Why Iraq? (3/4)

Second, what reaction do you have to the not-very-upbeat news coming of Iraq these days, such as the stories I link to above?

Casualties

Eugene Volokh posted an article by Max Boot suggests a bit of perspective. On average, we're losing one or two soldiers per day in Iraq. Compare that with 250 per day for the Civil War, and 300 per day for World War 2. I suggest that if we can achieve even one of the criteria listed in my response to question 3, it'll be worth it.

Americans seen as "Occupiers"

The poll question in which the coalition forces are seen as occupiers is followed by a question which shows that half the population wants them to stay, at least until a permanent government is elected. Other figures seem to indicate that Iraqis dislike the coalition forces, more than anything else, because they humiliated Iraq. In addition, the main reason given for wanting the coalition forces out is that all foreign forces are "occupiers" and all "occupiers" need to leave. All in all, the questions struck me as rather badly written, and there were a lot of points that seemed to be only halfway covered. There were areas where I'd have loved to ask a follow-up question.

Intelligence Report

First: It was three months old when published. Second, this was the same group that reported Iraq was swimming in Weapons of Mass Destruction. Third, it seems this report deliberately focuses on the worst case scenarios so policy makers can address them. hat tip: Command Post We also see reports like this, from people who are not only in Iraq, but actually don't spend their days in the hotels interviewing each other:

The US media is abuzz today with the news of an intelligence report that is very negative about the prospects for Iraq’s future. CNN’s website says, “[The] National Intelligence Estimate was sent to the White House in July with a classified warning predicting the best case for Iraq was ‘tenuous stability’ and the worst case was civil war.” That report, along with the car bombings and kidnappings in Baghdad in the past couple days are being portrayed in the media as more proof of absolute chaos and the intransigence of the insurgency. From where I sit, at the Operational Headquarters in Baghdad, that just isn’t the case. Let’s lay out some background, first about the “National Intelligence Estimate.” The most glaring issue with its relevance is the fact that it was delivered to the White House in July. That means that the information that was used to derive the intelligence was gathered in the Spring – in the immediate aftermath of the April battle for Fallujah, and other events. The report doesn’t cover what has happened in July or August, let alone September. [snip] ...We are realizing significant progress here – not propaganda progress, but real strides are being made. It’s terrible to see our national morale, and support for what we’re doing here, jeopardized by sensationalized stories hyped by media giants whose #1 priority is advertising income followed closely by their political agenda; getting the story straight falls much further down on their priority scale, as Dan Rather and CBS News have so aptly demonstrated in the last week.

The strong impression I get is that a great deal of good news is not making it into the mainstream press, and all available bad news is.

At best, it seems as if the press is beholden to the notion that "if it bleeds, it leads", and wants to publish/broadcast the stories that will draw the most eyeballs to the page/screen. At worst, it seems as if there are anti-Bush factions that want the war in Iraq to go badly so that Bush will be thrown out of office, and Anybody But Bush will be installed as President. Some of these factions appear to be media outlets.

Even those who concede that we're in this war until we achieve some degree of success are not terribly specific with respect to what they'd prefer we do instead of what we're doing now. I hear statements that the war should have been "fought differently" or "planned better" or "executed more competently".

I've remarked on the nature of these criticisms here.

Frankly, I see lots of reason to distrust the mainstream press. Accounts from people who have been in Iraq, and out where the action is, have accounts that sound like they're from a different continent. CBS "News", of course, has lost some credibility in the eyes of anyone with enough brain cells to form a synapse. AP (source of the "more than 90% of Iraqis see us as occupiers" poll) thought there was booing at the rally where Bush announced Clinton was in the hospital for a bypass, and wished him well.

Media bias has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt (though not, I keep noticing, beyond an unreasonable doubt). News outlets, run by editors and staffed by reporters that want Bush to lose are liable to succomb to the temptation to "enhance" the story.

Frankly, I want to run the bad news past people who have been in the field and see what they say about it.