Iraq: Violence 70% Down Since June

[countezero]

No US media organization gathers information in Iraq independent of US government influence and management.

That's just completely and utterly wrong. Reporters can go wherever they like and speak to whoever they want, with the obvious exception being military installations and military personnel. Much has been made about the disinformation or manipulation of information by officials about things such as body counts and injuries as such. This is precisely why many media organizations accept official figures but also call on a host of NGOs, non-profits and local sources to come up with the most relevant numbers possible. The graph I posted several days ago is an excellent example of how McClatchy's Baghdad reporters get the most accurate information they can with little or no regard to official sources. So sorry, you're appreciation that the media is being controlled stage-managed or controlled is a product of your bias and mania, and it's just dead wrong.

we recall one such event discussed on this forum just a few weeks ago, when a couple of "respectable" "journalists" who presented administration PR as results of investigative reporting (that had not in fact been accomplished) were featured nationwide in all major media, described exactly as the PR setup required they be described (former "staunch critics" of the war effort and the Surge, just back from a stint of serious and independent nvestigative reporting in Iraq) in defiance of the plain facts -

I assume you speak of the Pollack piece? Yes, let's talk about it. Because every major assertion he made is now being born out by other news outlets, Democratic senators and various pundits on the ground. The violence is down. Whether this is sustainable or not, I don't know. But the violence is down. Period.

Quite a few media figures found W's PR stunt not only ridiculous (and disturbing) but obviously premature, at the moment it was performed - the idea that it only came to seem ridiculous months later is either evidence of extremely narrow and biased news sources or another one of your remarkably consistent memory revisions.

I have nothing invested in this, so I wouldn't bother with revision. Sam says the Media didn't question the event, you say "quite a few" did. Perhaps I missed it because I tend to avoid punditry and editorials at all costs. Regardless, I don't know which is correct and I don't care. My only point in addressing her foolish red herring was to explain that it's not an objective reporter's job to comment on an event as it takes place in real time. And it's certainly not out of the ordinary to see a politician perched in front of a banner with a slogan on it. Turn on your television and wait for election coverage, each candidate will be speaking at a location designed to convey something on television and standing in front of a similar background. Are they fascists, too?

The similarity of style and content between W&Co's pageantry and that of the fascist political parties in Europe in the 1930s is striking - not inane at all.

And that's your opinion. And you're welcome to have it and to read about it in Socialist quarterlies. I think it's ridiculous and beneath considering. So I won't.

 

[pjdude1219]

That's just completely and utterly wrong. Reporters can go wherever they like and speak to whoever they want, with the obvious exception being military installations and military personnel. Much has been made about the disinformation or manipulation of information by officials about things such as body counts and injuries as such. This is precisely why many media organizations accept official figures but also call on a host of NGOs, non-profits and local sources to come up with the most relevant numbers possible. The graph I posted several days ago is an excellent example of how McClatchy's Baghdad reporters get the most accurate information they can with little or no regard to official sources. So sorry, you're appreciation that the media is being controlled stage-managed or controlled is a product of your bias and mania, and it's just dead wrong.



I assume you speak of the Pollack piece? Yes, let's talk about it. Because every major assertion he made is now being born out by other news outlets, Democratic senators and various pundits on the ground. The violence is down. Whether this is sustainable or not, I don't know. But the violence is down. Period.



I have nothing invested in this, so I wouldn't bother with revision. Sam says the Media didn't question the event, you say "quite a few" did. Perhaps I missed it because I tend to avoid punditry and editorials at all costs. Regardless, I don't know which is correct and I don't care. My only point in addressing her foolish red herring was to explain that it's not an objective reporter's job to comment on an event as it takes place in real time. And it's certainly not out of the ordinary to see a politician perched in front of a banner with a slogan on it. Turn on your television and wait for election coverage, each candidate will be speaking at a location designed to convey something on television and standing in front of a similar background. Are they fascists, too?



And that's your opinion. And you're welcome to have it and to read about it in Socialist quarterlies. I think it's ridiculous and beneath considering. So I won't.

um having talked to people who have lived during both times in both places they tend to say it is the same.

