Besides a complete withdrawal of American troops, what would have to occur for the media to think the war in Iraq is over?
Such seems an important question as hostilities in the embattled nation continue to decline, as do American casualties.
In fact, on Tuesday, a former Reagan administration official named Bing West wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal with the compelling headline "The War in Iraq Is Over. What Next?" (emphasis added throughout):
Story Continues Below Ad ↓The war I witnessed for more than five years in Iraq is over. In July, there were five American fatalities in Iraq, the lowest since the war began in March 2003. In Mosul recently, I chatted with shopkeepers on the same corner where last January a Humvee was blown apart in front of me. In the Baghdad district of Ghazilia -- where last January snipers controlled streets awash in human waste -- I saw clean streets and soccer games. In Basra, the local British colonel was dining at a restaurant in the center of the bustling city.
For the first time in 15 trips across the country, I didn't hear one shot or a single blast from a roadside bomb. In Anbar Province, scene of the fiercest fighting during the war, the tribal sheiks insisted to Barack Obama on his recent visit that the U.S. Marines had to stay because they were the most trusted force. [...]
Americans should praise rather than slight our military's achievements. Civil war has been averted. The Iraqi army has thrown the militia out of the port of Um Qasar, thus ensuring stable oil exports. Al Qaeda fought to make Iraq its base in the Arab Middle East. Instead, it is being hunted down.
With this in mind, an honest media not vested in defeat in order to make presumptive Democrat presidential nominee Barack Obama look good should be regularly addressing the following:
Yet the progress in Iraq is most threatened by a political promise in the U.S. to remove all American combat brigades, against the advice of our military commanders. Iraqi volunteers working for a nonsectarian political party in Baghdad asked me, "Is America giving up its goals?" It's an unsettling question.
With victory in sight, why would we quit? [...]
The success of our military should not be begrudged to gain transitory political advantage.
Indeed. But isn't that exactly what anti-war media members are doing if they don't regularly point out to readers and viewers just how foolish Obama's withdrawal plans are at this point in history?
In fact, shouldn't press members be cheering America's success rather than advocating someone in the corner throw in the towel just as the referee is about to declare a knockout?
Or will victory only be signaled if Obama is in the White House much like the media suddenly realized the economy was growing shortly after Clinton was inaugurated even though the recession had actually ended almost two years earlier?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Even if there were only American street sweepers left
August 12, 2008 - 09:57 ET by JTPin Iraq when Obama is coronated the pee stream media will not admit the war is over until O'Bambi declares it to be over. Then He will be the Savior that they touted him to be.
"I need more cowbell!" SNL
Following the Edwards Template
August 12, 2008 - 10:21 ET by 10ksnookerGood analysis.
If there was any possible lingering doubt the drive by media is engaged in partisan lies, Edwards dispelled it in one story. The Dan Rather saga showed the lengths the drive by media will go to in fabricating stories. The media is no longer to be trusted about anything touching political -- for instance, the AGW hoax.
Yes the war is over, we won, long ago. That does not mean we can leave. That does not mean no more USA troops will die, unfortunately. Like with most wars, you have to stay long after the fighting has stopped, in order to hold the ground. Japan and Germany are the templates.
Interactive participant forums, like Newsbusters will rule in the future. The wisdom of the crowd rules the landscape.
"The success of our
August 12, 2008 - 11:02 ET by TruthMonger"The success of our military should not be begrudged to gain transitory political advantage."
under penalty of death
it is the law
which I know we follow less and less these days
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
Wouldn't there be some kind
August 12, 2008 - 10:05 ET by balboaWouldn't there be some kind of announcement by the military if they thought the war was over?
I believe there was.
August 12, 2008 - 10:18 ET by JWFThere is a picture with the article. The war ended with Bush's anouncement.
The insurrection/occupation/pacification of Iraq is finally reaching a stable stage.
That will be official when the insurgents/al queda/mookies boys finally admit we won. Don't hold your breath waiting for them to admit they lost though. They will just melt into the woodwork or find the rock from which they crawled out from under.
Yes
August 12, 2008 - 10:27 ET by 10ksnookerIt took over five years after Germany surrendered before most of Nazi the remnants finally gave up. They never admitted we won, they just went away for a variety of reasons.
When Bush announced "Major Combat Operations" had ended, that was the military saying the "war" was over. The al Qaeda terror in Iraq didn't end, the drive by media was just able to equate combat deaths with the war not ending.
Why? The last time they did it all they got was ridicule.
August 12, 2008 - 10:20 ET by c5thenRemember the "Mission Accomplished" banner on the aircraft carrier? The regime was gone, major combat was over and the bulk of the non-ground troops were being re-assigned. That was 'Mission Accomplished' by definition, but the liberals and the media did nothiong but ridicule that atatement and continue to point out that troops were getting killed. Well, yeah. We lost thousands of troops in Germany up through 1948. But no one can argue that with the fall of Berlin in 1945, the mission was accomplished.
