Globe Spins Coalition's Successful Anti-Insurgent Attack as Proof of 'Daunting Challenge'

Photo of Mark Finkelstein.
  • Bookmark and Share

"Yesterday's fighting at Waterloo was extraordinary, highlighting the daunting challenge faced by the coalition of British and Prussian forces in fighting Napoleon."
That's how the Boston Globe might have spun the Battle of Waterloo, judging by the negative gloss the New York Times' Beantown subsidiary managed to put in on the major success of Iraqi-US coalition forces at Najaf yesterday. Coalition forces killed an estimated 250 insurgents who were planning to attack Shias, possibly including their supreme religious leader, the Ayatollah Sistani, who had gathered in the city south of Baghdad for a major religious holiday.

What made the success that much more encouraging was that while US forces provided support, it was the Iraqi military that took the lead. This is the best, latest evidence that the Iraqis are indeed standing up. It augurs well for the 'surge' operation in Baghdad, which also will rely on major Iraqi army involvement.

In its article in today's edition, rather than calling the enemy forces "insurgents" or "terrorists," the Globe variously referred to them as "fighters." "Sunni Arab nationalists", Saddam "loyalists," or "followers" of a Shia cult.

And yes, along the lines of that imaginary Waterloo dispatch, the Globe managed to spin the coalition victory into evidence of problems facing the Iraqi-US forces:
"Yesterday's fighting in Najaf and elsewhere was extraordinary, even by Iraq's bloody standards, highlighting the daunting challenge faced by US and Iraqi forces."

"Extraordinary"? Yes, in that coalition forces killed so many of the enemy in one engagement. "Bloody"? Yes, mainly for the insurgents and terrorists. But in the intransigent eyes of the Boston Globe, all that just goes to prove the problems we face.

Mark was in Iraq in November. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net

—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Rather than calling the enemy

Rather than calling the enemy forces "insurgents" or "terrorists," the Globe variously referred to them as "fighters." "Sunni Arab nationalists", Saddam "loyalists," or "followers" of a Shia cult.

Don't worry Mark. You think that's bad?

They'll be calling them "conservatives" this time tomorrow.

A "progressive" = a liberal = a socialist = a commie in drag =
laughably wrong about life, the universe and everything.

When will they protest agai

When will they protest against the 911 attaque or against Muslims extremists?

I challenge these so-called &

I challenge these so-called "peace-activists" to organize JUST ONE MAJOR D.C. PROTEST AGAINST AL QUEDA by the end of 2007...

TM - can't happen, protesting

TM - can't happen, protesting against one's team-mate is bad form, and the media coverage is even worse.

There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V

da globe

Hey Globe! This is not Viet Nam. This is not the Tet holiday. You are not Walter Cronkite, and we will not run. Back to the closet with you.

Probably at the Boston Globe:

Probably at the Boston Globe: Let's publish the U.S. military death toll daily so the children of America can sing along. By the way, what's the death toll of the terrorists? Anyone? Anyone?

What's good for America is bad for the democrats - Rush

press toll

There aren't any terrorists, just future liberals.           What is progressive about blind stupidity- Wally

Washington’s overstretched,

Washington’s overstretched, broken forces will face hail, freezing rain.

“What goode will come of pressing our fortunes against the Hessians?” asked one Congress Man. “Every day, I fear this conflict is becoming more and more like the French and Indian War.”

No wonder the libs are confus

No wonder the libs are confused about who we're really fighting in Iraq, when the MSM won't call them what they are...terrorists. Of course, they have no problem calling Republicans and GWB terrorists.

"Today we did what we had to do. They counted on America to be passive. They counted wrong."    - Ronald Reagan

Winning

You mean the surge is actually working? God forbid! Come on MSM, pull out the "I love losing" file and use it to help the terrorists regain the offensive.

NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal

What I find telling is that t

What I find telling is that this is one of the few times that the MSM has mentioned enemy causualties!  The MSM wastes not a second announcing when one of our folks gets killed, but there's been a determined effort to not publicize enemy casualties, and I think this leads to a false belief that our folks are getting killed for "nothing" because it seems like they're not inflicting any damage on the enemy.