 

[countezero]

Anecdotal evidence is suspect. I talk to Marines all the time who say just the opposite, which is why the numbers are important.

 

[iceaura]

Reporters can go wherever they like and speak to whoever they want, with the obvious exception being military installations and military personnel.

? ! You are aware that we are talking about the reporting from Iraq ?

I assume you speak of the Pollack piece? Yes, let's talk about it. Because every major assertion he made is now being born out by other news outlets, Democratic senators and various pundits on the ground.

Perhaps I missed it because I tend to avoid punditry and editorials at all costs. Regardless, I don't know which is correct and I don't care. My only point in addressing her foolish red herring was to explain that it's not an objective reporter's job to comment on an event as it takes place in real time.

Uh, right. Objective reporting consists in transmitting the government's PR initiatives exactly as presented by said government, without "comment" - except praise and expressions of appreciation, of course, by the more respectable journalists.

And that's your opinion. And you're welcome to have it and to read about it in Socialist quarterlies. I think it's ridiculous and beneath considering. So I won't.

But you will deliver uninformed opinions of your own, carefully uncorrected by common sources of information about the reality you find unworthy of your attention - such as the notion that W's carrier deck theatrics were only made to look silly in retrospect, by a coincidence of unpredicted events months afterwards.

But the puzzle remains: if you are willing to acknowledge at least that events months afterwards did make Codpiece Day (as it was described by the unworthy who got the facts straight right away) look pretty bad, how did the "journalists" who fell all over themselves signing on to that bit of tragicomic Goebbellian staging keep your respect ? If as you claim reporters have a free hand in Iraq, how does someone who did what Pollack did and presented it as on-the-ground independent reporting keep their status as a respectable journalist in your eyes ?

 

[K.FLINT]

pause......BANG

see below

 

[K.FLINT]

pause......BANG

Desert Shield was also the lul before the BANG that became Desert Storm.

Spending is being argued. While that happens President Bush regroups his forces, calls on available troops, activates the reserves and then goes on the offensive. { after a bit of shock an awe of course } Then he will pull something out of his...um sleeve to prove that a good job was done in hopes of a better public opinion.

Then wash, rinse, & repeat, like always.

 

[countezero]

? ! You are aware that we are talking about the reporting from Iraq?

Yes, I am.

Uh, right. Objective reporting consists in transmitting the government's PR initiatives exactly as presented by said government, without "comment" - except praise and expressions of appreciation, of course, by the more respectable journalists.

You're so full of bile and bullshit, I'm not even sure this is worth pursuing. I outlined in previous posts how many larger news organizations go well beyond official sources for things like casualty figures. They also conduct polls in Iraq fairly frequently, and are actively engaged with speaking to people beyond the green zone. In other words, any journalist worth his salt does not go and sit at press conferences all day, and most of the journalists in Iraq are their organization's premier reporter. To contrast, you've done nothing but parrot the typical Leftist bullshit about the Media being propaganda and PR. In other words, this is all about you and your hatred of the Media because it doesn't accurately reflect your politics. The problem is that on this issue you're wrong about the Media, and it can be demonstrated how wrong you are by examining some of the methods the Media uses, which I have done. So you need to grow up, quit being so paranoid and recognize reality when it bops you in the head.zx

But you will deliver uninformed opinions of your own, carefully uncorrected by common sources of information about the reality you find unworthy of your attention - such as the notion that W's carrier deck theatrics were only made to look silly in retrospect, by a coincidence of unpredicted events months afterwards.

I really don't care about W's landing. It's in the past. The only people who still crow about it are people like you and Sam who want to nyah-nyah about the incident, as though we are all on the school yard. The only reason it came up is because Sam said something stupid (surprise) about the background and seemed to question why the event was covered. I think that's been addressed, so I see no point in continuing to analyze an event that has already been analyzed before. He did it. It was showmanship. It was stupid and it was wrong. But can we please move on to the issue at hand here: Whether the violence in Iraq is down and what that means. If you want to crow about Bush go and start a thread. I'm sure plenty of people will flock to join you in that enterprise.

If as you claim reporters have a free hand in Iraq, how does someone who did what Pollack did and presented it as on-the-ground independent reporting keep their status as a respectable journalist in your eyes ?

