PBS/FRONTLINE: Invasion of Iraq

Newsday ^ | 2/26/04 | Noel Holston

[FilmCutter]

A powerful 'Frontline' tour of duty

World War II had been over almost 30 years when England's Thames TV completed its now celebrated, 26-part recap, "The World at War." "Frontline" turned around "The Invasion of Iraq" (Thursday at 9 on WNET/13 - check local listings) in less than a year.

Granted, World War II was a tad larger and more complicated, but that's not the point. The point is, this new "Frontline," comparatively instant history, is a decent match for "The World at War" in terms of its mix of strategic and grunt-level perspectives, its command of pertinent detail and its insight. And its human immediacy is not just greater, it's all but unimaginable.

In one stunning sequence, producers Richard Sanders and Jeff Goldberg juxtapose the reactions of an American tank commander and an Iraqi general to a battle less than 11 months ago on the east bank of the Euphrates River that decimated the Iraqi force.

[FilmCutter]

My latest editing effort - done with the Brits.

Enjoy.

[TADSLOS]

Thomas White, secretary of the Army, 2001-03, tells "Frontline" that he and Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army's chief of staff, "were very concerned that there wouldn't be sufficient boots on the ground after the operation to provide for security and get on with the stabilization activities. Their response - publicly and privately - was basically that Shinseki and I didn't know what we were talking about."

Sour Grapes Alert.

[fourdeuce82d]

looking forward to it.

[expatpat]

Since it's PBS, just how biased is it?

[lelio]

Frontline's usually pretty good about not being too biased. Their shows on unintended consequences of NAFTA was pretty fair (it was about the power of the WTO to change local laws) and the one on the former FBI/CIA officier that started work as the World Trade Center security chief was really good as well.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Definitely a must watch !

[cmsgop]

Will do ,Thanks!

[giotto]

So I wonder how many Iraquis were interviewed who lost loved ones to Saddam's brutality? How much airtime devoted to the new-found freedom Iraquis now enjoy, such as newspapers with real news, not headlines and propaganda glorifying Saddam and his psychopatic sons? No doubt there were plenty of references to "insurgents" killing our troops--glossing over the fact that these are Al-Qaeda sponsored terrrorists, not rebel Iraquis defending themselves against the American "invasion" of their homeland. I don't know which is worse, ABCNNBCBS, or PBS.

[q_an_a]

people complain that the old iraq army is still fighting, but if they had fought in the beginning they would all be dead and this war would have been over. they ran like cowards and now fight like cowards. if they come out in the open the insurgent army would be gone in one week.

that this occupation looks messy is not because they did not have enough troops, it is because nobody thought an army would not defend their land.

[Shermy]

they ran like cowards and now fight like cowards

The large "regular" army did not fight because they would not fight for Saddam. An almost totally unreported aspect of the war.

[Prodigal Son]

Can I get this in DVD with European (Zone 2) coding?

[Old Sarge]

England's Thames TV completed its now celebrated, 26-part recap, "The World at War."

I remember "World at War". As a kid, my brothers and I would watch this on WWOR-TV out of New York. "WWW" was on every Saturday afternoon, right after "Doctor Who".

It was a first exposure to the history and legends of that time. It's never left me.

[Justa]

"Sour Grapes Alert.

I strenuously disagree. From the paragraph above the one you quoted:

"Why it is that Iraq is in bloody turmoil and we're still taking casualties is a crucial strategic issue that the "Frontline" show addresses. It illuminates the fierce debate between the Defense Department, under Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and the Pentagon over how many troops were needed. Rumsfeld believed 200,000 troops were plenty. The military wanted twice that many."

The history of warfare in the Middle East shows that quick military victories and limited occupation evolve into protracted guerilla warfare and eventual withdrawl, whereas overwhelming victories and large occupation forces establish and maintain peace and stability. If history is a guide then only the heavy hand succeeds in the Middle East. Iraq appears to be following the same course.

Thanks for your support.

[BushMeister]

More troops do NOT equal more security in a war zone, especially in a guerilla war phase. More troops means more troops for which to provide force protection, more troops entering the war zone, more troops getting lost, more troops traveling on the roads and more troops to feed, equip and manage.

Unless the U.S. were to decide to garrison every structure in Iraq, or completely seal the thousands of miles of borders leading into Iraq, there was no way to appreciably decrease roadside IED bombings, suicide attacks or drive by shootings.

[Steven W.]

Correction: Frontline is NOTORIOUSLY & REGULARLY BIASED. HOWEVER - there are (just) a couple producers which are very, very responsible who produce some very quality & well balanced shows.

[expatpat]

Yeah, I saw some of that one about the security guy in the WTC -- it was pretty good.

[WackySam]

I remember "World at War". As a kid, my brothers and I would watch this on WWOR-TV out of New York. "WWW" was on every Saturday afternoon, right after "Doctor Who.

I have the exact same memories. You must be right around 40.

[Old Sarge]

I have the exact same memories. You must be right around 40.

And you would be right! Give that man a hoagie!

[q_an_a]

that is just like gulf one, but it is the elite military that did not fight either. the people that lived off the spoils of the country did not fight to protect it, now they want it back and sneak around in the dark the same way they did before the war.

you made a good point, too bad it does not show up as a function of the "nightly" news too.

[Steven W.]

I saw this Frontline and it was absolutely horrid & biased - basically a condensed version of "everything that went wrong in the war" with Tom Ricks and other of the biggest fools in the Pentagon correspondents pool.