Backlash And Endangering The Troops

The second Post of the email I received from Sarge is about backlash from media reporting.

This week's news cycle seems to focus on a single issue: will the word
"Haditha" become the new buzzword for U.S. war crimes?

I was in Iraq when the Abu Ghraib story broke in 2004 (side note: I drove
past that very prison just last night) and I don't think the American
military has really recovered from the scandal. I remember the backlash it
caused, the increased attacks and IEDs. When I began to read into this
Haditha story, I suddenly realized why attacks have spiked in recent days.
One major disadvantage of the media blitzes these reporters perpetrate is
that they cause more discontent and violence in a country where you can buy
a Soviet-produced rocket propelled grenade launcher with two rounds for the
price of an iPod. For a moment set aside whether these Marines are innocent
or guilty and think about what kind of backlash this story is going to
produce. More IEDs will be placed, more weapons will appear on the streets,
and more soldiers are going to die. I'm a major supporter of the First
Amendment, but I have a vested interest in this incident being kept
low-profile. If it's true, it's an atrocity, and the men responsible from
bottom to top should swing from the yardarm. If it turns out to be yet
another case of the media attacking the Bush administration, an as-yet
unknown number of U.S. servicemen will have been killed as a result of a
media circus. If the latter is true, can we hang the reporters for negligent
manslaughter?

Freedom of the press is a double-edged blade, but it seems these days it
only cuts one way. Major and respected media figures and outlets wave their
politics about like a banner, but anyone who dares to call them on it is
immediately branded a censor and an enemy of free speech. What about
professional responsibility? My fellow soldiers and I are bombarded with
reminders to protect military secrets when speaking to our families on the
telephone or through email, yet the same secrets we're protecting can be
purchased by our enemies simply by stopping off at a newsstand and picking
up a copy of Newsweek. Retractions are rare and grudging, and in cases where
acts of violence can be traced directly to irresponsible reporting, no blame
is shouldered by the news. Anchors simply tell us about the latest incident
without ever adding, "our bad." I'm not asking for self-flagellation, but
I'm getting sick to death of my fellow soldiers being sacrificed on the
altar of journalism and of the absurd sentiment that the people have the right
to know everything and anything, even if it endangers our forces overseas.
Freedom of the press also requires some level of responsibility.

So I implore you, next time you read an article or see a news report about
Haditha, say a prayer for our men and women in uniform that none of them
come to harm because of that report.

A Soldier’s View

I received an email today from Sarge and am posting it as two seprarate posts. This is the first one and discusses Haditha from a soldier's perspective. 

I'll be honest: this morning is the first time I've heard about this
incident in Haditha. I try my best to keep up on current events through the
internet and the Stars and Stripes, but sometimes I have to make the choice
between sleeping and reading the latest news story.

What can I say? If I come out against the Marines, I'm a traitor to my
brothers in arms. If I come out in their defense, I'm an insider protecting
the guilty. It's the definition of a Catch-22; I'm damned if I do and damned
if I don't. I suppose the only thing I can do in this situation is present
both sides of the argument.

My squad leader is sitting right beside me, and we just compared notes on
how many IEDs we've been through. We counted six each. One of them hit my
truck, one of them hit his. I can tell you from firsthand experience that
after an IED goes off, every soldier's first instinct is to start shooting
at everything in sight that's moving. Someone has just tried to kill you, and
you can't kill him back. That said, we've never gone on a shooting rampage
after an IED. On the other hand, all the roadside bombs we've encountered
have only resulted in minor injuries. To play devil's advocate, I can't
imagine how it feels to lose a friend and comrade to an unseen enemy.
If the Marines in question are found guilty of committing a crime, I will
partially understand their emotions even if I abhor their decision.

The above is the military man in me talking. As a human being, I have a
natural and visceral reaction to this story that turns my stomach. If it is
indeed true, these men should suffer the most severe punishment imaginable.
As a soldier in the United States Army, I've dished out my share of
Marine-bashing jokes and comments, but I would hope that as representatives
of the American military the Marines implicated would show more restraint
and control.