Pollack has always had my respect. As has been noted, his piece was accurate. The downturn in violence reflects this. And as usual, all you have on Pollack is your opinion and your anger. You cannot prove he was manipulated or failed to report what he saw. You can only whine that he didn't see or report what you think is going on over there. Unfortunately for you, a number of other sources (including the Democrats themselves) have since said what Pollack did. His piece isn't so controversial now, is it?

 

[countezero]

Another Times story

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/u...WAY&adxnnlx=1195930847-xrlMleXS/EfHPOXHzQDwig

 

[hypewaders]

I agree with that story's concluding remark, even if what preceded it was not about clarity, but political cover:

Let’s be clear: 40 dead American troops is 40 too many... Measuring progress through body counts is wrong. Sixty-five percent of Iraqis support killing American soldiers. There is no national political progress. None. It can only happen when we send a clear signal we are leaving.

This lull is everyone's chance to pay major media's obligatory lip-service to great expectations, but the cold reality is that the American Mandate in Iraq is already over.

 

[countezero]

Right. Pick and choose what you want to believe and disregard the rest...

 

[hypewaders]

I considered the entire article. What I quoted was the point within your link that addressed the most salient aspect of how the American project in Iraq is going, and what reasonable expectations are for a likely end to chaos and violence there. The keystone issue is whether the USA will be allowed by Iraqis to preside over a comprehensive solution to their chronic domestic problems.

So the prognosis in Iraq hinges entirely on what Iraqis think of the American nation-building enterprise there.

Sixty-five percent of Iraqis support killing American soldiers. There is no national political progress. None. It can only happen when we send a clear signal we are leaving.

The American mandate in Iraq is not, and was never illegitimate because of anything I think. It does not require ill-will against America, or American hegemony, to realize that the American Mandate in Iraq has fallen flat. It's an illegitimate mandate because Iraqis can't accept it. They never have, and it is quite reasonable for us to observe that they never will. To ignore this reality is not only denial, but also heartless political malpractice.

Had a superpower intervened in our own Civil War, Americans would never have accepted foreign hegemony. Yet American supremacists expect Iraqis to yield. With every lull, apologists for this reckless and failed experiment in Iraq wish to distract from the most decisive issue, and point to transient statistics- Anything to avoid dealing with the fact that American hegemony; moral supremacy; clout; the American Mandate have flopped because Iraqis never accepted it, in no small part because they were never offered a chance to.

"Pick and choose what you want to believe and disregard the rest..."

I'm not advancing what I want to believe here. I want to believe that we will all forgive each other and get back to normal lives. I want to believe that Iraqis will decide to coexist with themselves and the USA under a secular and democratic government. I want our troops to come with honor. I want to believe that more good times lie ahead for me (a white, blonde American) in the Middle East. But that's not what reality looks like from here forward.

It isn't hard to see why American authority in Iraq and the Mideast is precipitously breaking down. It isn't hard to see that we are looking at the brink of momentous change. It isn't hard to see that the transition to new leading power-brokers is going to be turbulent and tragic, and it is not likely that Iraqis, or many other people in the Mideast will be spared increased carnage.

As this experiment in Iraq is revealed as an ever-more-obvious American fuckup, there is more grasping at straws by those who do not wish to see. holocaust-deniers (small h) like you, countezero are not forthcoming with counterpoints. Instead, you impugn the motives of those who observe the tragic, precarious, and unsustainable state of present affairs in Iraq.

Let me be clear, since you persist in maligning my motives: I don't want any more people to die in Iraq. I don't want the international clout, and the economy of the USA to take a direct hit. I don't want more blowback to impact my life here in the USA, and I don't want for the blowback to impact my life in the Mideast. It is my desire to be a proud American wherever I go. It is ridiculous that I am forced to announce this, but the kind of slurs that are increasingly leveled for observing the obvious repeatedly force this tangential clarification.

 

[countezero]

Small "h" or not, I resent the holocaust deniers remark. It's bombastic language and totally unnecessary, though typical of you.

