Money Talking Explosively

Some great stuff on Iraq from Austin Bay, who just recently got back from there. It's about how the nice, clean US military has met Iraq's entrenched thug culture, which unfortunately drips money. I've always felt that money was a massively underrated part of the 'resistance' story- I wonder why that could be, Koffi?

It puts into perspective the fundraising activities of certain European groups- and I bet that is just scratching the surface, since I don't expect the BBC to actually investigate anything much, certainly not in areas that might assist the efforts of the coalition.

Casualty Count.

I was very sorry to learn that there were a significant number of casualties suffered by US forces in Iraq in the middle of last week. Not what I wanted to see, but not unexpected.

Wretchard has a breakdown of fatalities on his Belmont Club blog, which makes interesting if sombre reading.

I'll just give my response.

Wretchard points out that most of the fatalties are still taking place in the Sunni triangle, thus somewhat dispelling fears about civil war in Iraq. I've noticed for a long time (even on this blog) the preponderance of casualties in the Al-Anbar province.

I expected an upsurge to occur because July/August was relatively quiet there, while al-Sadr danced his merry destructive dance in Najaf. I took it that the forces of the Sunni fighters further North and West were preparing for another push against US forces in the run-up to the US election.

One interesting thing of recent times is the occurrence of violence in Mosul. Last year this was one of the quietest parts of Iraq- and featured by BBC journalist Jonny Diamond as a success for softly-softly tactics. Soon after that hell broke loose, and violence has been on a gradual upcurve ever since that outbreak (to my eye).

As Diamond points out, there is an ethnic divide between Arab and Kurd in that area. In fact, what's regularly underplayed is that Saddam relocated a lot of Arabs into towns like Mosul and Kirkuk in order to keep his thumb firmly on the Kurdish population there. Naturally they will resent the loss of their god (or Saddam)-given superiority, and fear reprisals (both short and long-term) too- some of which have already happened.

What this demonstrates for me is that among the most miguided of mentalities is that of the softly-softly approach. Pretending a volcano isn´t there doesn´t stop, in BBC language, ´violence erupting´

I think again that you have to be wary when things are too quiet. The calm in Mosul was more about regrouping to see how they could reassert Arab dominance than to see what democratic role they could find. The first instinct of people in plot-ridden Iraq is obviously to plot rather than politick, especially so for those who gained most from previous plotting.

But I also think it unlikely that Mosul will be all that terrible a place for the coalition. It could play its part if some of the other regions get their sunni-Arab act together the way Fallujah did, but not otherwise. The reason for this is that being ethnically mixed there will always be allies of the coalition who will weaken the Arab-Sunni resistance.

Mark Steyn in the Telegraph has one of his customary punchy articles about the state of Iraq. As usual he sees the big picture, and the good sense in converting our most diehard enemy state into a less bad place. You can´t draw the poison out of places like Mosul all that easily, but it might drain away over time if the right assertive local policies are pursued.

Spilling the water

The water carriers for Kerry assaulting Bush seem to have dropped their containers. Looking through the opinion articles there are still some trying to pretend there´s something in the CBS story, but they´re relying heavily on the so-called big picture. In other words they already know the story, they´re just looking for some detail to fill it in.

What frustrates me is that the BBC are almost the archetype of that attitude. Their story remains largely unaltered, with the admission that some have found the memos suspicious. If there was ever a time that a British news organisation could show up the US media, this might be it- but it's not in the BBC's script to do that kind of exposé.

The entire article is almost as misleading as ever- by which I mean that the CBS story is embedded within a context of a history of Bush's military documents, many of which released by the Whitehouse. It's a case of trying to spot the odd one out- Rather's photocopies don't exactly compare, but they do happen to signifcantly develop a dormant story. The only consolation might be that few will ever read it since it´s now buried.

Does it do any good to go on emphasising the idiocy of Rather's position? I think it's not going to harm Bush to have a meme up and running about the lying Liberal media. The US election will be about who the public in their hearts associate with the title of Al Franken's book. There's no doubt in my mind who better fits that description- but proof is always good.

