Article

2004-08-11 Iraq-Jordan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dan Darling 2004-08-11 12:10:43 AM|| || Front Page|| [11131 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Are we hesitating again?

Posted by virginian 2004-08-11 08:16|| 2004-08-11 08:16|| Front Page Top

#2 Nothing here to indicate it. Typically sparse direct information, just descriptive crap spun per the NYT agenda.

The second sentence is idiotic, since it is dealing with the rebels that will bring stability, not waffling. But, of course, this is the NYT and confusion, hand-wringing, indecision, failure is the message they wish to convey.

Then we have the only quote from the American military:
Still, American commanders insisted that they were ready to press ahead if Mr. Sadr fails to surrender. "All indications are that we are committed this time," said Lt. Col. Myles Miyamasu, who commands the First Battalion of the Fifth Cavalry Regiment, the Army unit that took over the fighting in the cemetery on Sunday, relieving units of the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit. "Thereâs a will to win this fight. There are a lot of people we donât want to let down, including ourselves."

That is fairly definitive - and I'll bet it's the weakest quote they had, so they went with it. Fuck the NYT assholes.

Posted by .com 2004-08-11 08:56|| 2004-08-11 08:56|| Front Page Top

#3 But American commanders, preparing new battle orders, appeared to have deferred for the time being any decision to mount full-scale assaults on the rebels, weighing the consequences for their wider aim of bringing stability to Iraq.

I see nothing wrong with this sentence. The commanders have several options, which include full scale assault,including on the mosque or continuing to use the cemetary as a kill zone, moving in quickly or allowing more time for civileans to depart, going in with more or fewer accompanying Iraqi forces, etc. All of these options have implications for the stability of Iraq, and its not necessarily obvious which ones are to be preferred to that end. None of the options imply not being committed, or not having a will to win. Ergo, the sentence does not contradict the quote.

Pardon if I seem nitpicky, dot com, but Ive followed John Burns since before the war, and IMHO hes one of the best American reporters in Iraq, he was one of the few who made it pretty clear pre-war how much American reporters in Baghdad were censored by the regime, he was one of the few who made clear how well we were doing militarily during the initial "quagmire" panic, etc. Im going to read him through the assumption that we he writes is reasonable, and doesnt represent a NYT line.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-08-11 09:27|| 2004-08-11 09:27|| Front Page Top

#4 John Burns on media corruption in Baghdad:

"Terror, totalitarian states, and their ways are nothing new to me, but I felt from the start that this was in a category by itself, with the possible exception in the present world of North Korea. I felt that that was the central truth that has to be told about this place. It was also the essential truth that was untold by the vast majority of correspondents here. Why? Because they judged that the only way they could keep themselves in play here was to pretend that it was okay.

There were correspondents who thought it appropriate to seek the approbation of the people who governed their lives. This was the ministry of information, and particularly the director of the ministry. By taking him out for long candlelit dinners, plying him with sweet cakes, plying him with mobile phones at $600 each for members of his family, and giving bribes of thousands of dollars. Senior members of the information ministry took hundreds of thousands of dollars of bribes from these television correspondents who then behaved as if they were in Belgium. They never mentioned the function of minders. Never mentioned terror. "

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-08-11 09:30|| 2004-08-11 09:30|| Front Page Top

#5 I repeat - the only attribution does not support the pull-back idea, just the opposite. If there is substance behind it, why no quote from the Mil Cmd spokesperson?

Personally, I would like them to simply report what IS going on, rather than speculate - and I assert that without corroboration from someone with a name and a position in the Mil Cmd, it is merely reporter blather, not substance.

Burns might be a fine reporter. He may be a great guy. You may have designs on his person. But this story is contradictory - no?

Posted by .com 2004-08-11 09:41|| 2004-08-11 09:41|| Front Page Top

#6 Posters -- ALL story postings should include the source outlet, whether EFL, the reporter's name (if not staff only) as well as the date / time - especially if it's a reg req'd site - and a login when req'd if not posted in full. Use BugMeNot if you need to - but be complete and help the RB users - one lookup by the poster saves hundreds by the users.

