It Takes A Nerve

It takes a nerve, having generally sidelined the horrific murder of Nicholas Berg with all its insights into the nature of radical Islam, in favour of Abu Ghraib abuse and Michael Moore's 'righteous' battle with censorship, to suddenly give Front Page prominence when a message is sent by a grieving father to those who opposed the invasion.

Similarly, it takes a nerve, having generally sidelined popular anti-establishment protests in Iran, to suddenly report on a demo when it opposes US policies in Iraq, regardless of whether the demonstration might have its origins not in a populist movement but in the establishment itself (there were more people arrested at last July's anti-Govt demos than tagged along to the one the BBC report today). It takes further nerve to end that report by saying 'Though critical of the Americans, Iran's clergy has stopped short of backing Mr Sadr.', when it's known that theocratic Iran has sheltered Al-Sadr and sent many 'pilgrims' to Karbala to coincidentially blend in with the melee of Al Sadr's revolt.

I have a couple of free news subscriptions, and I know what to expect from them: news alerts on particular lines and themes. We don't (generally) subscribe to the BBC, but we pay for it, and we know what to expect. If it were merely called anti-Bush's US news online, that might clear things up for those still in any doubt.

Being On-message at T.H. (Talking Hoarsely) means either analysing what the BBC are saying about the world, or highlighting what they don't say, or something about poetry (yes, scarce recently I know- but it's a question of priorites), or something else.

Anyway, I've found an excellent site for information about UNscam. Not only is it professional in approach, it's also clear in explanation, and wired into financial matters. It's Mineweb, and here are two excellent pieces not yet picked up even by the Instapundit: The UN's Vanishing Billions and The UN's War for Oil. I found them very helpful and will return to them again. I came to it via Friends of Saddam- well worth a regular look-see.

Stay Tuned Indeed: Lifson Lifts the lid on what may lie behind Bremer's UNscam equivocations.

BBC Bodycounting.

It's unusual to find that an opinion piece has been updated, so I was surprised by this Caroline Hawley piece on Fallujah. I slated the original, but in one way the update is worse:

Hawley says
'In parts of Falluja you could still smell death in the air. Many hundreds of Iraqis civilians are believed to have died during the course of the fighting. '

Many hundreds, eh? Civilians, eh?

Well then how come this from the LA Times via BlogIrish? :

'the Iraqi Health Ministry said at least 219 Iraqis had died in fighting in the area of Fallouja and nearby Ramadi between April 5 and April 22 [the point at which a ceasefire took hold]. The dead included 24 women and 28 children, it said. Nearly 700 people were injured, it said' (highlighting and brackets added. Further source here)

So, who 'believed' that 'many' hundreds of Iraqi 'civilians' had died in Fallujah? As in the first piece Hawley is as vague as she could be about the sources she has and the evidence she has been given. Everything is about her impressions, and these are presented in terms similar to matters of fact.

Meanwhile, on the web recently there's been a lot talked about the difficulties in estimating civilian deaths in Iraq. Josh Chavez says 'Unfortunately, in an ever faster media cycle, the press often takes numbers wherever it can get them, without bothering to inquire into the counters' agenda or even methodology. Fools and knaves come up with figures--be they advance predictions or ongoing "counts"--where responsible observers fear to tread, and the media, for lack of good numbers, cite the foolish or downright dishonest ones.'

This post at Iberian Notes is also interesting, discussing the ins and outs of bodycounting.

Generals and Generals.

What are journalists for? Are they there just to prop up the bar talking to likeminded 'sources' and to attend press conferences, or should they go and find out things?

One of the things about which we are largely ignorant is the nature of the Iraqi army prior to the invasion. Yes, we know about the numbers and the equipment, but we know little about what distinguished those close to Saddam from those who were retained because of their military competence.

Where, I wonder, did Retired Maj. Gen. Mohammed Abdul-Latif fit in? The Beeb has told us very little. Today he is leading the security force in Fallujah, and he has been saying some very encouraging sounding things to the Fallujan people.

This would seem a story set up beautifully to take its place in the BBC 'In Depth' section, but the last significant feature on Fallujah remains the dreadful and inaccurate opinion piece by Caroline Hawley (see above post).