Meanwhile the BBC go back to their favourite topic- how the Iraq war was wrong. This must be true, because even Koffi says so. Faced with Koffi and the BBC in tandem once more, I'd rather hear it from this man. The BBC though manage to make their main headline block comprise how Iraq war was wrong, how Iraq is terrible now, and how it will be worse in the future. Almost beyond parody, but not quite.

Update: the Coalition partners respond to Koffi and the BBC's manufactured moment (like a high proportion of the news the 'Koffi calls war illegal' story is a story that people -ie. the BBC and Koffi- decided was going to happen). Basic thesis from the Coalition: Koffi's got a cheek. I couldn't agree more.

The Next Big Thing in English or Welsh rural sports?

Mark Steyn's investigation suggests to me that woodland walks spotting and snipping cables could be the next big thing.

By the way, rest assured this isn't an Oates to Scott of the Antarctic moment but I have a great deal to do at the moment and I, er, may be some time away from posting. I'll try to nip in with a post when time and opportunity allows.

Rather simplified, slightly tongue-in-cheek.

Picking the spin

I don't know where the media term 'spin' originated, but I like to think it comes from cricket and the wiles of a spin bowler, where there are numerous recognised deliveries and many more variations that can produce unique 'spin' to outwit a batsman.

One of my favourite features of Channel Four's excellent cricket coverage is known as 'jargon-buster', where a kind of cricket boffin (Simon Hughes) takes you through the origin of obscure terms.

What we need is a jargon-buster for the media- or maybe just some old-fashioned straightforwardness.

Chrenkoff's latest 'Good News from Iraq' is up, and I notice a couple of interesting things tucked in amongst all the other generally good stuff:

'"Now that the security conditions have improved, it is easier to provide… aid," said EU Foreign Minister Ben Bot during his recent visit to Baghdad' (link)

and

'the government of Georgia will double its contingent in Iraq by October, from 157 to 300 troops' (link)

I think these two snippets, while naturally only part of the context in Iraq, are interesting in the light of the language the media, and notably the BBC, are using.

This report talks of fighting 'across' Iraq, and was introduced under link-headlines that talked of 'widespread' fighting.

This kind of language is commonly used and enough to keep the anti-war faithful's blood pressure nice and high in between explosions, but makes little sense when put in the context of the kind of good news Chrenkoff reports.

I included the snippet about the Georgian commitment because it shows what those who have real professional concerns think about Iraq and the direction in which it’s going. It's also interesting for the obscurity of the source: can it be that no mainstream media picked up this news? They certainly have no problem talking about troop withdrawals from Iraq, however insignificant numerically- or countries warning citizens not to travel to Iraq. It must just be that the Georgians are bribed and/or coerced, eh, Mr Kerry?

Maybe indeed the Georgian government has ulterior motives- they admit as much in very gracious terms. What government doesn't? The important point is that the US, despite its so-called false Iraq war, is a sought-after ally. GWB's strength as a steadfast war leader and faith in his armed forces has drawn many to seek advantage from cultivating his friendship. That's generally been known, where I come from, as statesmanship.

To return to the 'spin', I think that terms like 'widespread' and 'across' ought to be knocked for six by any solid middle-order journalist. What they conceal is that violence is highly localised, if vicious, and widely rejected by Iraqis. The purchase they have had on the public perception of Iraq is the kind of spin that Shane Warne and co. can only dream about.

Update: On the other hand... I noticed this- kind of an anti-Chrenkoff approach it's only fair to mention.

A Good Chuckle

It made me laugh a couple of months back when I read that John F. Kerry had been given this ringing endorsement by Texan liberal (some call him 'populist', others, 'humourist') Jim Hightower:

'"I don't care if he's a sack of cement, we're going to carry him to victory"'

Well, Kerry's not only heavy as a sack of cement- he's been doused in ridicule, and we all know how much heavier cement gets when it's wet. Then of course you just have to wait for the cement to harden... .

Rathergate:

Belmont Club has a definitive update.