As for the rest of your post, I appreciate your sentiments, but sentiment is not what we're talking about here. You have continuously chosen to ignore reporting from the region that documents how the surge has decreased the violence. Everything else you say, not matter how warm and fuzzy, is irrelevant. You are part of the crowd who refuses to accept information that does not show what you think is happening in Iraq. Your methods (and theirs) are to attack the methodology of the reporting or to try to place it within a large enough context that other concerns you want to address can be included in the debate, because those tertiary points enable you to make more negative arguments that confirm your preordained viewpoint. This is a rhetorical stunt, nothing more. So, honestly, who is the person who is in denial here? My position changes based on whatever data is put before me. Yours does not.

PS - No one is "slurring" you, either. I do not believe in personal attacks (and questioning motives and bias is NOT the same thing). I am simply questioning your beliefs and holding you accountable for some of the arguments you put forward. In another thread, for example, you waxed philosophical about superior knowledge on certain issues, such as terrorism, then disappeared when I confronted you with direct evidence that disputed your unsubstantiated opinions. This is a pattern. You (and your friends) think your conclusions are sacrosanct and above reproach. People who don't agree with you are to be mocked at best, silenced at worst. To offer a crude quotation: "I don't play that way."

 

[hypewaders]

countezero:"Small "h" or not, I resent the holocaust deniers remark."

You are denying a holocaust that continues as a direct result of the obvious denial that you are a party to. All of the factors that precipitated and perpetuate this Iraqi holocaust remain in place. Denial on the basis of temporary statistical dips is still denial.

You have continuously chosen to ignore reporting from the region that documents how the surge has decreased the violence."

No, I have recognized a temporary lull in a situation where the over-arching political and military situation is deteriorating.

"everything else you say, not matter how warm and fuzzy, is irrelevant."

More denial.

You are part of the crowd who refuses to accept information that does not show what you think is happening in Iraq."

Look, the Iraqi government is a shambles, so is American clout there, while the militias are being armed up. That's not just what I think- that is what is happening.

"Your methods are to attack the methodology of the reporting or to try to place it within a large enough context that the story presented is dwarfed by other concerns you want to address because they enable you to make more negative arguments."

Recognizing a deteriorating situation does not equate with being negative. It is impossible to be constructive without looking at reality there, and the reality is threatening a crisis of political power and a bloody re-structuring in Mesopotamia that further threatens to spread into regional conflicts.

"This is a rhetorical stunt, nothing more."

No stunt. It's sober observation of a tragic situation that I'm not happy about.

"So, honestly, who is the person who is in denial?"

The one who is most consistently avoiding the exploration of the issues in detail, by repeatedly introducing ad-hominem diversions.

"No one is "slurring" you, either. I do not believe in personal attacks (and questioning motives and bias is NOT the same thing)."

Your repeated negative references to my motives have often forced me to explain them.

"In another thread, for example, you waxed philosophical about superior knowledge on certain issues, such as terrorism, then disappeared when I confronted you with direct evidence that disputed your unsubstantiated opinions."

Not at all- I just have a life beyond our conversations. Point the way to the thread where you feel I disappeared, and I'll see you there.

"People who don't agree with you are to be mocked at best, silenced at worst. "

I have no means nor desire of silencing you. A little mockery can be fun sometimes, but I'd rather stick to the topic here.

 

[countezero]

You are denying a holocaust that continues as a direct result of the obvious denial that you are a party to. All of the factors that precipitated and perpetuate this Iraqi holocaust remain in place. Denial on the basis of temporary statistical dips is still denial.

Holocaust is a specific term that carries powerful historical and political connotations with it. I think it's totally inappropriate to be applied to this situation, but if you want to use it, and in doing so look like an ass, then it's not for me to stop you. However, when you stretch the rhetoric to the point you're calling people "holocaust deniers" because they do not agree with you on Iraq, you've gone over the edge. What you said was stupid, inappropriate and intentionally tries to frame the debate in loaded terms. I won't have it, so take your rhetoric elsewhere.

No, I have recognized a temporary lull in a situation where the over-arching political and military situation is deteriorating.

You're forecasting then, which is fine. Any logical assessment of the present should attempt to predict future events so that one can attempt to establish a foundation for the best possible future possible. However, you've been denying the documented reductions in violence for days now. This is quite different than speculating about the future. You're patently ignoring, or obfuscating about current events.