Some of Abdul-Latif's words would be like nectar coming out of the British media at the moment:

Latif, speaking in Arabic to the sheiks, defended the Marines and the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

"They were brought here by the acts of one coward who was hunted out of a rathole - Saddam - who disgraced us all," Latif said. "Let us tell our children that these men (U.S. troops) came here to protect us.

"As President Bush said, they did not come here to occupy our land but to get rid of Saddam. We can help them leave by helping them do their job, or we can make them stay ten years and more by keeping fighting."

If these reflect Abdul-Latif's sincere views, then America has found a friend to help it out of its difficulties in the Sunni triangle. It would be a classic example of a successful liason between the US and Iraqis determined to put the trauma of Saddam behind them. And Saddam was a trauma to Iraq. And Iraqis are determined to build a better future. And the US was justified in every respect in launching its invasion against Saddam. And you will not hear about Abdul-Latif on the BBC until something difficult emerges for the coalition out of his juristiction. (BTW- more encouragement here)

Media War (best read alongside this post at Belmont Club)

Readers of this blog might realise how for over two weeks now I've been reporting BBC chatter about withdrawal and exit strategies from Iraq (I'm not sure yet if this chatter was reflects actual communications with an unfolding jihadi strategy, but I'm sure they're listening). Of course, idle talk (or 'foregrounding', as I prefer to call it) about 'exit strategies' was being used as far back as November last year, but now, apparently unbidden by events on the ground, the BBC has begun its morbid conversation with world and British opinion in earnest.

This despite the fact that we have (thank God) not seen a British death in Iraq for several months (and long may that continue).

But let's be clear: there is no justifiable reason for the BBC's double-spate of Iraqi-sceptic reporting. We have not yet seen the casualties they need to justify any sort of talk of crisis. That holds true for the US as well as the British, but for us it's even clearer.

It would be reassuring to think that since the BBC is obviously pushing its own 'anti' agenda it could be isolated and identified as a rogue institution, acting against our interests. Unfortunately, the BBC has rather close ties to the Foreign Office (the gang that took us round the UN houses last year, and also happen to fund the BBCWorld service directly), and political allies from the left and the TINO (Tory in name only) right. Furthermore, although it is the central institution of the UK media, it is by no means the only group that conceals its anti-Iraq war colours under a thin veil.

Since the BBC elicited or introduced the terminology of 'exit strategies' and 'withdrawal', many others have seen the sensational possibilities of that line of discussion. ITV have sought as ever to hold on to the respectable coat tails of the BBC while drawing on the tabloid-telly market. Among the newspapers, The Mirror we know about, but what about this piece of digging from The Glasgow Herald? The BBC's agenda quickly becomes the cause most reported by the wider press (and then such reporting is reciprocated -with the inscrutable words 'sources say'- and the big media echo chamber echos ever more tumultuously).

Due to the incestuous nature of media and politics in Britain- fostered by the 'insider' status of the BBC- it is frighteningly possible for a few ideologically motivated groupings to stir up a perfect media storm that will unseat or wound decisively any individual in Government (or outside) if the general conditions are right. There's no media group better positioned to set those conditions and stir up that storm than the BBC.

Taking the Mickey.

No, of course the BBC would not use this term as it is offensive to Irish people (apparently), but I feel they must be joking when they give a huge slice of free advertising to the eponymous slob of boring 'Bowling' odium.

As for the claim he makes of having filmed 'abuse' in Iraq (the BBC don't bother to quote mark this term), it appears to involve 'Soldiers... shown outdoors ridiculing a man covered in a blanket on the ground, calling him "Ali Baba".' 'Ali Baba', in case you're in any doubt, means 'thief'. This leads me to think I should begin deleting this post, before I am accused of 'crimes against humanity'. Come to think of it, it wasn't very nice of Moore to defame a significant minority group by calling them racially 'stupid', was it?

Update: Drudge lends the 'abuse' claim more colour- 'Movie shows video of U.S. soldiers laughing as they place hoods over Iraqi detainees, with one of them grabbing a prisoner's genitals through a blanket...'. Still trivial though when taken away from the Abu Graib fiasco.

