Posted on 03/13/2006 9:35:40 PM PST by smoothsailing
March 14, 2006
Myths of Iraq
By Ralph Peters
During a recent visit to Baghdad, I saw an enormous failure. On the part of our media. The reality in the streets, day after day, bore little resemblance to the sensational claims of civil war and disaster in the headlines.
No one with first-hand experience of Iraq would claim the country's in rosy condition, but the situation on the ground is considerably more promising than the American public has been led to believe. Lurid exaggerations and instant myths obscure real, if difficult, progress.
I left Baghdad more optimistic than I was before this visit. While cynicism, political bias and the pressure of a 24/7 news cycle accelerate a race to the bottom in reporting, there are good reasons to be soberly hopeful about Iraq's future.
Much could still go wrong. The Arab genius for failure could still spoil everything. We've made grave mistakes.
Still, it's difficult to understand how any first-hand observer could declare that Iraq's been irrevocably "lost."
Consider just a few of the inaccuracies served up by the media:
Claims of civil war.
In the wake of the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, a flurry of sectarian attacks inspired wild media claims of a collapse into civil war. It didn't happen. Driving and walking the streets of Baghdad, I found children playing and, in most neighborhoods, business as usual. Iraq can be deadly, but, more often, it's just dreary.
Iraqi disunity.
Factional differences are real, but overblown in the reporting. Few Iraqis support calls for religious violence. After the Samarra bombing, only rogue militias and criminals responded to the demagogues' calls for vengeance. Iraqis refused to play along, staging an unrecognized triumph of passive resistance.
Expanding terrorism.
On the contrary, foreign terrorists, such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, have lost ground. They've alienated Iraqis of every stripe. Iraqis regard the foreigners as murderers, wreckers and blasphemers, and they want them gone. The Samarra attack may, indeed, have been a tipping point--against the terrorists.
Hatred of the U.S. military.
If anything surprised me in the streets of Baghdad, it was the surge in the popularity of U.S. troops among both Shias and Sunnis. In one slum, amid friendly adult waves, children and teenagers cheered a U.S. Army patrol as we passed. Instead of being viewed as occupiers, we're increasingly seen as impartial and well-intentioned.
The appeal of the religious militias.
They're viewed as mafias. Iraqis want them disarmed and disbanded. Just ask the average citizen.
The failure of the Iraqi army.
Instead, the past month saw a major milestone in the maturation of Iraq's military. During the mini-crisis that followed the Samarra bombing, the Iraqi army put over 100,000 soldiers into the country's streets. They defused budding confrontations and calmed the situation without killing a single civilian. And Iraqis were proud to have their own army protecting them. The Iraqi army's morale soared as a result of its success.
Reconstruction efforts have failed.
Just not true. The American goal was never to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure in its entirety. Iraqis have to do that. Meanwhile, slum-dwellers utterly neglected by Saddam Hussein's regime are getting running water and sewage systems for the first time. The Baathist regime left the country in a desolate state while Saddam built palaces. The squalor has to be seen to be believed. But the hopeless now have hope.
The electricity system is worse than before the war.
Untrue again. The condition of the electric grid under the old regime was appalling. Yet, despite insurgent attacks, the newly revamped system produced 5,300 megawatts last summer--a full thousand megawatts more than the peak under Saddam Hussein. Shortages continue because demand soared--newly free Iraqis went on a buying spree, filling their homes with air conditioners, appliances and the new national symbol, the satellite dish. Nonetheless, satellite photos taken during the hours of darkness show Baghdad as bright as Damascus.
Plenty of serious problems remain in Iraq, from bloodthirsty terrorism to the unreliability of the police. Iran and Syria indulge in deadly mischief. The infrastructure lags generations behind the country's needs. Corruption is widespread. Tribal culture is pernicious. Women’s rights are threatened. And there's no shortage of trouble-making demagogues.
Nonetheless, the real story of the civil-war-that-wasn't is one of the dog that didn't bark. Iraqis resisted the summons to retributive violence. Mundane life prevailed. After a day and a half of squabbling, the political factions returned to the negotiating table. Iraqis increasingly take responsibility for their own security, easing the burden on U.S. forces. And the people of Iraq want peace, not a reign of terror.
But the foreign media have become a destructive factor, extrapolating daily crises from minor incidents. Part of this is ignorance. Some of it is willful. None of it is helpful.
The dangerous nature of journalism in Iraq has created a new phenomenon, the all-powerful local stringer.
Unwilling to stray too far from secure facilities and their bodyguards, reporters rely heavily on Iraqi assistance in gathering news. And Iraqi stringers, some of whom have their own political agendas, long ago figured out that Americans prefer bad news to good news.
The Iraqi leg-men earn blood money for unbalanced, often-hysterical claims, while the Journalism 101 rule of seeking confirmation from a second source has been discarded in the pathetic race for headlines.
To enhance their own indispensability, Iraqi stringers exaggerate the danger to Western journalists (which is real enough, but need not paralyze a determined reporter). Dependence on the unverified reports of local hires has become the dirty secret of semi-celebrity journalism in Iraq as Western journalists succumb to a version of Stockholm Syndrome in which they convince themselves that their Iraqi sources and stringers are exceptions to every failing and foible in the Middle East. The mindset resembles the old colonialist conviction that, while other "boys" might lie and steal, our house-boy's a faithful servant.