Are you saying that you can't look at Baghdad and Iraq today and see that we have succeeded?
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Wait, you're saying the
August 12, 2008 - 10:31 ET by balboaWait, you're saying the Mission Accomplished banner actually was talking about the war being over? Then how come people have been saying "We're at war" all these years?
I know we're succeeding in Iraq, in spite of our crappy planning.
"we're at war" currently
August 12, 2008 - 10:58 ET by TruthMonger"we're at war" currently refers to the WOT
the banner was just for that ship's mission
when Hussein was caught Iraq was liberated - accomplishing the primary objective of "Operation Iraqi Freedom"
at that point the war in Iraq was over in my opinion
after that it's been the business of cleanup
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
Those 'people' don't know what war is.
August 12, 2008 - 11:25 ET by c5thenEverytime US troops are used and put in harms way, does not a war make. The "War" has been over for years. It's the cleanup and installation of a new government that is really messy.
And yes. At the time the banner said "mission accomplished" the iraq war was over and the messy clean-up bagan.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Defining Victory and the end of a War
August 12, 2008 - 12:53 ET by CobraMan"Then how come people have been saying "We're at war" all these years?"
That's what they believe since we still have troops stationed in Iraq who face enemy fire and are killed or injured. But that doesn't mean that we haven‘t achieved victory. It just means that people believe that the war continues. This is because it is very difficult to define an actual victory and to be able to say say that a war is "over" when our troops still face hostile fire.
Ask yourself this: Did the first war, Persian Gulf circa 1991, ever really end? After all, we enforced a no-fly zone during the Clinton administration and Saddam kept shooting at our planes during that time, remember? Yet, despite this continued hostility, the press and everyone else believed that the war was over when Saddam surrendered the battlefield to our forces. We even held parades! Yet Saddam STILL continued his hostile, aggressive military actions against us and others LONG after we said that war was "over." So, you tell me, was that war ever really over? The same thing with North Korea, is that war REALLY over? After all, the North Vietnamese troop likes to take pot-shots at our forces across the DMZ quite often.
My point is that it is sometimes difficult to decide when a war is really over. Each conflict is unique, so each "victory" must be uniquely defined. If you're trying to pick the time to define when a war is over, I'd pick the time that the government we were warring against ether surrenders, agrees to an armistice, or is completely obliterate. Every military operation after that is ether enforcement of an armistice or a civilian support effort. Sometimes that support effort encounters an insurgency and we need to use the troops in a defensive measure in order to keep that rebuilding effort going and eventually reach fulfillment, just like happened in Iraq. Personally, I would classify this as a SECOND war, and we seem to be winning that one as well.
Not the Army's place Bal
August 12, 2008 - 10:36 ET by HumblepieAll battlefield commanders relay any/all information to their superiors, and so on. Once it arrives at the JCS (Joint Chief's of Staff), the chairman then relays that information to the Commander In Chief, George W. Bush. It is up to the president to announce it, not the military. After all, we serve and represent our country on the field of battle at his request, not ours.
You didn't get the memo? Must be watching to much MSNBS.
During this time with political correctness at its zenith, I reserve the right to let you know you're an idiot.
Sorry, I meant an
August 12, 2008 - 11:06 ET by balboaSorry, I meant an announcement from the president, after conferring with the military, etc.
And the only memo I got was about the new cover sheet for the TP reports.
no bal, don't you remember
August 12, 2008 - 12:11 ET by larry on LIthe msm thinks the general betrayed us.
We here at NB saw this months ago.
August 12, 2008 - 10:12 ET by JWFThere are 2 armies in Iraq. The worlds best trained, best equipped, most experienced, bar none, topnotch army and the army they trained.
You would have to be brain dead to go up against that and think you can survive.
What say you, mookie?
Concerning Operation
August 12, 2008 - 10:28 ET by ConservativeRexConcerning Operation Iraqi Freedom. I have flown American Airlines for the last time. They are now charging our soldiers extra for their duffel bags as they fly American to catch their flights over to Iraq!
American Airlines says they are just charging the military, but the soldiers have to come off the hip for the extra money to fly. Most of the time soldiers don't have that kind of extra cash in their households, and then there's all the extra time and paperwork to get reimbursed by the Army when there are other things to think about, like protecting themselves, their family and their buddies. This is just pitiful. I'll fly any thing but AA, and I fly quite often. Besides, AirTran goes just about anywhere I need to go.
Pathetic
August 12, 2008 - 10:48 ET by nofateCR: can you give us some background, links, etc.? This should get some legs. Are any other alternative bloggers/news sources working this? Has NB covered it and I missed it?
