Posted on 03/29/2003 12:40:56 AM PST by JohnHuang2
Edited on 03/29/2003 8:01:34 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
B A G H D A D, Iraq, March 29 — The round-the-clock air assault on elite Iraqi troops standing between allied forces and Baghdad was set to intensify, as U.S. ground commanders try to get their frontline forces resupplied for an eventual push toward the Iraqi capital. Continues.
==================================================================
The Media would hate for the good guys to win this war
Facing stronger-than-expected resistance from media quarters, a U.S. General said Iraqi paramilitaries groups like the Fedayeen Saddam aren't your classic guerrilla force, given their lack of popular support from ordinary Iraqis.
The press, frustrated by polls showing growing support for the war to topple Saddam Hussein, is whipping up a sandstorm, portraying the allied advance, now poised at the gates of the capital mere days into the operation, as a quagmire -- bogged down, behind schedule, buffeted by huge setbacks, including colossal allied losses which, while widely reported, keep failing to materialize, adding to media frustration.
Operation Iraqi Freedom faces stiff media pockets of resistance, waged primarily from newsrooms at the New York Times, the Washington Post, Reuters and the Associated Press, home to Fedayeen Saddmites dressed in "journalistic" clothes. They've been known to use Iraqi propaganda of "civilian casualties" from claimed 'errant' bombing as a form of "human shield" to hamper the war effort.
Taking questions from reporters at Central Command headquarters in Qatar, Brigadier General Vincent Brooks said on Friday that "When you are talking about classic guerrilla warfare, it generally implies a force that is accepted among its population, and we're not seeing that here."
"We're seeing a force that we're encountering on the battlefield that is brutal to the population that it is amongst," he added.
The media dismisses such accounts, many based on eye witnesses, insisting the brutal Iraqi dictator is neither brutal nor a dictator because a) unlike the Kosovo war under Clinton, this time there's a Republican in the White House and b) elements of Saddam's fan club a la the New York Times hate to see the good guys (meaning U.S.-led coalition forces) win and their nemesis Bush re-elected.
The presstitutes, to be fair, strongly deny they're rooting for the enemy, if by *enemy" you mean the U.S. and Bush.
Meanwhile, coalition 'setbacks' continued to mount Thursday and Friday, with growing questions regarding the 'more-than-expected' resistance from Iraqi 'fighters.'
Especially devastating: A 'more-than-expected' report by 'more-than-expected' Peter Smolowitz and Steven Thomma.
Writing for Friday's 'more-than-expected' Miami Herald, Smolowitz and Thomma reported on 'more-than-expected' signs "that an early end to the war is unlikely," with "orders Thursday for 120,000 ['more-than-expected'] troops to begin moving to the ['more-than-expected'] war zone."
Even though such deployments were planned well in advance, still it was 'more-than-expected' -- by the media! Can't have that.
For allied forces, the list of 'more-than-expected' "setbacks" grew depressingly longer, with 'more-than-expected' Iraqi soldiers (in the thousands) abruptly high-tailing from frontline positions, held for 12 years, in oil-rich Kirkuk, the target of a week of intense allied airstrikes. The 'fierce' Iraqi 'fighters' bravely retreated shortly after 1,000 crushed and demoralized (see Reuters) U.S. paratroopers seized a strategic air base in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq.
"The [more-than-expected'] paratroopers," Smolowitz and Thomma wrote, "could be the advance guard of a major U.S. force whose ['more-than-expected'] job will be to capture Kirkuk, Mosul and ['more-than-expected'] nearby oil fields. They also could open a ['more-than-expected'] second front to help attack Baghdad and Hussein's ['more-than-expected'] hometown of Tikrit."
Thursday brought even more bad news for coalition forces:
-- The sandstorms cleared Thursday, paving the way for more Iraqi battlefield heroics, such as getting blasted to smithereens by U.S. warplanes.
How on earth is this a "setback?" Because the sandstorms, per the lib media's Fedayeen Saddamites, were 'more-than-expected'! C'mon, get with the program already ;)
-- "The 3rd Infantry and the 60,000-man 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, [crippled and ineffective (see AP)] are poised to attack at least two or more Republican Guard divisions," whose Medina contingent scored big against the allies this week, inflicting ('more-than-expected!') zero battlefield casualties on coalition forces, while getting their brains beaten out of 'em, with reports of as many as 850 dead Republican Guard 'fighters.' But Reuters, AP, New York Times, Washington Post wonder, why not 900 killed? Sorry Charlie, but the less-than-expected kill rate shows 'more-than-expected' resistance!
