In my never-ending quest to bring you the truth, or at least make you question what is true, I've decided to run a few Iraq "facts" to see how well they hold up. I guess I should caution you all here, if you take everything that you read or hear from the mainstream media as fact, you may want to skip this one.
Iraq is in chaos, Iraq is in civil war, Iraq would be better off if we left, the "surge" is certain to fail, every General is now against the war, blah, blah, blah. It seems the mainstream media cannot find any good anywhere in Iraq worth reporting. If I have to listen to one more NPR report on how everything in Iraq either has failed or will fail I'm throwing my car radio into the street. Don't get me wrong, Iraq has been a monumental disaster. Every single thing that the Bush Administration has predicted about this war from the WMD's to the number of deaths to the duration, has been wrong. It would be hard to describe this war as anything but the worst foreign excursion since Vietnam. In many ways it may be the worst ever. But having said that, the fact that Bush has been wrong doesn't give you people who lean left the gift of foresight or the right to say anything you want without being questioned too. So without further ado, here's some of the problems I've found in the mainstream reporting.
CIVILIAN CASUALTIES
In mid October of last year the left started propagating a survey of the civilian deaths in Iraq by the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Policy. The numbers they were claiming, over 600,000 civilian deaths, were the highest numbers put out there by far. In fact, they were 5 to 6 times higher than anyone else estimated. Yet, NPR's Diane Rhem, the Washington Post and BBC News saw fit to treat them as fact, entertaining these numbers as if they could have any credence. Oddly enough, slightly over one month later, these same sources were propagating another story, the highest single month civilian deaths as estimated by the U.N.; 3,709. Now I'm no math whiz, as I've said before, but as of Nov. 2006, we had been in Iraq for approx. 42 months, and 42 times 3,709 comes to 155,778. My point here is; how can it be the highest monthly civilian death count when multiplying it by the total months gives you one quarter of what you were buying into as the total just a month before? The answer is; they're just trying to get you outraged, not informed. A closer estimate that doesn't include every Iraqi that died of the flu can be found at Iraq Body Count.
IRAQ IS IN A CIVIL WAR
Another thing that's being reported unfairly is whether or not Iraq is in a civil war. Now, I concede, there has been a lot of sectarian violence in the Sunni Triangle. In fact, nearly all the deaths in the past year have been in the region from Bagdad to Tikrit to Ramadi. The problem I have with the way that's being portrayed is; the Sunni Triangle only constitutes appox. 7812 square miles out of the 168,743 square miles of the country of Iraq, less than 5%. But to hear it reported you would think the whole country is in civil war. That's like saying that Michigan erupted into rioting during the 1967 riots. There wasn't a single riot in all of the Upper Peninsula or above Midland in the Lower Peninsula. It's simply not an accurate way of reporting. Iraq is in a civil war in some regions, but the vast part of Iraq is not.
ALL THE RETIRED GENERALS ARE AGAINST THE WAR
The trotting out of retired Generals (or for that matter soldiers) as a way of proving that the military is not behind the war is simply not accurate. Every American has every right to voice their opinion and that includes ex-military, but to make it seem that these Generals (or soldiers) are reflective of the whole is intellectually dishonest. According to Slate.com and military estimates, there are about 4,700 retired Generals. For CNN or NBC or even Fox News to interview these Generals and give the impression that they are one of a very few is simply not honest. The fact is, some Generals are against the war and view it as another Vietnam and others support our efforts there.
SOVEREIGNTY
This one really gets me ticked off. The media, in their never ending quest to badmouth every aspect of the war has found a way we can't possibly do it right. If we recognize the Iraq Government as sovereign and let them act as their culture tells them that they should (brutal Islamic law), we get badmouthed for creating a monster, even though the monster was far more cruel before we got there. If we intervene in their judicial process, then we are not respecting their culture and the Government of Iraq is just a puppet democracy. I would like for the left in this country to tell me once and for all, "Should we respect their sovereignty or not?" My answer? They are sovereign, let them end the problem their way.