Look, the Iraqi government is a shambles, so is American clout there, while the militias are being armed up. That's not just what I think- that is what is happening.

Some legitimate sources, beyond your brilliant opinion, would be appreciated then. But assuming you find some, as I am sure you can, the topic of this thread is clear: It's about violence being down. Not governments in shambles and appreciations of clout. Sticking to the topic is an admirable trait, one you should learn.

No stunt. It's sober observation of a tragic situation that I'm not happy about.

It's a stunt. You're intentionally ignoring the topic or widening it until it can fit into a box you've fashioned for it.

The one who is denying the issues with ad-hominem diversions.

You're the person lobbying clumsy grenades about "holocaust denial." Grow up...

 

[hypewaders]

countezero: "Holocaust is a specific term that carries powerful historical and political connotations with it. I think it's totally inappropriate to be applied to this situation, but if you want to use it, and in doing so look like an ass, then it's not for me to stop you. However, when you stretch the rhetoric to the point you're calling people "holocaust deniers" because they do not agree with you on Iraq, you've gone over the edge. What you said was stupid, inappropriate and intentionally tries to frame the debate in loaded terms."

I took pains to use the word holocaust in a generic sense:

hol·o·caust (plural hol·o·causts)
noun
Definition:
1. destruction of human life: wholesale or mass destruction, especially of human life

"I won't have it, so take your rhetoric elsewhere."

You're overdramatizing, as if to distract from the topic.

I have recognized a temporary lull in a situation where the over-arching political and military situation is deteriorating; conditions persist that are tragically conducive to the perpetuation, and not the cessation of this holocaust.

"You're forecasting then, which is fine."

That's not forecasting. It's an observation of the present, which I think you can see.

Any logical assessment of the present should attempt to predict future events so that one can attempt to establish a foundation for the best possible future possible."

If you say so...

"However, you've been denying the documented reductions in violence for days now."

I have not denied the lull. I have been helping you to put in into perspective.

"This is quite different than speculating about the future."

OK.

"You're patently ignoring, or obfuscating about current events."

What specifically have I ignored? Is the Iraqi government functional? Is American clout in Iraq gaining ground? Are the militias being disarmed? No, no, and no. Who's ignoring?

"Some legitimate sources, beyond your brilliant opinion, would be appreciated then."

Reuters
Oxford Analytica
Times Online
AFP
Toronto Star

"But assuming you find some, as I am sure you can, the topic of this thread is clear: It's about violence being down."

Agreed. It is also about the significance of violence being down.

"Not governments in shambles and appreciations of clout."

These are significant factors in the violence Iraqis face.

"Sticking to the topic is an admirable trait, one you should learn."

Teach on.

"You're intentionally ignoring the topic or widening it until it can fit into a box you've fashioned for it."

I'm not ignoring this topic. The "box" or thesis I often return to is that Pax Americana isn't taking in Iraq. It's a pertinent thesis, with abundant corroboration.

"You're the person lobbying clumsy grenades about "holocaust denial." Grow up..."

Iraq has been a holocaust since US intervention, and it isn't over yet.

 

[countezero]

I took pains to use the word holocaust in a generic sense.

I don't care what pains you took. We're in a political forum, in case you didn't know, and the word holocaust carries powerful political and historical meaning. At best case, if your intentions are honest, find a thesaurus and choose another word. Or if you insist on sticking with that word, which is your right, I propose you avoid tying to "denier." In other words, I can stomach the former, but not when it's attached to the latter. When you do that you come across as cheap rhetorician intentionally trying to titillate and provoke. If you don't care, then fine, keep calling people who don't agree with you "holocaust deniers." But I think it makes you look stupid and silly...

You're overdramatizing, as if to distract from the topic.

No, I'm not. I have made numerous posts in this thread that are on topic with numerous links to useful information. Unfortunately, I had to deal with your foolish choice of words. Words, I'm sure you will agree, are important. They are especially important when you're labeling people with epithets.

