Posted on 08/08/2005 5:52:30 AM PDT by OESY
The recent spike in U.S. casualties in Iraq, although tragic, needs to be placed in strategic context. As usual, the press has not done so, focusing on the loss of life without any apparent effort to understand what the fighting that led to these casualties means.
But the answer is there for anyone who wishes to probe beneath the surface. In fact, the intense fighting indicates that Coalition forces have stepped up their campaign in Al Anbar province to destroy the insurgency by depriving it of its base in the Sunni Triangle and its "rat lines" — the infiltration routes that run from the Syrian border into the heart of Iraq.
One ratline follows the Euphrates River corridor — running from Syria to Husayba on the Syrian border and then through Qaim, Rawa, Haditha, Asad, Hit and Fallujah to Baghdad. The other follows the course of the Tigris — from the north through Mosul-Tel Afar to Tikrit and on to Baghdad.
The main difference between this operation, dubbed Operation Quick Strike, and Operations Matador and New Market earlier this year is that the ongoing action is substantially larger in both scope and magnitude, enabling the Coalition to apply force simultaneously against a number of insurgent strongholds.
The previous operations, although successful up to a point, nonetheless couldn't prevent the insurgents from abandoning one town and moving to another not threatened by allied forces.... Operation Quick Strike has substantially hindered the movement of insurgents on both sides of the river.
Brig. Gen. Carter Ham, commander of the multinational brigade conducting the operation, explained... that the additional forces that made it possible to conduct simultaneous operations of this magnitude were Iraqi security forces.... This is good news. It indicates that Iraqis are making progress in developing a competent army....
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Who knew?
/frustrated sarcasm
(The funny thing is, though, ABC/CBS news never get upset about the 3,500 Americans who die in traffic accidents every month, and there's more we could do to prevent those casualties.)
Only Fox News has talked about the recovered letter from a guy who had gone into Iraq thinking he was helping the people there save themselves from the Americans, only to find that the Iraqis did not want him. He said morale is very low. He said that the average time a terrorist survives after coming into Iraq is 3 days. Between the Iraqis turning them in, and the US/Iraqi forces chasing them down, it is not a fun place to be.
He also said he was lied to by those who sent him in from Syria. He is now spilling his guts to US military officials on who, what, where, and how they are coming into the country.
This is a HUGE intelligence win both for strategic and tactical information.
And that's just one intelligence win that the military decided to disclose to the public. I'm sure there's a nest of other captured terrorists who are singing like canaries. When the local people turn on the insurgents, the insurgents are in serious trouble.
That's a good point, but it also works in reverse -- and is the primary reason why I will never buy the NY Post again. If you pick up that newspaper on the day after a major incident in Iraq with large numbers of U.S. casualties (Fallujah in the spring of last year, the two incidents last week, etc.) you'll notice that they deliberately bury the story somewhere in the bowels of the paper. On the day after the U.S. lost 14 soldiers in Iraq, the headline story in the Post was something about Martha Stewart or a sex scandal involving a school teacher in New York.
The NY Post doesn't need to report on US military casualties. They know we will hear plenty about casualties from the MSM.
This is a good point. Especially after the 23 marines were killed last week, the public, egged on by the media and liberals are not willing to put up with it much longer I'm afraid. The media has convinced many that we may in fact be losing, and the WH is just not very good at communicating the good things that are happening and the sucess we indeed are having in Iraq. Now the politicians will get very nervous and the drumbeat will begin to have us abandon Iraq. It's time for the communication team at the WH to step up and take back control of the message.
In addition, the Iraqi forces are getting priceless experience in fighting this war. They are out there under the tutilage of US forces, so they are learning how to do it right. When we leave, the Iraqi forces will be the most well trained, able Arab forces in the world.
May our armed forces be successful in their mission, and may they have the strength to overcome the media's incessant efforts to lower their morale.
what's funny is how the NY Post tells the complete story yet the paper is looked down upon by elitist sc^m....
That may be, but I will take the New York Post over the Times any day. The New York Times is to the democratic party what Al-Jazzera is to terrorists!
It's bad enough for the Post to deliberately bury news stories on major events in Iraq, but I find it utterly disgraceful for a so-called "conservative" media outlet to bury those stories and replace them with some sh!t story about @ssholes like Martha Stewart and Michael Jackson.
What can I say? It's a New York paper. I'm really not that familiar with the Post. I read the Washington Times online but only a few NY Post articles here at FR.
Yes, we're teaching them the "Western way of war." In the long run, that may come back to haunt us. However, in the short run I see no alternative.
I posted this before but it is worth a reposting.
The NY Post which is a right wing leaning paper in the same city as the sinking NY Times has shown dramatic growth
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/51420.htm
RUPERT MURDOCH TO BE POST PUBLISHER
August 3, 2005
Excerpt:
The Post's circulation has shown extraordinary growth in the past five years, rising 57 percent from the six-month period ending in March 2000 to the six-month period ending in March 2005.
The paper currently sells 678,105 copies daily, Monday through Friday, according to the March publisher's statement from the Audit Bureau of Circulations.
During the five-year period, the paper experienced five consecutive six-month periods of double-digit circulation growth.
And .. I believe Rumsfeld already told the media some months ago that we were EXPECTING an increase in violence the closer Iraq got to putting their constitution in place. Looks like Rumsfeld was right - again!
We're not teaching them everything, we're just teaching them enough to be the best ARAB troops. They were already feared as the best in the Arab world, now they are an all volunteer force (something no despotic country will ever have in sufficient numbers).
I agree with Owens, but his article is an implicit condemnation of the terrible job the Pentagon and administration are doing in educating and informing the American people. Providing us with some broad understanding of what is going on in Iraq would not compromise operational security. The terrorists who are under attack are pretty much aware of the fact. The usual reporting that focuses only on US casualties suggests that the terrorists have the initiative. They clearly are taking the initiative in some ways, but we are in others, and this deserves emphasis. Indeed, I believe most Americans would be more supportive of the effort if it is emphasized that offensive operations are necessary to reduce the enemy's future ability to impose his will. Right now, it too often appears that American blood is being shed for no strategic purpose. We can only lose in Iraq if our will falters. The terrorists know this too--it animates every aspect of their strategy and tactics. To sustain the citizenry's will it is necessary to help them understand what is happening on the ground and how that relates to a broader strategy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.