A lot has happened since I last commented on the war, and most of it is bad. But is it as bad as it's being portrayed? NO. We can not retreat completely and in the very worse case scenario should only pull back away from the Sunni Triangle to contain it and isolate it from Iranian interference. I like an idea being floated by Steve Forbes to persuade the Iraqi government to share oil revenue in much the same way it is done in Alaska, but only in areas that are secured by the Iraqi Military. This will give incentive to both push out the troublemakers and to help hold the area to the residents. To give yourself a more objective view, I recommend checking out Iraqi blogs to get an inside look. I recommend Iraq the Model as a great source. I do agree with the right that we can not leave Iraq in a mess. I make the analogy that Bush is like a bad dog that ripped up the neighbor's garbage. They don't want to hear that it's your kid's dog or that you don't even like the dog yourself, it's our dog and we have a responsibility to clean up the mess. H.C.
Iraq is in chaos, Iraq is in civil war, Iraq would be better off if we left, the "surge" is certain to fail, every General is now against the war, blah, blah, blah. It seems the mainstream media cannot find any good anywhere in Iraq worth reporting. If I have to listen to one more NPR report on how everything in Iraq either has failed or will fail I'm throwing my car radio into the street. Don't get me wrong, Iraq has been a monumental disaster. Every single thing that the Bush Administration has predicted about this war from the WMD's to the number of deaths to the duration, has been wrong. It would be hard to describe this war as anything but the worst foreign excursion since Vietnam. In many ways it may be the worst ever. But having said that, the fact that Bush has been wrong doesn't give you people who lean left the gift of foresight or the right to say anything you want without being questioned too. So without further ado, here's some of the problems I've found in the mainstream reporting.
CIVILIAN CASUALTIES
In mid October of last year the left started propagating a survey of the civilian deaths in Iraq by the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Policy. The numbers they were claiming, over 600,000 civilian deaths, were the highest numbers put out there by far. In fact, they were 5 to 6 times higher than anyone else estimated. Yet, NPR's Diane Rhem, the Washington Post and BBC News saw fit to treat them as fact, entertaining these numbers as if they could have any credence. Oddly enough, slightly over one month later, these same sources were propagating another story, the highest single month civilian deaths as estimated by the U.N.; 3,709. Now I'm no math whiz, as I've said before, but as of Nov. 2006, we had been in Iraq for approx. 42 months, and 42 times 3,709 comes to 155,778. My point here is; how can it be the highest monthly civilian death count when multiplying it by the total months gives you one quarter of what you were buying into as the total just a month before? The answer is; they're just trying to get you outraged, not informed. A closer estimate that doesn't include every Iraqi that died of the flu can be found at Iraq Body Count.
IRAQ IS IN A CIVIL WAR
Another thing that's being reported unfairly is whether or not Iraq is in a civil war. Now, I concede, there has been a lot of sectarian violence in the Sunni Triangle. In fact, nearly all the deaths in the past year have been in the region from Bagdad to Tikrit to Ramadi. The problem I have with the way that's being portrayed is; the Sunni Triangle only constitutes appox. 7812 square miles out of the 168,743 square miles of the country of Iraq, less than 5%. But to hear it reported you would think the whole country is in civil war. That's like saying that Michigan erupted into rioting during the 1967 riots. There wasn't a single riot in all of the Upper Peninsula or above Midland in the Lower Peninsula. It's simply not an accurate way of reporting. Iraq is in a civil war in some regions, but the vast part of Iraq is not.
ALL THE RETIRED GENERALS ARE AGAINST THE WAR
The trotting out of retired Generals (or for that matter soldiers) as a way of proving that the military is not behind the war is simply not accurate. Every American has every right to voice their opinion and that includes ex-military, but to make it seem that these Generals (or soldiers) are reflective of the whole is intellectually dishonest. According to Slate.com and military estimates, there are about 4,700 retired Generals. For CNN or NBC or even Fox News to interview these Generals and give the impression that they are one of a very few is simply not honest. The fact is, some Generals are against the war and view it as another Vietnam and others support our efforts there.
