In Which The Washington Post Jumps The Gun
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Featured Stories | War — Comments (6) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
So supposedly, the surge is not working. But of course, the report misses the factoid found here:
. . . U.S. commanders have urged the American public not to pass judgment on the plan's effectiveness until after all U.S. troops are fully deployed. That is due to happen Friday. In September, Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker are to present a report on the plan's effectiveness to leaders in Washington.
(Emphasis mine.) Since the troops are not yet fully deployed, why are media outlets like the Washington Post rushing to judgment?
Of course, there remain a great many challenges in stabilizing Iraq. No one doubts that. But a great deal of improvement has been made as well.
More after the jump . . .
When Gen. David Petraeus drives through the streets of Iraq's capital, he sees "astonishing signs of normalcy" in half, perhaps two-thirds of Baghdad.
"I'm talking about professional soccer leagues with real grass field stadiums, several amusement parks -- big ones, markets that are very vibrant," says Petraeus, commander of the roughly 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. The scenes provide a sign that the new strategy in Iraq is working, although many problems remain, he told USA TODAY in an interview Wednesday.
Five months after President Bush ordered an increase of 20,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, data suggest that sectarian violence in Baghdad has declined. Other tentative signs of progress have included a rise in Iraqi army enlistments and some quality-of-life improvements such as fewer electricity blackouts in the capital.
[. . .]
*Iraq's army. The Iraqi army currently has 152,500 trained and equipped soldiers, nearly 20,000 more troops than were on the rosters in January, according to the U.S. State Department. Another 20,000 soldiers will be added to the ranks this year, the U.S. military says.
The Army now has its own Iraqi-run basic training and leadership schools. "The Iraqi army has, in general, done quite well in the face of some really serious challenges," Petraeus says. "In certain areas it really is very heartening to see what it has done."
*Anbar province. This area in the heart of the Sunni Triangle has been held up by the U.S. military as a model for Iraq. "The progress in Anbar has actually been breathtaking," Petraeus says.
Commanders credit much of the success to the U.S. military's decision to arm, train and organize Sunni provincial militias that have turned against al-Qaeda militants operating in the area.
"If you've got folks who say, 'Hey, this is my hometown, and I'm tired of the violence and if you simply train and equip me, I'll protect my hometown.' We ought to jump on that like a duck on a June bug," says Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division.
Commanders elsewhere in Iraq are studying lessons that can be learned from Anbar, although Petraeus said that each area of Iraq has "unique circumstances." Anbar is mostly Sunni and does not have the volatile sectarian mix that stokes violence in other parts of the country.
*Sectarian violence. The number of unidentified bodies found in Baghdad -- an indicator of sectarian violence between Sunni and Shiite Muslims -- dropped from a high of 1,782 in October to 411 in April, according to an Interior Ministry official who declined to be named because he is not authorized to speak to the media.
The body count spiked to 726 in May. So far this month, the numbers are again on a "downward trend," Petraeus says. Although the bombing Wednesday of a major Shiite shrine in Samarra raises the risk of a new outbreak of sectarian violence, he says.
Again, the job is not done. Many more challenges remain. All of the problems are not yet solved. Let's acknowledge that up front.
But neither is the surge the disaster that the Post makes it out to be. Indeed, the Post commits journalistic malpractice on not reporting the full facts regarding the effects of the surge in Iraq. One cannot help but wonder about the wisdom of this attitude; it is not as if the Post will engender confidence by making it clear that it approaches the problem of Iraq with ideological blinders on.
« Republican Moderates May Walk Away From Veto Threat — Comments (17) | "We Can Deal With Hamas" — Comments (5) »
In Which The Washington Post Jumps The Gun 6 Comments (0 topical, 6 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Is not with the report which can be found here . It is with the dishonest lifting of select quotes in the WaPo article to make a point. For instance, the report does make the point Pejman noted in his article:
Overall, it is too early to assess the impact of
the new approach. For the period covered by
this report, the additional forces to support the
new approach were not fully in place, and those
that were had only a limited time to conduct
operations. In addition, new initiatives such as
enhanced PRTs and focused efforts to improve
GoI budget execution and rule of law remain in
their initial stages.
Here is another example of the WaPo article's deceit. From the article -
Indeed, "some analysts see a growing fragmentation of Iraq," it said, noting that 36 percent of Iraqis believe "the Iraqi people would be better off if the country were divided into three or more separate countries."
But the report states things a bit different. In the executive summary, the total quote for the WaPo's first lift is
While some analysts see
a growing fragmentation of Iraq, most Iraqis
continue to believe that Iraq should remain a
unified state.
The remainder of their quoted material is from a chart which shows the regions of Iraq and the numbers that favor seperate states for each faction. If you look at the chart, what is left out of the WaPo comments is that the bulk of those who favor partition happen to be in the Kurdish areas (which, coincedently, has the least amount of violence in Iraq).
So the WaPo article is simply a absolute mischaracterization of what the Pentagon report actually said, in keeping with their meme of doom-and-gloom in Iraq
It's pretty depressing.
I don't know why you expect the Post to put lipstick on that pig, but I was left with the conclusion that the chance of remarkable and dramatic change occurring anytime soon is very limited.
Given the political climate in this country, our former ideals of victory seem more out of reach than ever before.
But I came to a different conclusion. The report is basically neutral - neither one way (defeat) or the other (victory). But then again, this is a conflict like none we have been in before.
You obviously have a preconceived notion that it is not going well over there in Iraq, and thus, you reading of the report supports your position that is really sucks over there.
My reading of the report suggest that progress is being made, albeit not as fast as the media cycle and political side would wish.
Hey, you are entitled to your view, but depressing? Not in the slightest.
The report was basically neutral - it indicated that things aren't going much better or worse. Mostly staying about the same.
Here is the problem - given the political climate, more of the same is going to result in defeat. "Stay the Course" is a politically dead slogan.
I had hopes that the surge would really make a difference and show to the American people that we can win this war. The clock is ticking and I am depressed by the thought of a democratic President declaring defeat.
As I read the report, that is what I was thinking.
I read the article - isn't it mostly about a Pentagon report?
I agree that it's to early to tell how the surge is working but I think it won't be a silver bullet which given the political climate in this country, maybe what is needed.