The media have rightfully reported some of the setbacks, sectarian fighting, American missteps, and other bad news from Iraq. It would be short-sighted for America and its policymakers to believe nothing but the administration’s rosy assessments. A critical and free press is one of our birth rights. But the media’s silence about the relative success of the surge and the miracle in Anbar is deafening. My brother was in Ramadi in 2004-2005 during the big Fallujah offensive. It was a tough time for him and his fellow Marines in a terrible place. Ramadi was widely regarded at that time as the most dangerous place in Iraq. Numerous Marines and soldiers were killed, both in Ramadi and in the surrounding areas in Anbar.
But a combination of good tactics and good luck have turned things around. Al Qaeda overplayed its hand and alienated the Sheiks. The Marines stuck to their forte of Counterinsurgency 101, reached out to locals, avoided excessive force, employed intensive patrols, and allowed Sunnis’ fear of Shias to persuade them that cooperating with Americans is their best bet in avoiding oppression by the Shia-led Iraqi government.
When 200 members of the 800-member 2nd Battalion, 5th Regiment extended their enlistments this year so they could accompany the Two-Five back to Iraq, it was significant. No infantry battalion has had as many Marines extend their tours as the Two-Five — Marines who were “short-timers” and could have ended their service with comfy stateside billets but chose instead to return to Iraq to help less-experienced Marines navigate the dangers.
As the Marines from Two-Five returned here early today, they had a new number to boast about: zero.
In seven months of patrolling the streets of Ramadi, once the most violent city in Anbar province, the 2nd Battalion, 5th Regiment had no Marines or sailors killed and only one injured. In its previous deployment, the battalion’s numbers were 15 killed and more than 200 wounded.
Whether this local respite from violence and apparent country-wide cooling down in ethnic tensions will lead to a long term settlement remains to be seen. Many of the relevant events and negotiations are out of the control of Americans and the military forces on the ground. Nonetheless, it surely is a good thing, a sign of progress, and a source of hope that violence is on the decline in what appeared to be the most hopeless part of Iraq. This will hopefully allow Americans to draw down our forces and focus on other threats.
It’s not that hard for the media to report good news and other positive developments, but the media is not fair-minded enough to do so. They’re not liars, per se; they are just very selective in their judgment of what is news-worthy, and this selectivity accords with the anti-war bromides these reporters inherited from the Vietnam era. These omission are indefensible and are hurting the war effort at the very time its successes may allow for an honorable and security-enhancing withdrawal. I am happy that my pessemism may have been over-stated in early 2007. I am more than willing to be happily proven wrong. But is the media and its liberal confederates in the Democratic Party?
17 Nov 2007 at 1:23 am
Wind back a bit, Chris. Were you originally a supporter of invading Iraq?
Bashing liberals is always nice, of course, but I’m interested in knowing if you’re main motivation is justifying the war itself, or just morally supporting the army, in general, and your brother, in particular.
17 Nov 2007 at 7:16 pm
I originally supported the war, but for realist reasons. I was disturbed by the manner of its prosecution and lack of troops. I was also disturbed by the apparent failure of Bush to learn from earlier mistakes and change strategies. I was deeply skeptical of Petraeus’ ability to turn things around at this stage and I was also skeptical of the modest numbers of troops in the surge. I am happy that things are going better and think this needs to be incorporated into the assessements of citizens and policy makers.
18 Nov 2007 at 4:25 pm
I originally supported the war, but for realist reasons.
Those being?
Throughout 2002 (starting with Bush’s Axis of evil speech, I came to recognise that a conflict with Iraq had already been decided on, and that WMD was to be the the pretext. One couldn’t even say the propaganda campaign was skillful or subtle.
Not that I blame Bush personally, though. He was just the patsy.
18 Nov 2007 at 9:45 pm
Jules, there is a little search function on the right side of the page. It’s easy enough to see what I said back in the day.
18 Nov 2007 at 11:20 pm
I hadn’t even noticed the search function or the archives, but I note that they apparently only go back as far as September 2003, which I’ll look at later. But I did separately, via Google, turn up this.
If I didn’t know better, I would have mistaken you for a neo-conservative.