However, the most absolutely important thing to remember in this situation
is that these men HAVE NOT been proven guilty. All that exists right now is
rumor and innuendo. There is no proof, no convictions. Right now, there
isn't even a trial. Last night I picked up a copy of the Stars and Stripes
with a headline about the Haditha investigations. The first line of the
article reads as follows:

"Marines from Camp Pendleton wantonly killed unarmed Iraqi civilians,
including women and children, and then tried to cover up the slayings in the
insurgent stronghold of Haditha, Iraq, military investigations have found."

The Stars and Stripes draws its articles from a number of different sources;
this particular article came from the Los Angeles Times and was written by
Tony Perry. Look at the phrasing of that sentence. In truth, the
investigations have found nothing of the sort. They've discovered evidence
and eyewitness testimony that suggests several Marines MAY BE guilty of
misconduct, up to and including murder. The truth is, we'll probably never
know what happened in Haditha, no matter what the investigations and the
trials uncover. The Marines involved were seeing through a haze of anger and
loss. The Iraqi locals were seeing through the chaos of a bomb going off in
their community.

Whatever the NCIS uncovers, the rights of these men must be protected. Even
under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the military's judicial system,
suspects are considered innocent until proven guilty. The fact that the
media, and even a former Marine congressman are already talking about these
men as if they're guilty is disgusting and just plain wrong. O.J. Simpson,
arguably the most guilty innocent man in recent history, was treated with
more respect during his circus of a trial than these Marines are being given
now. They are men in uniform, men who have sacrificed more than most ever
will in the name of the United States. They deserve our respect until such
time as a verdict is reached which calls that respect into question.

So that's my position on the Haditha investigation. If the Marines are found
guilty, I believe they will be punished accordingly. If they are found
innocent, I believe they will be outcast by the media as benefactors of a
cover up. Unfortunately, all of these men's careers are basically over no
matter what the findings. The anti-war, anti-Bush journalists have seen to that.

Circular Logic

On Sunday I mentioned that the German magazine Der Spiegel had an interview with the president of Iran coming out. No link was available at that time. I have one now. And, frankly, Ahmadinejad comes across as even less in touch with reality than the preliminary reports indicated. The first part of the interview is the biggest exercise in circular logic I have ever seen.

SPIEGEL: Denying the Holocaust is punishable in Germany. Are you indifferent when confronted with so much outrage?

Ahmadinejad: I know that DER SPIEGEL is a respected magazine. But I don't know whether it is possible for you to publish the truth about the Holocaust. Are you permitted to write everything about it?

SPIEGEL: Of course we are entitled to write about the findings of the past 60 years' historical research. In our view there is no doubt that the Germans – unfortunately – bear the guilt for the murder of 6 million Jews.

Ahmadinejad: Well, then we have stirred up a very concrete discussion. We are posing two very clear questions. The first is: Did the Holocaust actually take place? You answer this question in the affirmative. So, the second question is: Whose fault was it? The answer to that has to be found in Europe and not in Palestine. It is perfectly clear: If the Holocaust took place in Europe, one also has to find the answer to it in Europe.

On the other hand, if the Holocaust didn't take place, why then did this regime of occupation …

SPIEGEL: … You mean the state of Israel…

Ahmadinejad: … come about? Why do the European countries commit themselves to defending this regime? Permit me to make one more point. We are of the opinion that, if an historical occurrence conforms to the truth, this truth will be revealed all the more clearly if there is more research into it and more discussion about it.

SPIEGEL: That has long since happened in Germany.

Ahmadinejad: We don't want to confirm or deny the Holocaust. We oppose every type of crime against any people. But we want to know whether this crime actually took place or not. If it did, then those who bear the responsibility for it have to be punished, and not the Palestinians. Why isn't research into a deed that occurred 60 years ago permitted? After all, other historical occurrences, some of which lie several thousand years in the past, are open to research, and even the governments support this.