SOVEREIGNTY
This one really gets me ticked off. The media, in their never ending quest to badmouth every aspect of the war has found a way we can't possibly do it right. If we recognize the Iraq Government as sovereign and let them act as their culture tells them that they should (brutal Islamic law), we get badmouthed for creating a monster, even though the monster was far more cruel before we got there. If we intervene in their judicial process, then we are not respecting their culture and the Government of Iraq is just a puppet democracy. I would like for the left in this country to tell me once and for all, "Should we respect their sovereignty or not?" My answer? They are sovereign, let them end the problem their way.
A lot has happened since I last commented on the war, and most of it is bad. But is it as bad as it's being portrayed? NO. We can not retreat completely and in the very worse case scenario should only pull back away from the Sunni Triangle to contain it and isolate it from Iranian interference. I like an idea being floated by Steve Forbes to persuade the Iraqi government to share oil revenue in much the same way it is done in Alaska, but only in areas that are secured by the Iraqi Military. This will give incentive to both push out the troublemakers and to help hold the area to the residents. To give yourself a more objective view, I recommend checking out Iraqi blogs to get an inside look. I recommend Iraq the Model as a great source. I do agree with the right that we can not leave Iraq in a mess. I make the analogy that Bush is like a bad dog that ripped up the neighbor's garbage. They don't want to hear that it's your kid's dog or that you don't even like the dog yourself, it's our dog and we have a responsibility to clean up the mess. H.C.
5 comments:
Good stuff HC! As you probably read on Andre's blog, I think much the same way.
It really reminds me of "Of Mice and Men".
Thanks Will,
The biggest problem I have with discussing the war with people is that they can't seem to turn around from looking at the past. Because of our failings, we're in a bad place, but that doesn't mean we should just give up. There are two kind of people in a crisis situation; the kind that freak out and start blaming people as things continue to fall apart, and the kind that want to address the crisis at hand and save the finger pointing for when the crisis is over. I'm the latter, we still have major problems to overcome and this is no time to be distracted by what screwed up in the past. People, please focus, Yes, Bush is a screw-up, yes, the war has not gone well, but too many lives are at stake to suffer through your constant "I told you so's" instead of addressing the problem at hand. I'm not sure where your going with the "Of Mice and Men" reference but Bush does sort of remind me of Lenny.
I felt like it was a good portrayal of the discomfort associated with responsibility.
There isn't (as far as I know) some greater metaphor, it just reminded me of it.
H.C.
I was against the U.S. going into this war because of I JUST knew that the Dems would be doing all they could do to make this "another Vietnam". And guess what? They did all they could to make it seem like that is indeed "another Vietnam"
Gota little news to frop on all of you who may be too young to remember our war in Vietnam . Here is the most overlooked FACT,it was a war the DEMOCRATS had a huge part in. Yes,they have tried to distance themselves from that ugly war but the fact they did send alot of troops. But guess what?
They got their friends in the media to put the whole blame on Richard Nixon. Now they have a war they can blame the Republicans for. They rejoice ! Now all you have to do, Democrats, is shift the blame for the other wars your party was in power for and you will truly be the "good guys" . With your media connections I am sure you will be able to pull it off. Hats off to you once again.
Hey John,
The media is DEFINATELY the biggest problem we are having all around. Next to nothing is being portrayed accurately. I thank God though that more objective views are being put out there. Fox News is definately right leaning but is creating some balance for the other networks that are tripping over each other to give the left's point of view, and don't even get me started on the entertainment industry that ONLY promotes the liberal agenda. I have no problems with which way they want to lean as long as we get BOTH sides out there, and as long as everyone understands that they're trying to pass opinion as fact. AS far as the Vietnam comparisons, I'm shocked at how many people say to me, "We left Vietnam and nothing happened." And I have to educate them about Pol Pot and the Killing Fields. The leftist media did a great job of leaving that out of the story.
Post a Comment