.
.
Showing posts with label combat mission in iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label combat mission in iraq. Show all posts
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Tuesday, November 09, 2010
Al-Qaida's Attack on Christians Signals Change in Tactics to Get More Press
.
The recent tragedy October 31 that occurred when Al-Qaida terrorists attacked a Christian Church in Bagdad, Iraq taking hostages and the siege ended in the slaughter of 70 innocent Christians including three priests represents a new strategy by the Osama bin Laden terrorists to target higher profile targets in Iraq.
It seems the Western media had lost interest in the hundreds of thousands of Shiite and Sunni Muslims being killed by the Muslim extremists or terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan among other countries. If nothing else bin Laden has demonstrated since 9-11 that instilling fear in Americans is just as important as the number of deaths that take place and the news of Muslim extremists killing Muslims no longer is news worthy.
Apparently going after the Christian minority in Iraq insures much broader news coverage and the result was exactly that. Lost in the American news coverage of the wars have been the hundreds of thousands of Muslim Shiites slaughtered at the hands of Sunni terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. Christian targets, on the other hand, indicates an expansion of the bloodbath to Christians and since America is a Christian nation it will get attention.
One wonders if Al-Qaida might have made a tactical mistake as the extension of attacks to include the Christians could be a unifying action for all Muslims who are opposed to the terrorist cause. We can only hope that peace loving Muslims will help stop the terrorist expansion to save their countries. The following AP account provides background on the latest terrorist activity so you can understand the terrible situation that faces any Muslims seeking peace.
France has offered temporary asylum to the Christian victims who want to leave Iraq and dozens have already moved to France. International outrage has been fast and furious but will it help reinforce the will of the Iraqi people to oppose the terrorists? In a nation that has been unable to form a new government since elections almost 6 months ago, any form of unity would be welcome.
By SINAN SALAHEDDIN, Associated Press Sinan Salaheddin, Associated Press
BAGHDAD – Al-Qaida's front group in Iraq has threatened more attacks on Christians after a siege on a Baghdad church that left 58 people dead, linking the warning to claims that Egypt's Coptic Church is holding women captive for converting to Islam.
The Islamic State of Iraq, which has claimed responsibility for Sunday's assault on a Catholic church during Mass in downtown Baghdad, said its deadline for Egypt's Copts to release the women had expired and its fighters would attack Christians wherever they can be reached.
"We will open upon them the doors of destruction and rivers of blood," the insurgent group said in a statement posted late Tuesday on militant websites.
The Islamic State of Iraq is an umbrella group that includes al-Qaida in Iraq and other allied Sunni insurgent factions.
It is unclear exactly what led the group to seize on the conversion disputes between Egypt's Muslims and its minority Christians, although the issue has become a rallying point for hard-line Islamists in Egypt.
In announcing its reasons for Sunday's attack, the group said it had given the Coptic Church 48 hours to release the women it says had converted to Islam. The group also demanded the release of al-Qaida-linked prisoners held in Iraq.
"All Christian centers, organizations and institutions, leaders and followers are legitimate targets for the mujahedeen (holy warriors) wherever they can reach them," it said.
The group specifically mentioned two Egyptian women married to Coptic priests it says are being held against their will. The church denies the allegation. Some believe the women converted to Islam to leave their husbands because divorce is banned by the church.
Over the past few years in Egypt, arguments over these kinds of alleged conversions have exacerbated Muslim-Christian tensions already high over issues like the construction of new churches. The two communities generally live in peace, though clashes have taken place.
The Baghdad church siege was the deadliest ever recorded against Iraq's Christians, whose numbers have plummeted since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion as members of the community have fled to other countries to escape the violence.
The death toll in a series of attacks mainly targeting Shiites in Baghdad, meanwhile, rose to 91, according to Iraqi police and hospital officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the press.
Iraqi state TV aired footage Wednesday of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki visiting victims of the blasts in Baghdad's hospitals. The televised trips to civilians wounded in attacks were a first for al-Maliki, who has been struggling to keep his job since his Shiite-dominated alliance was narrowly defeated by the Sunni-backed bloc of former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi in the March 7 parliamentary election.