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
nofate, It is in todays
August 12, 2008 - 11:19 ET by ConservativeRexnofate, It is in todays issue of the Washington Times, I read it on the Drudgereport just before posting it here.
Link
August 12, 2008 - 11:39 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsHere's a link.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Fox News is covering this
August 12, 2008 - 11:43 ET by ThisnThatFox News is covering this right now. This will have legs, believe me, and AA will be forced to stop this and offer an apology.
What were they thinking in the first place? Is Obama running that airline?
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
the a/a issue
August 12, 2008 - 12:17 ET by larry on LIwas on fox @ 12 oclock, what dirt bags, but the real culprit is the d.o.d for letting this happen
CR, here is a link to Anti-American Airlines.
August 12, 2008 - 12:09 ET by R D HelmCR, here is a link to Anti-American Airlines.
Just in case any of you would like to give them a piece of your mind. :-)
-Dave.
We are not going to save this country by being polite to those who are working tirelessly (and succeeding right handily) at destroying it.
I just emailed AA customer relations,
August 12, 2008 - 14:02 ET by IamTinmanAnd sent the following:
Your practice of charging military personell for baggage being carried with them to combat zones is a slap in the face to all those who have served their country. You could just as easily made arrangements with the pentagon to get reimbursed or just written it off as a patriotic gesture. You have embarrassed yourselves and the country for a few dollars and will get no more of those dollars you are so hungry for from my family or me.
Text of the email I sent Not-so-American Airlines:
August 12, 2008 - 14:54 ET by R D HelmDear Sir or Madam:
It has come to my attention that AA is charging the brave men and women currently serving in our armed-forces exorbitant fees for transporting their luggage.
Given the fact that these people have volunteered to put themselves in harm's way in response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11, attacks in which two of the four aircraft involved were owned by your company, I find your company's actions as they relate to our soldiers unconscionable.
I would suggest that AA rescind this idiocy forthwith, or prepare to suffer the affects of what is certainly going to be a public-relations nightmare.
I would further suggest that AA apologize profusely to the soldiers whom you have treated so shabbily, and that every effort be made to see that each and everyone of them be offered to have the hideous fees you charged them refunded immediately.
Should AA fail to do this, I will never again allow myself to be seated on one of your airliners, and will urge that all of my friends and family members do likewise.
Sincerely,
>>>BTW, it took a lot of restraint to write the above. :-)
-Dave.
We are not going to save this country by being polite to those who are working tirelessly (and succeeding right handily) at destroying it.
American Airlines would be
August 12, 2008 - 16:15 ET by JasonCAmerican Airlines would be extremely wise to immediately figure out a way to bill the DoD directly and bypass the charge going to the individual soldiers. It couldn't possibly be that difficult and will at least take the edge off of what will inevitably be, at this point, a veritable shitstorm of bad publicity.
However, before anti-anti-military hysteria hits a fever pitch, let us recall that we are discussing a private business, and one which is part of a vital, high-demand, yet somehow spectacularly-failing industry. AA is not responsible for these soldiers, the federal government is; and that is who should be paying up, just as any employee who flies on the clock gets reimbursed by his or her company. So, as I said above, this is not an issue of the fee's existence, but of how it is collected. If a soldier fills out the compensation form, they will be compensated; from what I've read there have not been any problems with reimbursement. This fee-for-extra-baggage story has been raising eyebrows for months now, and I see no problem with it being applied equally to all fliers regardless of where they are going and what they are doing.
Castigating AA for this practice is (and I am fully prepared to be flamed for this), to me, on par with the liberal reaction to pharmacies that refuse to stock contraceptives, as reported in a NB story yesterday. If you choose not to patronize AA anymore because of this, fine. But making outlandish accusations concerning the corporation's moral turpitude, based simply on this story, is ideologically manipulative; and a touch hypocritical. This is only the latest of many recent incidents (such as conservative support for the FCC and its right to define decency and fine those who do not conform to it) in which conservatives, who so often trumpet the righteousness of laissez-faire capitalism, turn their backs on it when the vicissitudes of the free market turn out to be in conflict with some other conservative value or cause.
"Issue-driven politics in red-and-blue America is like a man whose
appetite for steak is greatly enhanced by his contempt for vegetarians."
You are right AA should
August 12, 2008 - 16:25 ET by Dan The Man 2You are right AA should bill teh USA for any extra bags, however, in teh meantime they should also eat any costs. I seem to remember it was the USA who bailed the industry out with plenty of cash coutesy of the taxpayers. So the least teh airlines could do is eat teh costs until they could find out how to charge the government.
In my opinion it would be a small part of gratitude and show some fealty to teh country and people who bailed them out.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
As often happens, people read the words,
August 12, 2008 - 16:51 ET by IamTinmanbut totally miss the message.
