but that's another story.
"...the Iraqi military is incapable of handling 300 "thugs" without US support?"
Exactly...! But the crazy part is that the Iraqi miliatry engaing in the fight (regardless of their ineptitude) is actually progress considering that we disbanded the Iraqi military and had to start from scratch fielding and training a new one. God help us if this is the only progress and success we can point to this far along in a bad situation that is becoming increasingly more complex in light of the regional (Iran) implications..
My point is this: It's time to stop mincing words and to tell Bush that he has screwed up so badly, and the stakes are so high, Bush must accept bi-partisan help in figuring out a solution. But it'a all politics... if a Democrat leads the way to a solution then the Democrats get credit for ending the war... and the Karl Rove wing of the Republican Party ain't gonna let that happen. In the meantime, more Americans die or come home missing limbs.
The only problem is Bush won't accept any sort of bipartisan solution to the incredible mess he's made. If he wanted to do that, then the ISG could have covered his retreat. He's made his feelings clear on this-- he will do it his way or else Congress can try to impeach him. Period. This man is so stubbornly wedded to the notion that admitting and trying to correct mistakes is so unacceptable, that he will sacrifice American and Iraqi blood and force his successors to deal with problem after he has left office. The Uniter and Decider would rather precipate a Contitutional crisis than admit utter failure.
Bush and his crew don't give a damn, they're psychopaths. All that matters to them is that they get their kicks and their way. All the dead and maimed mean nothing to them, just objects to be used and abused and discarded when they're finished with them. They are serial killers in three peice suits. Instead of roaming the streets murdering prostitutes, they use a military to murder a nation. No guilt, no remorse, absolutely no empathy with their victims. They're on the same psychological level as Charles Manson and the Son of Sam.
It too early in the day for you to be drinking,
not even kool-aid.
Thou shalt not worship false idols....or psychopathic war criminals.
BushieCo desires that the media, nay, all of us become as the last line in Orwell's '1984,' "But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."
Shameless work by General Julie Millican and mmfa...rushing to promote anything negative about the war. According to Gen.Julie's seemingly unimpeachable source the Iraqis attacked an enemy that may have been superior in number...A commander in the Scorpion Brigade said the combined American and Iraqi forces killed 470. They recovered 2 anti-aircraft weapons, over 40 heavy machine guns from an enemy dug in with a network of trenches. I suggest that if Gen. Julie wants to critic battle tactics...she should go over and get a first hand look.
Let me get this straight. Is it the good news is that the nascent Iraqi Army was so outnumbered by heavily armed insurgents they needed to call in help from our troops in order to pull their arses out of the fire? That doesn't really make me feel any better about the whole situation over there if that was your intent.
Nope.
I'm just disappointed in Gen.Julie rushing in to paint the Iraqi forces as inept...without the facts.
The battle assessment will be done by professionals...when all the facts are in.
But, mmfa salivates like Chris Mathews anytime they can put a negative spin on the war effort...that is my beef.
Wesley, I understand your point but look at it this way. Let's assume that the Iraqi miliatry engaged the enemy (of the moment) and fought valiantly under their limited capabilities. This battle is apparently an example of our new game plan that in order to reduce American casualties we let the Iraqi military begin the fights and then we come in on the tail end to finish the enmy off. Sounds okay.... But even if the the Iraqi military are willing fighters, they lack the necessary technology and heavy artillery to do the job. We're not prepared to give them the necessary technology and heavy weapons because we still don't trust them. So how long do we continue in this role? And in the grander scheme of things it appears that the particular and collective "enemies" are presently forming coalitions among themselves, and even the Iranians may be joining in. My point is that even if you can point to individual battles like this one as successesful these are just band-aids on a gaping wound. It's just treading water... We don't need a "surge" or strategies such as the one used in this battle. It's time for smart people to figure out long range political and diplomatic solutions because, in my belief, this situation will get worse before it gets better. No to take credit away from the Iraqi army but even if this particular battle was a success you almost want to say "So what? That's not actually a solution to the bigger problem because you're not going to kill all of the enemy."
Thanks...threads like this expose mmfa as political operatives...rather than a media watchdog.
I also understand your thoughts on the bigger picture of the situation in Iraq...and don't necessarily disagree. You've pointed out some salient ideas about the problems facing us in Iraq.
Yet, what are the alternatives and the consequences? I'm all for diplomatically solving the situation in Iraq...I just don't see how to accomplish that goal.