Ideas are buzzing in my head this evening. I just watched the BBC Ten O'clock News, and on came Robin Cook (former Foreign Secretary and most substantial opponent of the war in Iraq in the Commons). Hearing him talk about the need for an exit strategy for British troops just brought to mind Paul Reynolds and a hyped-up report that ran recently saying that Powell and co have stated that if the new Iraqi government wanted us to leave we would (imagine the world reaction if we said we'd be there whether they wanted us or not).

Meanwhile there was talk of Tony Blair's future being in jeopardy.

In a word it's 'synchronicity'. It's the way the anti-war left, the BBC and doves from boths sides of the Atlantic synchronise their reporting and their statements to build the political pressure to get what they want. I think it's the speciality of the left, though not their preserve. It surely cannot be coincidence that this mantra of 'exit strategy' has gained traction just now. It's sickening when you think who the real beneficiaries of this flexing media-muscle are

There are some people on the right though who have an uncanny knack of picking the mood and dissecting it. Just as I hear Tony Blair's death rattle being practiced, Mark Steyn encapsulates this trend:

'In the last few days, the Mirror, a raucous Fleet Street tabloid, has published pictures of British troops urinating on Iraqi prisoners, and the Boston Globe, a somnolent New England broadsheet, has published pictures of American troops sexually abusing Iraqi women. In both cases, the pictures turned out to be fake. From a cursory glance at the details in the London snaps and the provenance of the Boston ones, it should have been obvious to editors at both papers that they were almost certainly false.

Yet they published them. Because they wanted them to be true. Because it would bring them a little closer to the head they really want to roll -- George W. Bush's.'

Yes, and if Tony Blair insists on standing with GWB- which the BBC only tonight described as infuriating to Blair's own party- he will find his neck expendable too. Synchronicity.

One final thought. I've heard it said that the only people to resign so far in incidents related to the WoT and Iraq are journalists like Gilligan, Dyke and Morgan, who have defended lies to get at Tony Blair over the war. Well, if they succeed in the ultimate aim they will be able to reap the dubious spoils that will attend an anti-WoT dispensation. And it's not as if they haven't already got lucrative substitutes for the positions they lost. That's the way today's media works: win, win.

The Blame Game.

'Should there be many civilian casualties, the Americans will not be the only ones to blame'.

That's the BBC's view of operations in Najaf. Yet another example of the moral equivalence that has marked their coverage of Iraq.

Here are some reasons why it's wrong:

A)There are good legal reasons for arresting Al-Sadr. Had he not been suspected of murdering opponents he would never have been wanted by the coalition.

b)It follows from this that his revolt has no justification, either legal or moral. More senior Shias asked him to be patient with the coalition and he refused.

c)His militia is not wanted by the people of Najaf- he has merely occupied a holy site to boost his profile and aid his defence.

D)He has not honoured agreements that might have defused the situation.

E)His men have been engaging in attacks on US troops that have partly been responsible for provoking a response.

F)The US soldiers did not choose a civilian centre to fight in, but have decided to engage with him there because he will engage with them nowhere else.

G)The US soldiers have no interest in, nor will they, engage the civilian population of Najaf in fighting.

I fail to see from these why the US should considered 'to blame' for civilian casualties in Najaf. Of course, if they are operationally careless or deliberately callous then on a case by case basis some US troops may be 'to blame', but we are not talking about morally equivalent groupings. Could it be that the journalist concerned brings with them an Al-Jazeera perspective?

I'll start with a complaint about the BBC. Well, what's new?

It really annoyed me that for several days the BBC website reported a vague claim that the further revelations of photos from Abu Graib were 'even worse' than the previous ones. This phrase was taken from the reactions of Senators who were given a private viewing of materials that in the light of Nick Berg's killing were to be (sort of) withheld from the public domain. You know, there are anti-war Senators out there, and even Democrats (shock), but the BBC reports the 'even worse' comment (unscrutinised) religiously among its headlines for days.

But what did the Senators mean by 'worse'? Well, I have heard no new revelations (we still have the naked prisoners, the leash, the masturbatory activities, the dogs, but no really fresh concrete images. These, of course, are more than we wanted). What I have heard is that 'Congress members, who viewed shocking new pictures of abuse in the Iraqi jail, said England appeared in a sicko video having sex in front of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and that she was snapped in graphic sex acts with other U.S. soldiers.'