SPIEGEL: Mr. President, with all due respect, the Holocaust occurred, there were concentration camps, there are dossiers on the extermination of the Jews, there has been a great deal of research, and there is neither the slightest doubt about the Holocaust nor about the fact - we greatly regret this - that the Germans are responsible for it. If we may now add one remark: the fate of the Palestinians is an entirely different issue, and this brings us into the present.

Ahmadinejad: No, no, the roots of the Palestinian conflict must be sought in history. The Holocaust and Palestine are directly connected with one another. And if the Holocaust actually occurred, then you should permit impartial groups from the whole world to research this. Why do you restrict the research to a certain group? Of course, I don't mean you, but rather the European governments.

SPIEGEL: Are you still saying that the Holocaust is just "a myth?"

Ahmadinejad: I will only accept something as truth if I am actually convinced of it.

SPIEGEL: Even though no Western scholars harbor any doubt about the Holocaust?

Ahmadinejad: But there are two opinions on this in Europe. One group of scholars or persons, most of them politically motivated, say the Holocaust occurred. Then there is the group of scholars who represent the opposite position and have therefore been imprisoned for the most part. Hence, an impartial group has to come together to investigate and to render an opinion on this very important subject, because the clarification of this issue will contribute to the solution of global problems. Under the pretext of the Holocaust, a very strong polarization has taken place in the world and fronts have been formed. It would therefore be very good if an international and impartial group looked into the matter in order to clarify it once and for all. Normally, governments promote and support the work of researchers on historical events and do not put them in prison.

I have to hand it to the interviewer, he hung right in there. But Ahmadinejad is completely impervious to logic or reason. Houston, we have a problem.

UPDATE: Commentary from Der Spiegel. Others: All Things Beautiful, Captain's Quarters, Chequer-Board, Liberty and Justice and Hugh Hewitt.

News From Iran

Once again, if you want to get information on what is happening inside Iran, you cannot look to our so-called main stream media. There appears to be complete silence about it in the major newspapers and other media. Once again, Jim over at Gateway Pundit has an astonishing roundup posted with links and photos from a lot of sources. Jim points out the obvious:

SHAME ON THE WESTERN MEDIA! When 200 Islamist thugs are bused in from across the country by the Islamic Republic to hold a rally outside the Danish Embassy the western news medias (BBC, CNN, AFP, Reuters…) are quick to cover the story live on TV making it seem like Iranians are crazy fanatics!

When tens of thousands of Iranians come out denouncing that very same regime that is doing these kind of acts, condemning them for the oppressive rule!!! EVERYTHING GOES SILENT!

I guess there's not enough of an anti-American component to warrant coverage by the MSM.

Sending In Reserves

The Washington Post is reporting that US commanders are committing most of the combat reserve force it has in the Iraqi theater to try to quell al Qaeda directed violence in Anbar province.

The U.S. military said Monday it was deploying the main reserve fighting force for Iraq, a full 3,500-member armored brigade, as emergency reinforcements for the embattled western province of Anbar, where a surge of violence linked to the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq has severely damaged efforts to turn Sunni Arab tribal leaders against the insurgency.

The insurgents have assassinated 11 tribal leaders in the Ramadi area since the end of last year, when Sunni sheiks in the city began open cooperation with the U.S. military. That alliance was heralded by U.S. commanders as a sign of a major split between Sunni insurgents and the larger Sunni community of western Iraq.

Part of the problem is that the US looks like it is in internal disarray, which encourages our enemies. I'd frankly like to see more support for our troops among Democrats in particular and less attention being given to the cut and run proponents. I think there is a broad consensus that we have to finish what we started in Iraq. This is not the time to play politics with the lives of our people who are deployed over there.

"We hope to get rid of al-Qaeda, which is a huge burden on the city. Unfortunately, Zarqawi's fist is stronger than the Americans'," said one Sunni sheik, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of insurgent retaliation. He was referring to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, an umbrella group for many of the foreign and local resistance fighters in Iraq. Local Sunni leaders often insist that the most violent insurgent attacks are by foreign fighters, not Iraqi Sunnis.