I have recognized a temporary lull in a situation where the over-arching political and military situation is deteriorating; conditions persist that are tragically conducive to the perpetuation, and not the cessation of this holocaust. ... That's not forecasting. It's an observation of the present, which I think you can see.

You're speaking about the present, then? That's fine. My mistake.

I have not denied the lull. I have been helping you to put in into perspective.

Your perspective, that is...

Regardless, your recollections of this thread are somewhat clouded. You initially did not recognize the downturn in violence, or at least you chaffed at reports from official news sources and proceeded to rant about Bush and the Neo-Cons. This is all back on page 7, in case you still can't remember. I wrote: "The US military says overall attacks in Iraq have fallen 55 percent since nearly 30,000 additional American troops arrived in Iraq by June, and some areas are experiencing their lowest levels of violence since summer 2005." Your reply was "more spin," or something to that effect. So yes, you have denied assertions about the reduction of violence, assertions you now seem to accept as evidence of a "lull." Did you change your mind or are you playing a game?

What specifically have I ignored? Is the Iraqi government functional? Is American clout in Iraq gaining ground? Are the militias being disarmed? No, no, and no. Who's ignoring?

I have said nothing about those three issues here, so I fail to see how you have reached a conclusion about my awareness of them.

I'm not ignoring this topic. The "box" or thesis I often return to is that Pax Americana isn't taking in Iraq. It's a pertinent thesis, with abundant corroboration.

I'd be prepared to grant that it's related, though it is not the subject of this thread. The problem is that many people like yourself refuse to accept the positive news of the surge's reduction in violence, then move from finally accepting it to putting it into your prefabricated box. Frankly, I'm tired of dealing with that, from both supporters and detractors.

Let's talk about your links.

- From Reuters we get a story from Feb. of 2007. That's slightly out of date.

- Your second link is hardly damning: It says, "Given the failure of Iraqi leaders to achieve reconciliation, the recent downward trend in violence may not prove durable. It is likely that attack levels will fluctuate in the future: the graph illustrates that past periods of relative calm in Iraq have been shattered by sudden spikes in bloodletting." That's a pretty even assessment, that commits to nothing and cautions against what may happen.

- Your London Times story is interesting, in that it seems to be written as the Left's answer to the Times and Post pieces I posted earlier. That's fine. Other perspectives are always worth looking at, so you have a winner here. But I must admit, it's tough to take the story that is narrative with a typical blood and guts English headline as a serious piece of objective journalism. Still, it is worth reading.

- The AFP story didn't blow my socks off (for starters, it's close to two months old). Here's the lede: "Twelve former US army captains Tuesday urged Washington to either abandon Iraq or dramatically increase its military presence there by reinstating mandatory military service." Wow 12 former captains! Stop the presses...

- The Star piece is a complicated and detailed assessment of American foreign policy. You either agree with it or you don't. It's not a news story.

 

[iceaura]

I outlined in previous posts how many larger news organizations go well beyond official sources for things like casualty figures.

No, you asserted - without evidence and as a matter of your opinion - that the journalists in Iraq were operating independently of the military or the US government, running around in Iraq wherever they wanted to go asking questions and investigating their stories on the ground. I find that opinion comically at odds with every single description of Iraqi journalism I have ever seen, from anyone. The rate of killing of journalists in Iraq is extraordinarily high, and even the locals that the US media depend on for their few glimpses into Iraqi street circumstances must conceal their identities and associations.

They also conduct polls in Iraq fairly frequently, and are actively engaged with speaking to people beyond the green zone. In other words, any journalist worth his salt does not go and sit at press conferences all day, and most of the journalists in Iraq are their organization's premier reporter.

The polls coming out of Iraq ahve been taken with unusual difficulty and uncertainty, and not by major US news organizations. McClatchy does well to even report on them with a pass at objectivity - most US news feeds have been even more badly misrepresenting them when they do bother. No premier reporter for any major US news organization that I know of has been spending much time "actively speaking to poeple beyond the Green Zone" - even through an interpretor of unknown situation - without an armed guard of US military in the immediate vicinity. Can you provide an example ?