LH -- Here's an AP Breaking News link chock full of quotes - which fairly fly in the face of Burns' wishy-washy limp-dick assertions. It's not stopping, slowing down, calling a hudna or anything of the sort. Even though it's AP, it's actually a NEWS story, full of facts and backup quotes, not a blather piece. I subscribed to the NYT, on and off (since in and out of the US), for more than a decade. I don't want their style of news anymore because they've lost almost all credibility - same for the BBC thing about "Demand a broader view" - unspun that means we'll tell you what to think. Aunty can FOAD, too!

I guess it's just a matter of taste. You can divine the facts from their posts, if you're able, I'll go elsewhere for the facts... and decide for myself what they mean, heh. Mebbe you enjoy the challenge, lol! I've become too curmudgeonly for it, I guess.

Happy Motoring!

Posted by .com 2004-08-11 10:05|| 2004-08-11 10:05|| Front Page Top

#7 The AP story was filed at 8:48 AM EST, this morning. Burns story, to make the AM NYT, would have had to have been filed a good ten hours earlier. Some stories resolve themselves with time. And this story has been changing, and quickly - three days ago Allawi and US authorities were asserting that the violence might be rogue mahdi army fighters acting without Sadrs consent, and Allawi was inviting Sadr into the political process (apparently with US consent). Just yesterday someone here was claiming that the USMC was using the cemetary as a kill zone, to attrit the Sadr fighters, and was ragging on the NYT and Burns for missing that - good thing, since it turns out the USMC was moving THROUGH the cemetary as fast as they could.

Look, Burns aint Edward R. Murrow - hell, Edward R Murrow probably wasnt the legend "Edward R. Murrow" - and everyones free to follow the sources that work for them - but it bugs me when we dont seperate out the wheat from the chaff, the John Burns' from the Maureen Dowds'.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-08-11 10:30|| 2004-08-11 10:30|| Front Page Top

#8 Touche' - I certainly don't equate this piece with Dowdism, heh, that would be truly cruel! Dowdy is the stupidest US twit excuse for a reporter / writer I've ever read. And she's a featured NYT columnist. Nuff said? Lol!

I agree it's moving fast. What irks is that this operation has been ongoing for days and for Burns to imply, as he did quite clearly, that there was some lull with re-think going on, is dead wrong and running the story without corroboration was disingenuous. I'll shift the blame for such outright deceptive tactics to the editorial staff, if that helps! The piece is shit, however, from the POV of truth - and nothing assuages that fact. I just watched the Fox report and the ass-kicking proceeds apace.

No sweat, bro - you can read the NYT and pick 'n choose what makes sense (like I said - you may enjoy the challenge, heh) and I'll get my news elsewhere!

Posted by .com 2004-08-11 10:45|| 2004-08-11 10:45|| Front Page Top

#9 to get back on topic, it DOES seem like the decision has been made to finish Sadr off, and to do it as quickly as possible, while trying to avoid major damage to the shrine. Civilians evactuated, effort to surround the shrine. Cut them off from supplies - is there water available in the shrine? Then go in with light weapons, or maybe even just non lethals - gotta watch out, dont want a Waco where the tear gas gets set on fire. Sistani seems to have left to keep his hands clean of Sadrs fate. Im not sure about Jaafaris angle - he cant really think Iraqi forces can handle this alone - so is it a backhanded way of pressing for negotiations, or is just positioning himself for future political rivalry, not expecting to be taken seriously?

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-08-11 10:47|| 2004-08-11 10:47|| Front Page Top

#10 Yep. Fox just announced that the Marines have said the "final assault" on Najaf has just begun.

Tater Tots or popcorn?

Posted by .com 2004-08-11 11:00|| 2004-08-11 11:00|| Front Page Top

#11 I don't know, .com, Tater Tots with a nice rack of bbq PORK ribs sounds good...

Posted by jules 187 2004-08-11 11:04|| 2004-08-11 11:04|| Front Page Top

#12 Ooooohâ¦

Posted by B 2004-08-11 11:04|| 2004-08-11 11:04|| Front Page Top

#13 BTW - the Fox report wasn't just reporters - it was a Jarine Colonel (IIRC) who told the story himself and said we're ready, we have all the firepower we need, and this is it.

Good enough for me, heh.