Slightly off topic but here i

Slightly off topic but here is a must read:

False claims undermining U.S. troops

A joint statement issued by Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), on the evening of President Bush’s State of the Union address, says, “The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of Americans, MILITARY LEADERS, and a bipartisan coalition in Congress oppose the President's plan to escalate the war.”

But in the comments by both Webb and the Nan-Harry tagteam, a definite “majority” is both flat wrong and a dangerous attempt to sway the thinking – thus undermine the morale – of our combat forces in the field.

How can anyone honestly say they support the troops when they make false claims that a majority of both military leaders and the rank-and-file no longer support what their organization is doing, particularly when the majority does?

Testifying before the House Armed Services Committee on Thursday, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James T. Conway said, “Though the troops in the operating forces are being pushed hard by the operational tempo and the frequency of deployments, morale has never been higher, because they believe they are making a difference.”

Gen. Conway’s comments may be proven-out by the numbers of his Marines who voluntarily remain in service when they have the opportunity to leave.

As I stated in my latest piece at National Review Online, “Marines have far-exceeded all retention {reenlistment] goals for the past six years, and have already achieved 82 percent of their goal for Fiscal Year 07, and there are eight more months remaining in FY07.”

For FY06, Marines who were eligible for reenlistment for the first time (having just completed one hitch in the Corps) re-upped at 102 percent of the Corps’ goal. Older, more-seasoned, career Marines – those who have reenlisted previously – re-upped at 114 percent of the Corps’ goal.

Army retention figures are also high: And like the Marines, those goals have been met and exceeded since before September 11, 2001 with the highest percentages of reenlistments being recorded annually since the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Fact is, the majority of the combatants on the ground in Iraq believe in the mission and the overall direction of that mission. They want the mission to succeed. They believe it will. They are sacrificing and re-sacrificing. They are willing to see the war through to completion. And to suggest that those combatants are so brainwashed and loyal that they would remain aboard a sinking ship – as some of my Dem friends like to suggest – is both condescending and baseless.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WThomasSmithJr/2007/01/29/false_claims_undermining_us_troops

Slow down PJ - don't confuse

Slow down PJ - don't confuse people with facts, especially the demolibs, facts just get in the way of their agenda.

There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V

What are the MSM going to to

What are the MSM going to to when the situation stabilizes, the Republic of Iraq emerges, and a foothold for freedom and democracy is reasonably well established in that region, and the bulk of our troops can come home? 

This is not only an example of media bias, it's an example of media complicity with the enemy, i.e. treason.  The Administration should call them on it, loudly!

If the insurgents start getti

If the insurgents start getting their butts kicked by the surge you can bet somebody from the MSM will leak military strategy secrets in an effort to give insurgents a victory.  MSM will do anything to avoid being proven a biased liar.  And they'll claim they were just reporting the news when they get caught.

Which is why we need to start

Which is why we need to start charging a few of them with treason, sedition, aiding and abetting the enemy...etc.  One little capital trial for treason could clean alot of this stuff up.

Of course they'll complain about their rights being violated, but so what?  Let them kick and scream like a naughty kid being taken to the woodshed, it's high time the Bush administration got as tough on the media as they have tried to be on the terrorists.

matt...AMEN!

matt...

AMEN!

Matt, with due respect, I f

Matt, with due respect, I find your comments way over the top. The way to combat the arguments of the MSM is by doing what we do here. Fight speech with speech. For you to suggest the Bush administration get "tough on the media" by subjecting them to capital punishment is absurd. "So what" if they complain about their rights being violated? So a lot! What kind of country do you want? If rights are meaningless to you, what is to protect you when at some point the other party takes power?

I would strongly encourage you to reflect on your essential principles and to avoid these kind of inflammatory comments.

Mark F...Im sorry guy, but wh

Mark F...Im sorry guy, but when you have the NYT's printing classified documents on classified programs, would you not call that treason? Meeting with the enemy to get an interview, and not revealing the location to those whom the enemy is killing? Is that not aiding? There are some lines that should not be crossed. I cant call a gay a f***t with out being drug into court, but journalists can reveal secrets of national security?? Whats wrong with this picture?