Kevin Myers on the BBC:

'We really shouldn't be too surprised by anything the BBC does these days: the Dyke legacy has taken a terrible toll, and so there is no point in being angered by what we see on our screens. After all, it's only television, isn't it? Except it's not.'

Kevin Myers on the BBC and Ireland:

'One of the central and abiding problems of Northern Ireland is the role of perception in influencing politics. For the BBC to be subsidising a Sinn Fein version of the history of the Troubles isn't merely wrong in itself, but is profoundly irresponsible, a kind of down payment on further conflict in the future.'

The first paragraph explains almost precisely my views on the BBC (although I think Dyke was really the cherry on top of a problem deeply entrenched in the BBC's history). The second is so interesting because you could substitute 'Northern Ireland' in this analysis with any unstable region in the world and 'Sinn Fein' with any radical protagonist in these areas and get the same effect. It's time British people and those interested in fighting terrorism started caring enough about Northern Ireland to reject the BBC's fascination with Sinn Feinian fantasies.

See also this from A Tangled Web

Powerful Lines

I'm linking to Power Line's analysis of the meaning of Rathergate- which traces out thoughts similar to those I expressed yesterday (but puts them better)- before I go out. Hindrocket's conclusions? :

'Those of us who still value truth must look at the mainstream media in a new, more skeptical and critical way, taking nothing for granted... the mainstream news organs will go farther to achieve their political goals than we ever imagined.'

I'm sure he's fundamentally right about that.

Complacency

The Telegraph has some noteworthy things to say today.

I often think the Telegraph itself is complacent and inconsequential, but today they made two contributions that belied that judgement.

Charles Moore makes the case against fatalism and overconfidence regarding the terrorist threat. Essentially, our actions matter and 'they' can beat us.
-just look at Spain (which, of course, is just a step along the Jihadist road).

Meanwhile, on Europe they say what I've been thinking (they must be right)- Gordon Brown is playing rhetorical games while adjusting our economy to fit in with the Continent. I find his oleaginous duplicity (ok, a ridiculously long phrase to describe a greasy liar- but he's not quite as slippery or as deceitful as to be obvious about it, like, say, Mandelson has been.) sickening, and I just wish I thought he wasn't getting away with it.

Priceless clarity.

Insure this man's pen, tongue, typing fingers, whatever- no -insure his straight-talking. Steyn cleans up the Rather tawdry affair.

In Lawful Pursuit

When Dan Rather stood by his story it was like a city man taking a swing at a swarm of wasps.

Hugh Hewitt has a swarm of links and emails to add to the fray, including a fascinating exchange with a Professor of Computer Science very well up on typefaces and such.

Thomas Lifson calls it Rathergate.

The thing that strikes me is that the pioneering people at Powerline are all lawyers. So is Hugh Hewitt. Since Magna Carta the law has been subject to the intrusions of laypeople though something called a jury. The media world however has never had a comparable facility and the media hasn't had much power actually to enforce its will on others. I'd say over the last thirty years that situation has changed in Britain and America with the rise of the television/celebrity age, and this is the natural reaction: lawyers critiquing journalists, looking for standards of proof to be met. Good on them- it beats this sort of legal oversight of the media.

A Great Point Raised

Aside from all the schamozzle over forged documents, this former Kuwaiti minister make some excellent points about fatwas, the legal declarations taken so seriously in the Islamic world: Why a fatwa against Salman Rushie? Why no fatwa against Osama?

Following the Trail

Belmont Club was interested, not so much in the documents which were easily nitpicked into a laughing stock from all directions (I'd link to one if there were a definitive method), but in the power of the online world to hunt down the false and the hollow.

Hugh Hewitt, as part of a long, link-filled post, tracks the story and its reception in the big media.

It seems the Boston Globe, like the BBC, decided to run the story about Bush's failure to meet National Service requirements without any acknowledgement of the growing forgery storm. Since the BBC are so keen on updates it would seem odd they haven't bothered either to follow up or alter it. Odd too when there are authoritative media pursuing the forgery line in separate stories.