Pollack has always had my respect. As has been noted, his piece was accurate

His piece was a dishonest conglomeration of misrepresentations from beginning to end, as has already been detailed for you - with quotes and factual comparisons - on this forum. Essentially nothing factual in it (and there wasn't much, proportionately) was accurate, not even the description of its authors as supplied by themselves.

But of course that was several weeks ago, and

I really don't care about W's landing. It's in the past.

The past is always boring and irrelevant to you, especially just after you've been getting it wrong again.

But can we please move on to the issue at hand here: Whether the violence in Iraq is down and what that means.

But that would require paying some attention to the circumstances surrounding the latest news reports of dropping violence - among those circumstances the established patterns of PR and BS (such as being heavily influenced by the propaganda needs of the US administration) in the news reporting coming out of Iraq, and the influence of the practical and physical difficulties behind all reporting from Iraq. But you deny that reality, and so discussion of the latest drop in violence and especially what it means is immediately an exercise in futility and fiction - we are to take all these reports of dropping violence at face value, including the parts in them that are not factual but instead interpretations - and even spins. End of discussion.

If, on the other hand, you do want to discuss whether violence is down in Iraq, and if it is what that means, a couple of possibilities for approach:

- - Is whatever fraction of the drop that is real due to the surge and the associated new tactics ? The coincidence in timing is notable - but other factors, such as arming the Sunni militia and al Sadr's moratorium on violence from his militia, are just as notably coincidental. There is also the factor of ethnic victory - we have just had a surge of ethnic separatione, ethnic cleansing, emigration of targetted demographics, and ghettoization among the Iraqis, and the success of that surge is also a possible explanation for the tapering of ethnic killings now.

- - Has the accounting of the drop covered the areas of Iraq in which new conflict had been growing recently - away from Baghdad ? We recall that not too long ago the Iraqi body count in Baghdad for the previous year had to be more than doubled, due to discovery of undercounting in the official reports. The areas outside of Baghdad are even less accessible to auditing of official reports. We also note that we have a hard time getting info on bombings and rocketings by the US - if the air war is stepped up, as was predicted for the surge, the drop in US footsoldier deaths and reported Iraqi casualties could not be automatically extrapolated into dramatically lower violence overall.

- - and as far as what it means, the impossibility of sustaining the surge figures large in the evaluation. If in truth the surge itself is solely responsible for restraining the violence, what about the aftermath of the de-surge - and the implications for the entire effort?

In this last, a wrinkle: we have had not only a surge, but a change of tactics. The ace in the hole for Americans in an occupation has in the past been the individual soldier - they seem to make friends, or at least mollify enemies, better than most. We haven't had that working for us so well in Iraq, but this latest surge's tactics may have partly corrected things. If the violence is down for that reason, that's a ray of hope for the aftermath of the desurge.

 

[chuuush]

I believe the gatherings on Iraq in Egypt and Turkey had a great role in the currect relevant calm in Iraq. Especially the fact that Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and all other neighbors of Iraq were on the same table with the U.S. One more fact is that the criticism of Iran's nuclear program is currently almost %70 lower than before. Do you think these are inter-related?

 

[countezero]

No, you asserted - without evidence and as a matter of your opinion - that the journalists in Iraq were operating independently of the military or the US government, running around in Iraq wherever they wanted to go asking questions and investigating their stories on the ground. ... I find that opinion comically at odds with every single description of Iraqi journalism I have ever seen, from anyone. The rate of killing of journalists in Iraq is extraordinarily high, and even the locals that the US media depend on for their few glimpses into Iraqi street circumstances must conceal their identities and associations.

I never said Iraq isn't dangerous for journalists. It very obviously is. What I was reacting to was the following: "No US media organization gathers information in Iraq independent of US government influence and management." Of course not. Whatever a person covers influences them, and if it involves a campaign stop or a war zone, the reporter is inevitably managed to some degree about where he can go and at what time.