I take no offense at anyone who has a principled disagreement with the war in Iraq...rather than unbridled hatred of anything Bush and republican.
Got any suggestions?
Sorry, but I disagree with every one of them!
Bungle is a despot, and a dumb one to boot!
The Repugnants are thieves and liars!
The best part of any of them is their notion that they have a mission from God to spread liberty both within and without our own borders - by freeing as many as possible from this mortal coil.
And this war is simply the device they apply to that "mission".
So, now?
I disagree with you there. MMFA quotes the NYT as saying Iraqi forces were nearly overwhelmed. That is not spin, that seems closer to reality. MMFA was debunking Bush's spin that Iraqi forces took the lead. This has been the administration's mantra for over a year now- Iraqi forces will stand up and our forces will stand down. Reality has been the opposite. Iraqi forces have been unreliable, amateurish, and untrustworthy and to boot they have been infiltrated by militias. MMFA didnt deny that Iraqi forces initiated the fight, it merely linked to other reports that showed they had to be bailed out later. I think we disagree about what is reality and what is spin. I also have to question whether Iraqi forces took the lead or was it in fact other militias- Mahdi Army members. Or did they merely put away their black uniforms and put on their Iraqi uniforms.
The NY Times summed it up pretty nicely:
"[T]he Iraqi security forces' miscalculations about the group's strength and intentions raised troubling questions about their ability to recognize and deal with a threat."
Can you point out where Sun Tzu describes how wise it is to attack superior numbers of heavily armed troops in an entrenched position? I must have missed that part.
Even your own facts point towards ineptitude by the Iraqi Army.
C'mon open mind. It wasn't the whole Iraqi Army.
It was one battle where they weren't prepared to fight
600 Iranian-armed whacko cultists. They weren't peasants with pitchforks but heavily armed and dug-in militia.
"C'mon open mind. It wasn't the whole Iraqi Army.
It was one battle where they weren't prepared to fight
600 Iranian-armed whacko cultists. They weren't peasants with pitchforks but heavily armed and dug-in militia." --LH
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thank you for your obligatory silly input.
Firstly, where exactly in my post did I say it was the "whole" Iraqi Army?
When did I imply the opposition wielded "pitch-forks" or anything like that. In fact if you were actually able to read my post you would see that I described the opposition as "heavily armed insurgents"
Next time you comment. Do yourself a favor and first ask a reasonably bright child to read and explain it to you.
And of course we can believe any battle assessment given by our military's PR officers....like when they kill women and children and label them "insurgents" at the press conference, or find 5 bodies on the battlefield and it ends up 50 in the press release.
By the way, taking out an enemy in an exposed fixed position like a trench system is the reason tanks were built. It's not that hard, especially if the enemy lacks any formal military training or command and has few anti-tank weapons. I'd hardly call this a victory worthy of celebration. The fact we are there fighting them in the first place is a sign of defeat in policy.
- I'd hardly call this a victory worthy of celebration. - redking
Who's celebrating.
Your take is in lockstep with Gen.Julie Millican...and neither of you have any idea of the battle conditions but are quick to jump in and and declare that a battlefield victory is really a defeat.
Gen. Patreus...I'm sure...will benefit more from you and Gen.Julie's tactical knowledge than the anit-war radicals on this thread.
"Your take is in lockstep with Gen.Julie Millican...and neither of you have any idea of the battle conditions" -- Wesley
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
But you told us the battle conditions yourself, Gen. Wesley. The Iraqis attacked a superior force in an entrenched position that was heavily armed. Wise decision indeed. They teach that very strategy at War College don't they?
Wrong...I just pointed out what Gen. Julie's source reported...which she failed to include in her write up.
Sure mistakes are made in battle...I'm not arguing the fact. I am saying that mmfa's disgusting pandering for political motives is wrong. If they want to be war correspondents...they know where the front lines are.
How does the information you claim Julie left out change anything? If anything it may further underscore the whole point of the article. The Iraqi Army forces attacked a stronger force. (Do you really need to know the details about how much stronger that force was?) The article is fine and any further inclusion of detail seems to make the Iraqi Army forces involved seem even more inept if that is possible.
I not "claiming" that Gen. Julie left out info...I am stating it as a fact.
My disgust is with the predictable politicizing of the battle by mmfa.
Okay, let's not politicize.
