Liberal Press Continues to Spin War: 'US is Losing'

As Army troops barreled into the heart of Baghdad, a unit from the 2nd Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division was ordered to hold onto a key cloverleaf in the southern part of the city. The mission sounded routine, but it quickly turned into five hours of killing and fiery chaos after an Iraqi rocket-propelled grenade slammed into a U.S. ammunition truck at the intersection. At least two soldiers of the 3rd Battalion, 15th Infantry Regiment task force were killed and four were wounded.

Opposition Group's Men, Mostly Arabs, Seen As Unprepared (Washington Post, April 8, 2003, Pg. 14)

A motley group of freedom fighters filed aboard four C-17 military transport planes at a remote airfield in northern Iraq last weekend. Some of the 700 men of the 1st Battalion of Free Iraqi Forces—vaunted as the kernel around which a new Iraqi army would be assembled—were so lightly armed they lacked even pistols, let alone assault rifles.

War Overwhelms Baghdad Hospitals, U.N. Group Says Growing Civilian Toll Raises Worries About Alienating Iraqi People

International health organizations warned that Baghdad's hospitals have been overwhelmed by casualties, now that fierce urban combat has erupted across Iraq's capital, with supplies dwindling and medical personnel caught in the crossfire and unable to get to work.

The risk of friendly fire incidents may only increase as modern combat puts an emphasis on missions behind enemy lines and simultaneous probes deep into enemy territory, according to military officers and historians of warfare. The peril increases because today's battlefields no longer feature linear battle lines with clearly drawn fronts, flanks and rear echelons.

At a time when the United States is promising a reconstructed, democratic postwar Iraq, many Afghans are remembering hearing similar promises not so long ago. Instead, what Afghans see are thieving warlords, killings on the roads and a resurgence of Taliban vigilantism. There is little to stop it. The soldiers and police who were supposed to be the bedrock of a stable postwar Afghanistan have gone unpaid for months and are drifting away.

Arguing that the United Nations must play a role in rebuilding war-torn Iraq, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said that the international organization would bring legitimacy to any government that rises from the ruins of battle.

U.S. casualties in Iraq have not eroded public support of the war, according to recent public opinion polls and interviews with scores of Americans. Pollsters and political consultants said the public's tolerance for casualties was not purely a matter of numbers, but also depended on the length of the war, the perception of its progress and how the media reported it. One big, bloody battle with a high United States death toll could change everything, they say.

One of America's most historic and bipartisan traditions is to do an execrable job explaining itself to the world. The central problem was pinpointed by a Chinese journalist recently during a U.S. military briefing at Central Command headquarters. "This is propaganda," he said brightly. "I was born and grew up in a propaganda country, and so I know it well." He beamed. "Actually, they do the propaganda very well, better than we do it. We in China can learn from this propaganda."

America is strongest when its ferocious military power is linked with the legitimacy provided by the United Nations. "For that reason, I hope Bush will agree with Blair that the United Nations should have a major role in the reconstruction of Iraq. I'd even offer a role for America's fair-weather friends, the French, Germans and Russians—not to be nice but because American interests will be protected by their participation."

As an occupying army in a nation with which it has no cultural affinity, the United States will have to accomplish miracles in Iraq: build from scratch a functioning democracy in a country full of sharply divided nationalist, religious and tribal passions and with no history of political freedom—and do it by force without antagonizing the populace. "We have won nothing yet."

The editor at large of American Prospect writes that President Bush, by imposing a narrowly factional government on postwar Iraq, is unveiling earth-shaking changes in fundamental American policy as a series of faits accomplis—"and the Democrats are hiding under rocks. And this is a nation that claims the expertise to build a democracy on the other side of the world?"

Security in postwar Iraq will have to remain in the hands of American and British forces for some time, but the legitimacy of the foreign presence will depend on how quickly the authority for governing the country can be transferred to an interim administration under U.N. sponsorship. "Yes, that will require returning to the Security Council for a resolution, which is probably the last thing Mr. Bush wishes to do after the acrimonious collapse of diplomacy last month. But pique is not a good guide to making foreign policy."

President Bush pledged before the war to seek "partnership" with the United Nations in Iraq, but the Pentagon is poised to impose a unilateral scheme that will maximize the costs and risks to this country—as well as the chances that the process will fail. "For the sake of the international system and the Western alliance, but even more for the security of the United States and its troops, Bush should work with Blair to create the multinational partnership for Iraq that he promised."

Actually, many of these are pretty reasonable, though there are a couple obvious hit pieces. Of course, the libs are going to be engaged in hand wringing for months and years about the UNrelevant UN and the problems of post-BASH* Iraq. Two I'll comment about:

NYT Risk Of Being Killed By Own Side Increases"

They actually do a very good service in telling people the truth here, and explaining WHY, in just a few words. This is one of the most important things for people to understand about the way the US wages war now. In the past, our artillery, airpower, other big guns, would have to pull their punches due to their inaccuracy. This was often not fatal even when our own troops got caught in it. Now, if we aim at it, it is usually a goner, and we are the deadliest thing to ourselves on the battlefield. Friendly fire has always been a war problem, and it will continue to be. The PROPORTION of our losses due to FF is likely to remain at this higher rate due to these considerations... but rest assured that the enemy's losses are even higher, and the total NUMBER of our casualties are lower. For once, I congratulate the NYT.

The WashP Preemptive Peace: The editor at large of American Prospect writes that President Bush, by imposing a narrowly factional government on postwar Iraq, is unveiling earth-shaking changes in fundamental American policy as a series of faits accomplis—

Yup... he has, but don't believe that this is going to happen overnight, or be understood overnight by the libs. This is not as simple to understand as the Monroe Doctrine to comprehend, for anyone who has ears and wishes to listen but that leaves out the libs.

You FReepers, however, have an advantage in that you can think. You can look at President Bush's "Liberty Doctrine" and become educated. The lib mediocracy will refuse to do it, but it is well delineated in two online documents. I suggest reading the speech once now, and a couple times later to get the whole of what is stated in it. The other document requires serious study:

A quick outline of the National Security policy was presented by the president:

President Bush Delivers Graduation Speech at West Point - June 1, 2002

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020601-3.html

and a much more comprehensive document was presented a couple months later:

The National Security Strategy of the United States of America

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html

The administration's philosophy and policy is most accurately described as the "Liberty Doctrine". The lamestream media has attempted to belittle it by calling it a "doctrine of pre-emption", but that is a gross mischaracterization, as you will note if you look into those documents. Preemption may fit into it, but it is not at all the meat and potatoes of the Bush Doctrine. The press has worked to demean it much as they did by calling it Reagan's "Star Wars".

I'm going to cheat and post the live links in a followup note...

*BASH == Battle Against Saadumb Hussein (not War On Iraq)

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.