The result is that we're being told what Iraqi stringers know they can sell and what distant editors crave, not what's actually happening.
While there are and have been any number of courageous, ethical journalists reporting from Iraq, others know little more of the reality of the streets than you do. They report what they are told by others, not what they have seen themselves. The result is a distorted, unfair and disheartening picture of a country struggling to rise above its miserable history.
......................
Ralph Peters is a retired U.S. Army officer and the author of 20 books, including the recent New Glory: Expanding America's Global Supremacy.
© 2000-2006 RealClearPolitics.com All Rights Reserved
What we really need is a good scouring of the media by our soldiers.
Point out the frauds and anti-American, anti-military types and let barracks justice prevail.
That remains to be seen. But I'll say this, if we end up fighting the North Koreans, or heaven help us the Chinese, maybe even the Iranians, that cheaper lighter force will get lots of kids killed, and perhaps lose a war that is more important than the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan every was.
It's hardly special knowledge, it's been the subject of more than one thread here. The only time Rummy was Peter's superior was back during the Reagan administration.
Peter's is now a PFC, Private FReeking Civilian, like most of us, and has been for some time now.
That is disingenuous argument that should be banned from FR for its illogic. I'm tired of it, and I actually AGREE with Rummy. Here is the problem with saying "what's your alternative?" to every naysayer if you are a conservative: the liberals ALWAYS win the argument if that is the standard.
Liberal: GOVERNMENT should DO something!
Conservative: No, it shouldn't. It screws up too much when it does anything! Government should be minimally involved!
Liberal: What's your alternative?
Conservative: How about Government let private industry handle it? What about leaving the problem to people to resolve themselves?
Liberal: So you want to do NOTHING?
Rummy could be right or wrong, philosophy may be right or wrong, but if you in arguing mandate an alternative always be provided by those who disagree with you, first, you are simply demanding a solution be implemented by SOMEONE instead of letting conservative philosophy work, i.e., letting the market take care of itself and settle things naturally. Second, you cede ground to activists that a different "solution" is necessary.
I can give you a more extreme example:
Nutjob: "We must do something about the Sun! It keeps going up every day and going down--eventually it won't come back!"
You: Don't be silly.
Nutjob: What's your alternative plan to make sure it comes back!?!?
You: ???????
Do we really need to do ANYTHING about the Sun? The burden is, and should be, on the person proposing action to convince people to follow HIS proposed course, not upon people responding to provide a better one. We are not in a world where only by action directed toward progress may the planet move forward in a positive way. Everyday human activities lead towards progress naturally.
I started this thread and I've replyed to posters.
I support Rummy's vision for the military.
That's my position.I need not defend it.It's proving itself worthy.
El Gato gripes but that's about it.
And as for you, LE, how smug of you to imagine something you find not conservative should be banned from FR.
However, Rummy is smarter than Peters.
Rummy realized his mistakes and offered to resign twice, and the president turned him down.
One can only hope this view is accurate and true. After being lied to all my life by both sides of whatever, I no longer have much belief in what I am told.
parsy, the morally bankrupt.
Peters bump and BFLR!
My sister is a writer for an MSM paper here on the East Coast. Couple of years ago we're discussing Clinton and his failings (although she still thinks he's great) and I mention Juanita Broderick. 'Who?' she says! She had never even heard of her!
I've read BEYOND TERROR and BEYOND BAGHDAD. Will have to get this new one too.
However, Rummy is smarter than Peters.
Yeah, Rummy should go and devote his time to creating a good bird flu vaccine......oh wait, he's already done that......wonder if he's made any money yet?
Thanks for the link!
"I support Rummy's vision for the military.That's my position.I need not defend it..."
You, sir, are a walking example of why Rummy and conservatives cannot convince everyone. With people like you making his case, it is difficult for some to convert to the proper side of the argument. You state a position and cannot support it, saying instead that 'it proves itself.' However, res ipsa loquitor hardly even applies in the courtroom. It certainly does not apply to your argument, where on myriad occasions opponents of Rummy's plan have pointed out its failures. Again, I SUPPORT Rummy's general scheme--but saying "I'm right and it's proven" is the equivalent in debate of saying "Nyah, nyah, doodyhead!"
And I don't find your style of 'argument' not conservative. I find it childish and completely unpersuasive. It wouldn't matter if you were arguing for the most conservative of causes instead of Rummy's strategy, which conservatives may disagree upon. It's not your point that I disagree with, as I noted before. It's that you cannot support your opinion with reasons, preferring instead the fallacious response that the other side must instead supply an alternative. If you propose mining the moon for green cheese, I need not reply with an alternative option for getting the green cheese off the moon. Just so with Rummy's plan for force alignment. He has a plan; status quo is another option, and arguing against Rummy's plan does not logically demand a different plan from your opponents.
But continue to proceed blithely through life without self-improvement in this area. Of course, you may find your 'What's your alternative?!?!' response helpful occasionally in provoking silence from those with whom you 'debate.' But you'll also find that silence in the long run it does nothing to help your cause and indeed, as I pointed out, hurts it.
I personally hope the MSM picks up and reports on the damage "depleted uranium" is doing to our soldiers and the Iraqi people. For an eye-opening bit of info keyword 'Doug Rokke / depleted uranium'.
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.