And you know, I'm thinking that we in Britain used to make Carry-On films about things like this. And I'm wondering whether (hypothetically, as time's winged chariot hath taken many of the cast away and wrinkled others beyond repair) we could get away with Barbara Windsor as Lynndie England (phnaargh, phnaargh) and Sid James as Spc. Charles Graner (we could change his name to 'Boner').

But what I'm really thinking is that for days the BBC has been kidding its readers into imagining that the Abu Ghraib affair is worse than we've been told, and that means that instead of degeneracy (which we could have comfortably ignored) we've been visualising torture, and so have radical clerics in Basra and elsewhwere.

Chortling Hoarsely Notes that Piers Morgan has been sacked and that his paper says it has been the victim of a 'calculated and malicious hoax'. Hoarsely's only regret is that now Piers will probably get a golden goodbye handshake.

A Small Point, but one I think is both very important and indicative.

Whose side are we watching from when the BBC reports from Iraq (we know how they value their Al Jazeera contacts)?

Below I pointed out how Paul Reynolds' analysis showed little awareness of US military decisiveness in Iraq, and consequently said they were 'bowing to a new reality'.

This morning the BBC's headlines have made an interesting contrast with other news providers:

'Fierce Fighting Erupts in Najaf:

US forces clash with fighters loyal to Shia Cleric Moqtada al Sadr, as hundreds of inmates are freed from Abu Ghraib jail.'

Meanwhile Yahoo News reported (a Reuter's report):

'U.S. Tanks Thrust Into Iraq Cemetery at Holy City :

NAJAF, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. forces intensified their war against Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr on Friday, for the first time sending tanks into Najaf's vast cemetery to blast guerrilla positions among its tombs. '

The difference? Well, obviously, one sets a defensive tone, the other an offensive one. The former depicts an apparently unplanned 'eruption' of violence. The latter a miltary 'thrust' on the part of US forces. In the BBC's report (and caveat lector, this may change without warning or acknowledgement) it is not clear, as it is in the Reuters' one, that the Tank movements preceded and provoked the fighting. Naturally as they did so they were 'bowing to a new reality on the ground' in accordance with pundit Paul Reynolds' analysis.

This reminded me of Melanie Phillips' recent comments on media bias, which now seem just right:

'It cannot be said too often: in the war the west is being forced to fight against demented savagery and barbarism, its own media is manipulating public opinion by warping its coverage and distorting reality to bring about the defeat of its own side. It is, quite simply, nothing less than outright treachery.'

It's Paul Reynolds time again, and he's saying the same thing as last time. 'Iraq: Time For An Exit Strategy' obviously works on the principle that if he keeps on with the same line, one day he will be correct. I'd agree with him there- if you keep on saying 'exit strategy', 'exit strategy', 'exit strategy', sometime the great day will come and the US military will indeed execute an 'exit strategy' and leave Iraq.

Until then he might be whistling, and for a long time, the same boring tune (which hasn't bothered him so far).

As usual with Reynolds, his analysis is founded on fact. Like every good work of fiction it builds from reality a superstructure that's contrived and slightly fanciful. That's what I look for in a work of fiction, so I feel Reynolds (like many at the BBC) may have missed his vocation.

Reynolds begins, 'unless Iraq can be stabilised soon'... and you realise immediately you're supposed to assume Iraq is unstable, which would semi-understandable if you had any definition of 'stability' to work from. In Iraq the model and Iraq and Iraqi's, not to mention Healing Iraq (slightly more sombre), the bloggers seem to be going about their businesses more and more reasonably, and Ali insists that the commercial world is booming, and despite incentives to dump the Dinar in the Middle East, the Iraqi currency is stable. Stable, see? Meaning where it was yesterday, roughly speaking. So Reynolds must want us to see it differently to that, in other words, deteriorating.

Interesting then that the Christian Science Monitor reports 'the number of targeted attacks and casualties against security forceshas dropped in recent weeks, relative to previous months.' The UK military hasn't (at the time of writing) suffered a fatality in Iraq in the last three months among its thousands of troops. The Coalition has so far suffered fewer casualties this month than last, at a rate comfortably lower than that sustained in November 2003.