US trained and equipped Iraqi forces hear about a militia group, make plans to take them out, heads on down there and are overmatched by what is basically a group of Iraqi citizens with no training and borrowed guns. The US comes in with 500-lb bombs and blows up the militia. The president is tickled pink to see good progress in this.
Does that about sum it up?
Hmmm...wonder where they borrowed those 40 heavy machine guns and anti-aircraft weapons?
Suit yourself if you want to denigrate the Iraqi efforts. I choose to see it as progress...a battalion of Iraqis replacing a battalion of American soldiers.
Gen. Julie and mmfa can continue huckstering for the anti-war radicals.
"a battalion of Iraqis replacing a battalion of American soldiers." --Wesley
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
More accurately that would be a battalion of American soldiers coming to the rescue of "a battalion of Iraqis replacing a battalion of American soldiers."
I'm not too sure that where they get their arms from really matters, does it? Or are you saying that they get better weapons from Iran than the Iraqi military gets from us? Or is the militia more skilled at using inferior weapons than the trained Iraqi military is when using superior weapons and after 4 years of U.S. training? Or perhaps I'm missing something, George is right, and it won't be long now until they're ready to handle national defense all by theirselves...
"I'm not too sure that where they get their arms from really matters, does it?" --neondesert
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The U.S. government wasted tens of millions of dollars in Iraq reconstruction aid, including scores of unaccounted-for weapons...
...
U.S. officials spent $36.4 million for weapons and gear such as armored vehicles, body armor and communications equipment that can't be accounted for." --Chicago Tribune 1-31-07
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Of course, I am only speculating here, but would it really surprise anyone at this point though?
"My disgust is with the predictable politicizing of the battle by mmfa." --Wesley
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And thanks to you Wesley for not politicizing the battle yourself.
While we may not have detailed knowledge of this particular battle, we certainly have four years of Bungle's Pentagon propaganda to style our take on the "reports".
Never yet told the truth voluntarily, about any aspect of this mess.
Still claim "a few bad apples" were responsible for all the "fraternity pranks" at Abu - even though we now know the death toll from Abu interrogations to be at least a dozen, and not a single prosecution to be found; nor any prosecutions from the various other interrogation centers, with several additional dozens of deaths during or immediately following interrogations.
Insist that the insurgency has been in it's death throes for now, going on three years.
It would appear that the most useful gleanings from their reports, and those of the MSM, would apply the "rule of opposites"?
"Wrong...I just pointed out what Gen. Julie's source reported...which she failed to include in her write up." --Wesley
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Do you believe the source is credible? Why on earth would you cite something that didn't come out of the mouth of a general. After all they are apparently the only sources of accurate and unbiased information around.
Okay, we're all ignorant of the battlefield conditions.
But...
...U.S. officials emphasize this was an Iraqi-planned and Iraqi-led operation...
A plan that so ignorant so as to leave you vastly outnumbered? Again, not a real confidence builder.
Consider the source
"Shameless work by General Julie Millican and mmfa" --Wesley
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Considering your implication that apparently only a general can comment on the reporting of this battle, why should we care what you think. Are you a general? If you are, then so am I. If you aren't then I am not either.
OK...Colonel Millican.
keerist...you're usually quicker to spot sarcasm...must be off your game today.
Of course it is sarcasm, but I assumed there was a point to it. My bad.
Let me sum up, my view and I think some others. Hands down this is a victory. Thank God this sect was wiped out. The leader claimed he was the Mahdi, and he was apparently killed. They wanted to kill the ayatollahs. If they suceeded not only Iraq but any country with mixed Sunni/Shia areas would erupt in violence. The sect was an unknown threat and now it has been wiped out. How many other unknown threats are-or is it known knowns. The Iraqi Army better get its but in gear bc the Sunni insurgents will be a far tougher foe. The US military is itching for more of these stand and fight battles. The Sunni insurgents will not engage in battles in which the outcomes are written in stone. No army can stand up to our airpower in the open like that. My problem has been the administration's spin on the capabilities of the Iraqi army.
Please go to Counterpunch or Raw Story and read Patrick Cockburn's piece. Then you will realize that you have all been arguing about what is probably a complete lie, promulgated/repeated by the Main Stream Media so many of you claim to despise or at least disagree with. Looks to me like the whole thing was an idiotic, accidental massacre, and the Iraqi & U. S. forces came up with some bee ess about a "cult" to cover it all up.
Also try UPI.com, in the International Intelligence section. Even the Reverend Moon's people seem willing to doubt the "official" line.