In Ramadi, "Zarqawi is the one who is in control," the sheik said, speaking to a Washington Post special correspondent in Ramadi. "He kills anyone who goes in and out of the U.S. base. We have stopped meetings with the Americans, because, frankly speaking, we have lost confidence in the U.S. side, as they can't protect us."

Another sheik, Bashir Abdul Qadir al-Kubaisi of the Kubaisat tribe in Ramadi, expressed similar views. "Today, there is no tribal sheik or a citizen who dares to go to the city hall or the U.S. base, because Zarqawi issued a statement ordering his men to kill anyone seen leaving the base or city hall," he said.

"We are very upset. But being upset is better than mourning the death of a sheik or tribal leader," Kubaisi said. "Zarqawi has imposed himself on us. We started thinking of appeasing Zarqawi and his group, because rejecting them means death."

Hopefully, the reserves will drive Zarqawi out of business. It's interesting how he appears to have been pushed out of Baghdad.

The NYT On Pelosi

The New York Times has an article on Nancy Pelosi this morning that says both Democrats and Republicans are delighted with the prospect of "Speaker Pelosi". For very different reasons, of course.

"She ought to be a big component of the fall campaign," said Ed Rogers, a Republican strategist and lobbyist. "There are some Democrats who make really good bad guys."

Ms. Pelosi, the California Democrat and House minority leader, lends herself to easy caricature by Republicans. She is an unapologetic liberal, with a voting record to match (the Republican National Committee chairman, Ken Mehlman, said she was neither a "New Democrat" nor an "Old Democrat" but a "prehistoric Democrat"). She is wealthy (married to an investment banker, she has assets listed at more than $16 million). She represents San Francisco, which Republicans love to invoke as a hotbed of counterculture decadence and extremism.

"Is America ready for Nancy Pelosi's Contract With San Francisco?" asked Representative Ric Keller, Republican of Florida, posing a question that, one imagines, could form the basis of many Republican advertisements this fall.

Democrats may have some reservations about Ms. Pelosi, but they are largely loyal, seeing her as an earnest champion of the party's beliefs and as an effective leader.

The Times does mention her having a bit of a problem with how she presents herself and how she has appeared to be counting chickens a bit to early. Overall, the piece is definitely carrying water for Pelosi, trying to make he look less threatening and praising her political skill.

Me, I'm not so sure about that skill. I think she is highly effective at keeping her party in line, but somewhat less effective at appealing across party lines. She also has a tin ear. She is still trying to use the culture of corruption meme, which I really think is an appallingly bad idea given the antics of Representative Jefferson and others. She also says in the interview that Tom DeLay is a friend of hers that she worked well with but that he's "corrupt".  She doesn't appear to even notice exactly how that sounds.

Well, it'll be interesting for the next five months or so, that's for sure.

Sometimes You Just Shake Your Head

Some days you start reading the news and find yourself shaking your head.

Reid Accepted Free Boxing Tickets While a Related Bill Was Pending

Senate Democratic Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) accepted free ringside tickets from the Nevada Athletic Commission to three professional boxing matches while that state agency was trying to influence him on federal regulation of boxing.

Reid took the free seats for Las Vegas fights between 2003 and 2005 as he was pressing legislation to increase government oversight of the sport, including the creation of a federal boxing commission that Nevada's agency feared might usurp its authority.

I have noticed Harry's been a lot less vocal about the whole "culture of corruption" thing. It only gets worse in appearance, too. John McCain insisted on paying for tickets to fights he attended with Reid while another Senator, John Ensign (R-Nev) recused himself from the bill due to family ties to the fight industry.

It might be chicken feed in the great scheme of things, but an appearance of impropriety can pretty well knock you off the moral high ground. Right, Harry?

UPDATE: Scot Ott is sounding the alert on the growing pandemic. Be afraid, be very afraid!