However, you have also talked about planting stories and framing the vocabulary and seem to second the tired notion that the media is being stage-managed. (If that's the case, why all the negative reporting that has been coming from Iraq for years? Whoever is doing the managing is doing a poor job...) The US government does not and cannot control who journalists speak to. Perhaps I was a bit overzealous in stating reporters went wherever they want and spoke to whoever they want. A better statement would probably be, reporters go wherever they can safely go and speak to whoever they can while they are there. This set of circumstances, while not ideal, impacts the reports that emerge from the country, but it hardly tips them into the sort of PR or propaganda you allege, and I reiterate that I think such allegations are nothing more than your anti-Media mania manifesting itself again. You also choose to ignore the fact, as I have already argued, that media organizations are relying less and less on official sources for things like casulties, etc. and more on their own, independentally verified sources. So again, the "management" is not what you would have people believe.

The polls coming out of Iraq ahve been taken with unusual difficulty and uncertainty, and not by major US news organizations.

I believe several US media organizations have paired with pollsters to take stock of opinion in Iraq. I am not qualified enough to say how accurate they are. But I have read some.

No premier reporter for any major US news organization that I know of has been spending much time "actively speaking to poeple beyond the Green Zone" - even through an interpretor of unknown situation - without an armed guard of US military in the immediate vicinity. Can you provide an example ?

The fact armed guards are present, military or otherwise, does not skew the reporting. You also need to understand and accept the fact that the Media there is not all American, and that American Media can avail itself to Iraqi reports and endeavour to confirm them or find leads through local sources that operate more independentally. This is happening more and more.

His piece was a dishonest conglomeration of misrepresentations from beginning to end, as has already been detailed for you - with quotes and factual comparisons - on this forum.

You mean you gave your opinion of it. Pollack's main assertion, if I recall correctly, is that the surge has reduced the violence in the country. There is now numerous evidence from other sources that supports that conclusion.

The past is always boring and irrelevant to you, especially just after you've been getting it wrong again.

The past is interesting and relevant to me when it is applicable. And agreeing an event happened but disagreeing on its signifigance is not getting something "wrong," it's just a difference of opinion, pure and simple. What is both boring and tiring is your continuing inability to comprehend the notion that people can look at the same events as you and interpret them differently. This seems to be at the core of several of our more prominent disagreements, and frankly, it's continued reoccurance has sullied me on taking the time communicating with you. It's just not worth it. This is yet another example. In this case, Sam, as is typical, made a ridiculous claim that had absolutely noting to do with the topic of this conversation. I was foolish enough to respond. If you want to continue to crow about the event, go ahead. Just don't expect me to talk back.

the established patterns of PR and BS (such as being heavily influenced by the propaganda needs of the US administration) in the news reporting coming out of Iraq, and the influence of the practical and physical difficulties behind all reporting from Iraq.

The PR of the Bush administration? What world do you live on and what's the weather like there? The majority of the press coming out of Iraq for years has been negative, hence the incredibly low poll numbers of said administration.

 

[iceaura]

Pollack's main assertion, if I recall correctly, is that the surge has reduced the violence in the country.

Sigh.

Here's the article: http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2007/0730iraq_ohanlon.aspx

Not only is reduction of violence but one of many administration PR assertions in it, the context of its normal presentation in the media - all of the major media in the US - was completely dishonest and misleading. And every paragraph in it made explicit and implicit claims of reportage and observation that were false.

We are now supposed to believe that reduction of violence - just that - has been the goal all along. And that the "surge" - without looking too closely at exactly waht that means - is solely responsible for an apparent reduction of violence.

If the reduction in violence proves lasting, which is possible for any number of reasons (as whatever reduction is real has derived from any number of reasons), this administration PR version of events could well become the official history. But that is not from independent and resourceful reporting, from the accounts of journalists operating as unmanaged and objectively accurate reporters on the ground in Iraq.

The PR of the Bush administration? What world do you live on and what's the weather like there? The majority of the press coming out of Iraq for years has been negative, hence the incredibly low poll numbers of said administration.

And on your planet, propaganda never deals with the framing and reining of negative news.

Even the slickest PR campaign cannot create a different reality of an event in progress, in the US anyway. The war itself has generated essentially no good news; the W&Co PR spin on the bad news - including flat suppression - faithfully presented by all the major media with little regard for reality or honest reportage, has dominated the US news from Iraq.

This latest news is no more independently derived from the accounts of honest and objectively reporting journalists free of administration and military management than any other accounts of the war so far.