Posted by .com 2004-08-11 11:17|| 2004-08-11 11:17|| Front Page Top

#14 fox today, on the web:

'It was unclear whether the assault would involve raiding Najaf's holiest site, the Imam Ali Shrine , which would infuriate Iraq's Shiite majority. The military said the insurgents are using the golden-domed shrine in Najaf's old city as a refuge and the governor has given U.S. forces permission to raid it.

Marine Major David Holohan, an executive officer of the 1st Battalion 4th Marines in Najaf, told FOX News that the American troops are taking their cue from the Iraqi forces, "who obviously know best what to do to defeat al-Sadr."
"We have enough firepower and training and equipment to deal with al-Sadr," Holohan continued. "There's really do doubt on our end ... as soon as we're given the signal to go" they'll strike.

Holohan said the people in Najaf have been supportive of the mission to root out the militia and actually have been "somewhat dismayed" that more hasn't been done sooner.

"The people in the town, they really want us to go forward," he said.

But Holohan clarified that it's al-Sadr's militia that's the target, not the cleric himself.
"We are going after the militia and the signal we're trying to give is, 'fight us and we'll destroy you,'" he said. "They're trained and they make us work a little harder to defeat them â¦ it's not light and it's not easy but they're not capable of defeating us," he added.'

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-08-11 12:21|| 2004-08-11 12:21|| Front Page Top

#15 btw USMC are not only Americans fighting in Najaf, also 1st Cav. Of course i know THAT from the nasty liberal WaPo.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=5&u=/washpost/20040811/ts_washpost/a53557_2004aug10

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-08-11 12:49|| 2004-08-11 12:49|| Front Page Top

#16 LH - Same from 50 other sources, lol - don't push it, Lefty!

Posted by .com 2004-08-11 12:52|| 2004-08-11 12:52|| Front Page Top

#17 Time out!

Earlier Wednesday, the Marines said they were training Iraqi security forces in preparation to launch a major assault to root out the fighters. But later, a Marine commander said the offensive was postponed. No timeframe was given. "Preparations to do the offensive are taking longer than initially anticipated," U.S. Marine Maj. David Holahan. "It doesn't matter now, they know we're coming."

Posted by tu3031 2004-08-11 13:01|| 2004-08-11 13:01|| Front Page Top

#18 yeah, but wapo actually managed to quote a 1st Cav officer

The people will tell you they want it to end," said Army Lt. Col. Myles Miyamasu, a battalion commander in the 1st Cavalry Division's 5th Regiment, which hurried from Baghdad on Thursday to reinforce the Marines. "They're ready for this to be over."

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-08-11 13:07|| 2004-08-11 13:07|| Front Page Top

#19 Marines? They don't need no stinkin' reinforcements.

Game over Tater Tot. I hope you are burning in hell by the end of the week.

Posted by AllahHateMe 2004-08-11 14:25|| 2004-08-11 14:25|| Front Page Top

#20 It sounds like the Marines are using Najaf as an Isolated Arena/Free Fire Zone. Inviting Tater and his local yokels to come in and get their asses waxed. Time and time again.

Eventually, I'd like to see a Jimmy Dean's Sausage factory springing up from the city's rubble.
Just to let them know that we care.

Posted by Jack Deth">Jack Deth 2004-08-11 18:28|| 2004-08-11 18:28|| Front Page Top

#21 They got the Marines AND the "First Team" (First Cav) in on 'em? God help 'em. They're ph00ked, they just dont know it yet.

Posted by Oldspook 2004-08-11 18:33|| 2004-08-11 18:33|| Front Page Top

10:01 jules 187
09:23 .com
08:42 Mr. Davis
08:14 .com
08:06 Mr. Davis
07:52 .com
07:35 Frendly Advice
01:16 ed
00:41 Super Hose
00:40 trailing wife
00:38 Phil Fraering
00:18 Seafarious
00:12 Zenster
00:01 NotMikeMoore
23:59 NotMikeMoore
23:28 Yank
23:21 trailing wife
23:21 True German Ally
23:17 True German Ally
23:13 Atomic Conspiracy
23:09 B
23:08 Korora
23:07 GreatestJeneration
23:06 Atomic Conspiracy