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

I agree that disclosing nat

I agree that disclosing national security programs is very serious. But  words have meaning.   Matt called for us to treat the MSM like we treat the terrorists.  He clearly was alluding to the idea of killing MSM members since he called for them to be brought up for "capital" crimes, which by definition are punishable by death.

In any case, is that what Matt was referencing? This column regarded the Globe looking on the gloomy side in reporting a success in Iraq. Can that be a capital offense in anyone's book?

Mark...To some degree I have

Mark...

To some degree I have to side with bassndude. Maybe the Globe column is not an example, but there have been others that come close to aiding and abetting the enemy in a time of war. Would you give all media outlets a pass for doing this?

CT: I give the MSM a free p

CT: I give the MSM a free pass for nothing. As you know, I hold the MSM accountable here every day. But recklessly suggesting of putting members of the MSM to death debases the conversation.

Mark...Yes I understand what

Mark...

Yes I understand what you do, and I really appreciate what you do. However, if a member of the MSM is found guilty of treason, one of the penalties is death.

I don't think anyone here is throwing out a large blanket of wishful death over the media, just those that cross the lines of treason. Not having a legal background I cannot state different levels of treason, but the basic principle I understand. If someone is found guilty of working for the advancement of the enemy, they should stand a good chance of being hung, or by whatever means of dispatch is used for this crime.

Mark, Ok, I can understand an

Mark, Ok, I can understand and agree with it in context with this article. But it seemed to me you were against any of the MSM types being charged with treason for anything they wrote. That was my only objection. There are times they should go to prison for the things that they reveal. If you are confining your commit to this article, all is good.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

It would be fair in the least

It would be fair in the least to charge them with espionage.

FIfteen years ago Janes Defense Weekly paid a source for access to a classified document in order to publish a "Breaking Story" before the other trade publications got the information.

To my memory the source of the classified document was tried and convicted, but Janes faced no ill effects.  This is unsatisfactory in todays world where open source information holds significant sway on the battlefield.

Mark is correct.  Fight lies

Mark is correct.  Fight lies with truth I always say (or at least I said just now).  If I wait for it to come up in conversation ,and then point out the many lies from a particular media, people are open to hear what I have say.  That in turn prompts them to ask where I get this info on the lies being told in MSM.  I usually share a few of the most blatent lies to get their interest going and things grow from there.  Even my mom and dad, who are in love with the today show, can hardly believe what they hear now that her mind has been opened.

Who says you can't teach old dogs new tricks?

"So what" if they

"So what" if they complain about their rights being violated? So a lot! What kind of country do you want? If rights are meaningless to you, what is to protect you when at some point the other party takes power?"

Maybe he means that just because they scream that their rights are being violated doesn't mean they actually are being violated. There is nothing wrong with prosecuting someone who has violated the law, even if they scream about some phony rights violations. Being a member of the press doesn't put them above the law.

"He clearly was alluding to the idea of killing MSM members since he called for them to be brought up for "capital" crimes, which by definition are punishable by death."

Isn't treason punishable by death?

Now, prosecuting them just because you don't like them is a diferent issue, but I'm not sure that's what Matt was advocating.

Liberalism is the philosophy of the stupid.

ckc...You wrote: "Maybe

ckc...

You wrote: "Maybe he means that just because they scream that their rights are being violated doesn't mean they actually are being violated. There is nothing wrong with prosecuting someone who has violated the law, even if they scream about some phony rights violations. Being a member of the press doesn't put them above the law."

I thought the same thing when I read this part. Maybe Mark is taking it too literally?

They will get blamed for bein

They will get blamed for being too capitalistic, contibute to GW, use too many foreign workers.

There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V

Gee, Mark, another 250 + 1 Saddam. We'd better get to work.

Gee, Mark, another 250 + 1 Saddam.  We'd better get to work.

Creating more Terrorists, that is.  For who knows?  They just might run out of 'freedom fighters'.

ACA

...

Acaiguana says:  "I love blind Monkeys and any inference that I am making fun of blind Monkeys would be wrong.

ACA...The truth is...once the

ACA...

The truth is...once they have killed all the 'freedom fighters' they will finally have freedom.