-- American troops are within 10 miles of Kirkuk and Mosul, reports Fox News, but Reuters, AP, New York Times, Washington Post wonder, why not within 8 or 9 miles? Sorry, Charlie, but 10 miles is 'more-(distance)-than-expected!'
-- "In southern Iraq," Smolowitz and Thomma continue, "British forces, destroyed 14 Iraqi Soviet-made T-55 tanks trying to escape Basra," but Reuters, AP, New York Times, Washington Post" wonder, why not 15 or 16 tanks destroyed? The less-than-expected' number shows 'more-than-expected' resistance!
-- In the central Iraqi city of Diwaniyah, coalition forces, tipped off by Iraqi POWs and helpful civilians, 'Warthogged' (incinerated) a racetrack "where 500 of Hussein's fighters were expected to gather," but Reuters, AP, New York Times, Washington Post wonder, why not 550 fighters incinerated? The less-than-expected figure shows 'more-than-expected' resistance!
But silly of me for thinking we're winning this war.
We're not -- not according to noted military authorities at Reuters, AP, New York Times, Washington Post.
"U.S. forces...in Nassiriyah got a sample of the kind of firefight that may await them at the capital city," a wistful AP reports Friday.
"In Nasiriyah's chaos," AP adds gleefully, "progress elsewhere on the Iraqi battlefield seemed so distant...Continuing attacks by Iraqi irregular forces -- along with perpetual traffic jams on roads north -- have turned last week's sprints across the desert into a distant memory."
Or how about this from Nicole Winfield, another Fedayeen Saddamite AP staff writer:
"The U.S. Central Command denied Friday that it had underestimated Iraq's fighting ability but acknowledged..." Ah, ha! Got'cha! You did underestimate Saddam's 'brave' fighters!
"American forces...have had to slow their advance [to Baghdad] to root out enemy fighters."
Or this from Fedayeen Reuters: "Small bands of Iraqi militia are holding out after lengthy battle...surprising U.S. forces who expected a quick victory."
"U.S. Marines punched their way across the Euphrates River in this city [Nassiriya] ...Tuesday, pushing on northward towards Baghdad. But three days later, troops are still struggling to quell resistance...[The U.S. advance] through southern Iraq has generally been slower than expected."
Or this by Reuters' Lyndsay Griffiths:
"U.S. forces in Iraq...lack the 'overwhelming force' needed to wage warfare in the streets of Baghdad, a British defence source said Friday."
Tellingly, again and again, Griffiths cites this "source," who insists on anonymity (wink, wink). We know it's a "he". Clare Short in drag, perhaps? Or Susan Sarandon in drag faking a British accent?
"He said the level of resistance...showed the U.S.-led campaign to seize control of Baghdad would be hard fought."
Brilliant. War might involve actual fighting.
"It does represent the scale of resistance,' said the source, amid growing expectations war may prove longer and tougher than many pundits had first predicted."
Here's a sum-up of the media mood: We were told this war would be over in 3-5 weeks, but here we are, 8 days into battle, and still it's not over! What went wrong?
See why no-one pays attention to the media anymore?
Anyway, that's..
My two cents...
"JohnHuang2"
"No, Bones, why do they?" "It keeps the flies off the reporters from CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC!"
Bada Bing!
Want a break from war news? Go to Stark Trek for a laugh or two. Then come back refreshed and loaded for bear whether he goes in the woods or not!
Have you ever submitted to the print media ?
No, I haven't. But I just might :)
Amen.
Weird. People have forgotten over the preceding 12 years that there was an intense 6-week air campaign before we even hit the border in Kuwait. That our actual incursion into Iraqi territory was minimal, and that most of the units we faced had had their food, water, and fuel interdicted long before ever the campaign began. None of those conditions applied this time. Surely even an armchair general could see that?
Well, perhaps not. And, as you point out, it presents a group of people who were desperate for a club to beat Bush with, with the only real such opportunity they've had since Florida. We haven't reached the stage yet where they can safely call the troops "baby-killers" as Charlie Rangel found out last week, but one can still "support the troops" and bash Bush for poor planning. And so it goes.
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.