'No, but' (yes, Paul, I'm listening) 'Already coalition forces are trying to reduce confrontations...' . Mmmm- that would sort of hold true for Fallujah (I say sort of because if you read the Belmont Club you will find that the strategy is still centred on defeating the ring-leaders of opposition there- by harnessing the local people), but what about Karbala? Surely there the coalition are actively confronting Moqtada Al-Sadr and his mardi bunch? The Belmont Club, for instance, reports the New York Times saying 'Though the Americans say they are determined to destroy Mr. Sadr's forces, they have been cautious about bringing the war to the holy areas here and in Najaf.'- which doesn't so much sound defensive as cautiously aggressive. Why it doesn't enter Reynolds' account to consider such reports I don't know, considering the BBC's extensive worrying about offending muslim sensibilities. The US has been reported loudly for bombing the wall of a Mosque compound in Falluja, yet as soon as it demonstrates its sensitivity it is cast as incapable of asserting itself.

In fairness to Reynolds, he does report fighting in Karbala, but he plays it down because it doesn't fit with his appraisal of a newly defensive coalition approach. He says 'the latest policy does not exclude military action from time to time against the Sadr militia', which somewhat contrasts with the by now well known US soldier's report of heavy fighting and a strategy to defeat Sadr. Yes, Reynolds mentions the fighting, but as a sidenote to the big issue of 'the latest policy'. This phrase, 'the latest policy' takes us inside one of Reynolds' real prejudices against the US-led coaliion. It says, 'look at them floundering around for something that works in Iraq'.

At other times it would be 'events, dear boy, events', but here it's the policy vacuum that gets Reynolds' goat. Either approach only signals criticism in Reynolds' journalism.

He concludes by using US commanders' opinions to back up his argument. He says 'The coalition is bowing to a new reality over security. It cannot impose its will and this is accepted by senior soldiers with experience on the ground.'

He quotes Major General Charles Swannack (a former commander in Iraq) when he 'said that tactically the US was winning but when asked if overall it was losing, replied: "I think strategically we are." '

This is interesting, because clearly this was a leading question (and irritating, because there are no links to these 'remarkable interviews'). But it's also interesting that Reynolds thinks that 'tactically winning' means that the coalition 'cannot impose its will'. 'Tactically winning' has got to mean something. If it is not overall success then it must mean military success (ie, the capability, on the ground, to deal with whatever opposition you face), and if it is overall success then what the hell is Reynolds worrying about? (or gloating about?)

But success is a word you will not convince Paul Reynolds to associate with the US in Iraq in a hurry. Not until they have executed their 'exit strategy', and then we will hear something like 'they assumed success in May 2003, but...' but Paul knew better.

While the BBC luxuriates in one story about photographs (and I mean luxuriates), the story of the Daily Mirror's faked photographs is just surfacing.

Somehow I am more confident that the people who took photographs in Abu Ghraib will be brought to justice than those who faked the British photographs to put lives in danger in Iraq. Come to think of it, I am more confident that Lynndie England will be brought to justice than those who videotaped the vile murder of Nicholas Berg, a story that the BBC were quick to entwine with the notion (in accordance with the wishes of the killers) that it was a reprisal for 'Abu Ghraib'.

When you have BBC articles saying things like 'I do not have the picture in front of me, yet I can see clearly the gentle, almost pre-pubescent body of the female GI loosely holding the dog lead, head turned, her other arm relaxed - held slightly away from her torso. And I can see the writhing man on the other end, naked and destroyed.', how can they not see that their own hype is implicated in the heinous crime that they then feel free to imply is linked to US behaviour?

Update: Now we know for sure about those Mirror fakos. The ball's in your court, Morgan.

More Realities On The Ground, and a challenge from Iraq the Model (I keep hearing people like Paul Reynolds of the BBC saying time is running out for the coalition. Well, Ali agrees time is running out, but for a different set of individuals and interests):

Please, all those who care about the poor Iraqis and want to save them from the brutality of the American invaders and who want to prevent the Americans from stealing our fortune; meaning Bin laden, Zagrawi and their followers, Arab and Muslim tyrants, our good friend monsieur Dominique de Villepin, all the pacifist of the world, the major media, and in short, all those who hate America and obviously love Iraq: Get your s**t together and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT or else one or two years from now Iraq will be…a prosperous country, and then we will never forgive you for letting us down when we needed you!