Willing Dupes

Why was our national broadcaster so keen to get taken in by a likely fraud? When and how will they begin to retract their unambiguous presentation of the story as hard news? Why did they imply at the beginning of their smearticle that the documents came from the Whitehouse ('The documents released by the White House show the suspension also resulted from his failure to take his annual medical test as required.') when the Whitehouse was just passing on what had been passed to them, as the Beeb smearticle notes in its third from last paragraph?

John Podhoretz explains the controversy and how the accusatory evidence against Bush is unravelling online, and suggests why certain people were such suckers for this one. I am reminded just how reluctant and slow the BBC were to report the SwiftVet allegations until long after it was being reported by 'respectable' (I use the term advisedly) outlets.

Chirac's Beauty Sleep

Of course there's nothing particularly attractive about the sleazy French Presidential incumbent, so he needs all the help he can get. The BBC report it, but it's curious how they miss out the interesting angles- such as why this Kyoto-loving US-basher was content to stream pollution across the European sky-line. Maybe the wind direction was easterly. Capt. Ed covers the hypocrisy question, and adds a spot of bad economic news for Kerry.

Belmont Club Takes Stock:

'If anyone is hoping Iraq will become an infamous, unmitigated catastrophe, don't hold your breath... If anyone is hoping that America will be able to leave Iraq in a couple of years to the tune of brass bands marching over a carpet of strewn flowers, don't hold your breath either.'

This BBC report is interesting and more or less confirms this 'between two extremes' analysis of Iraq. The women interviewed have mixed stories but on balance their lives have improved as a result of the Iraq war.

Meanwhile, this military crash in the Czech Republic is tragic, but if there can be one brighter thought it is that the number of reported British dead equals the number of reported British military deaths in Iraq over the last six calendar months. That kind of thing makes me livid with those British people, usually media, George Galloway or Tories on the make, who want to go on about failure in Iraq, impeaching Blair etc.

How's this for an opening line:

'‘He is sedated,’ said Bill Clinton’s heart surgeon on Tuesday. ‘But he is arousable.’ I’ve never doubted it.'

Is it just me, or is this the best article in Steyn's long illustrious collection.

The Baath News

Via Powerline comes this disturbing tale of Baathist resurgence in the Sunni triangle. This confirms my view that as much as anything we are fighting ideologies in Iraq. Baathism is a descendant of National Socialism- every bit as vicious, with pseudo-spiritual leanings deriving from the ideology of Michel Aflaq, who pioneered Baathism in the the middle of the last century.

It's my view we should not be surprised or discouraged at the resilience of Baathism in Sunni parts of Iraq. Baathism is what made Iraq the place of despair that it was under Saddam, and we should see that Saddam was just the High Priest of Baathism in the latter era (Aflaq having blazed a trail earlier). The High Priest is merely the servant of something greater, a role similar to that claimed by the Pope- whose image we see so much but who would always claim merely to be an intercessor rather than a deity himself.

Part of the difficulty we've had over Iraq was defining our enemy. Understanding the true nature of Baathism and how it ties into other Arab/Islamic ideology helps explain what our enemy is.

I've found three useful links to understanding Aflaq. First, the encyclopedia entry, giving all the basic details (though take the notion that Aflaq was 'a staunch Christian' with pinch of salt). Second, an excellent article that appeared in the Weekly Standard several years ago entitled 'Saddam's Brain', which though excellent was probably a little too exotic for anyone to appreciate fully at the time (after all, we'd specialised in trying to ignore the world's despots since 1945 until Saddam rang our bell once too often). Third, and finally, and related to the KnightRidder article Powerline highlighted, here's a recent web posting from some Aflaq fanatic of the Saddamite resistance.

In the light of this, it's interesting to recall this speech from GWB which recognised the battle against Islamofascism (and, for all its secularist tendancies, Baathism really does lend itself to a partnership with a sacrificial kind of religious extremism) as part of the legacy of the 20th century's conflicts. What's needed it seems it to translate our understanding of these things into an urgency and seriousness on the ground which recognises the imperative of winning every battle there is to fight- rather than throwing the straws of military excursions into the winds of history.

With the serendipity which the blogosphere so often conjures, I found this article from Austin Bay useful to set alongside the thoughts above.