Mostly because of the gracious way the airlines treated me when I was in the military, I was appalled when I found that they were now charging the soldiers for baggage when they were heading for a combat zone. While AA isn't legally bound to change their policy, it would take very little to collect directly from the defense dept instead of forcing GIs who usually have very little money (check the enlisted pay scale) to begin with and have them go individually to get reimbursed. Or, not charge the troops and use it as a public relations tool. I don't think AA is immoral, just stupid.
War is Over but will NBC say Civil War is over?
August 12, 2008 - 11:09 ET by pearlDoes this mean the Civil war is over also? Help me NBC.
Who are we at war against?
August 12, 2008 - 11:13 ET by pearlIraq is our ally. Please tell me who we are at war with?
That brings me to Afghanistan. Is that a war? Who are we at war against? Afghanistan is our ally. We are both fighting some terrorists from Pakistan.
you want the list of names
August 12, 2008 - 11:16 ET by TruthMongeryou want the list of names and addresses...?
we can fax it:)
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
This war was over
August 12, 2008 - 11:17 ET by kdizzydazeGiven the old definition of War, the U.S. kicked ass and took names within weeks. Unfortunately, the enemy is a bunch of cowards that have rationalized that hiding behind civilians and using women, children, the mentally and physically challenged and farm animals as suicide bombers is a suitable, nay - honorable, way to fight a war, in their minds.
Our military had to fight against this type of enemy and still maintain minimal civilian casualties and deaths - which they did - of course the MSM and some human rights groups will try to tell you differently (millions dead, etc. - what crap).
By the by, if the U.S. military had wanted to handle this thing like the Russians, they could've bombed it to kingdom come, installed a puppet leader that is beholden to the U.S. and pumped out billions of barrels of oil stamped "made in the USA" on the barrels. But we don't work that way.
One can only hope (and vote) that McCain, with all his weaknesses, wins in November because we are all in deep s*** if that pious, holier than thou, arrogant, pontificating and nonsencial "other guy" wins.
Two weeks after the National Enquirer
August 12, 2008 - 11:21 ET by poxomadeclares the war is over, true to form, the MSM will follow suit. This will be preceeded by John Edwards coming out to confess "the war is indeed over", and that he and the dems "have never ever loved the war".
Yes, Noel, the media should
August 12, 2008 - 13:40 ET by mattmYes, Noel, the media should cheer our success and inform the public on the danger of total withdrawl. Sadly, however, we are not dealing with legitimate journalists.
What we have in the MSM is a bunch of naive lefty propagandists with a Junior High mentality (no offense to you Jr. High-ers out there)...
No wonder people think media bias is more of a problem in politics than campaign spending is.
The war will never be over for liberals ...
August 12, 2008 - 13:51 ET by... until they can state unequivocally that America lost
The liberal media and their
August 13, 2008 - 00:15 ET by Rush FanThe liberal media and their Democrat partners have invested too much in defeat for “Bush’s War” and withdrawing as soon as possible regardless of conditions on the ground to quit now. Especially since their presumptive nominee, Barack Hussein Obama, has advocated the same. Hence, good news about Iraq means bad news for their candidate and the Democrats.
I’m constantly amazed how supposedly intelligent and knowledgeable liberals advocate immediate withdrawal from Iraq even when we are so close to success.
One example is Lawrence Korb, who the liberal media uses often to support immediate withdrawal. Korb served as Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration. He is now a Senior Fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress. In The Road to Kuwait - Iraq War advocates overstate the difficulties of withdrawal Korb argues that we should withdraw immediately from Iraq and station our troops nearby, such as Kuwait.
A few days ago C-SPAN carried a “Discussion on Iraq & Troop Withdrawal Strategy” with Korb and a Marine and Army Colonel who had served in Iraq.
The Colonels discussed a key reason for the failure in Iraq before General Petraeus took command, and why it was important to stay in Iraq until Iraq was stable and could defend themselves. Prior to Petraeus, our approach was to clear a city and leave the area. When Al-Qaeda would go back into that city, they would kill all those who had helped us.
When General Petraeus took command and we went back to that city again and stayed, it took sometimes a year or more before we regained the people’s trust. The Colonels stated that if we withdrew from Iraq before the country was stable, the killings of those who had helped us would occur again. If we had to go back into Iraq, it would take a long time to establish new contacts and trust.
Korb and other liberals who advocate immediate withdrawal never mention that important point.
Jack Keane, retired four-star general and former Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Army, spoke at an AEI conference, stating flatly that we are winning in Iraq and that the momentum is irreversible. Here are excerpts of that speech titled Iraq: Why We Are Winning
---------------------------------------------------------------
"There is no longer a media in this country. There is simply an established propaganda arm for the Democrat Party and any and all who relate to it in any way, elected and unelected." ~ Rush Limbaugh