Neither bloc won an outright majority, setting up a fight for allies that has left the government stalemated. There was a glimmer of hope for political progress Wednesday when parliament's acting speaker, Fouad Massoum, called the lawmakers to convene Monday and elect his successor.
However, the acting speaker only has the right to call parliament to session and can't necessarily force all the members to show so it was unclear whether the date would hold or that the announcement signified any progress in the political talks.
Last week, Iraq's highest court ordered the 325 lawmakers back to work after a virtual eight-month recess. The parliament has met only once since the March 7 vote for just 20 minutes to allow more time to choose a new leadership.
Under the constitution, parliament was required to meet within 15 days of final court approval of election results and choose a speaker, then a president. The appointments had to be put off because they are part of the negotiations over the rest of the new leadership — including a prime minister and top Cabinet officials.
.
 |
| Shocked mourners honor the dead Christians |
The recent tragedy October 31 that occurred when Al-Qaida terrorists attacked a Christian Church in Bagdad, Iraq taking hostages and the siege ended in the slaughter of 70 innocent Christians including three priests represents a new strategy by the Osama bin Laden terrorists to target higher profile targets in Iraq.
It seems the Western media had lost interest in the hundreds of thousands of Shiite and Sunni Muslims being killed by the Muslim extremists or terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan among other countries. If nothing else bin Laden has demonstrated since 9-11 that instilling fear in Americans is just as important as the number of deaths that take place and the news of Muslim extremists killing Muslims no longer is news worthy.
Apparently going after the Christian minority in Iraq insures much broader news coverage and the result was exactly that. Lost in the American news coverage of the wars have been the hundreds of thousands of Muslim Shiites slaughtered at the hands of Sunni terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. Christian targets, on the other hand, indicates an expansion of the bloodbath to Christians and since America is a Christian nation it will get attention.
One wonders if Al-Qaida might have made a tactical mistake as the extension of attacks to include the Christians could be a unifying action for all Muslims who are opposed to the terrorist cause. We can only hope that peace loving Muslims will help stop the terrorist expansion to save their countries. The following AP account provides background on the latest terrorist activity so you can understand the terrible situation that faces any Muslims seeking peace.
France has offered temporary asylum to the Christian victims who want to leave Iraq and dozens have already moved to France. International outrage has been fast and furious but will it help reinforce the will of the Iraqi people to oppose the terrorists? In a nation that has been unable to form a new government since elections almost 6 months ago, any form of unity would be welcome.
By SINAN SALAHEDDIN, Associated Press Sinan Salaheddin, Associated Press
BAGHDAD – Al-Qaida's front group in Iraq has threatened more attacks on Christians after a siege on a Baghdad church that left 58 people dead, linking the warning to claims that Egypt's Coptic Church is holding women captive for converting to Islam.
The Islamic State of Iraq, which has claimed responsibility for Sunday's assault on a Catholic church during Mass in downtown Baghdad, said its deadline for Egypt's Copts to release the women had expired and its fighters would attack Christians wherever they can be reached.
"We will open upon them the doors of destruction and rivers of blood," the insurgent group said in a statement posted late Tuesday on militant websites.
The Islamic State of Iraq is an umbrella group that includes al-Qaida in Iraq and other allied Sunni insurgent factions.
It is unclear exactly what led the group to seize on the conversion disputes between Egypt's Muslims and its minority Christians, although the issue has become a rallying point for hard-line Islamists in Egypt.
In announcing its reasons for Sunday's attack, the group said it had given the Coptic Church 48 hours to release the women it says had converted to Islam. The group also demanded the release of al-Qaida-linked prisoners held in Iraq.
"All Christian centers, organizations and institutions, leaders and followers are legitimate targets for the mujahedeen (holy warriors) wherever they can reach them," it said.
The group specifically mentioned two Egyptian women married to Coptic priests it says are being held against their will. The church denies the allegation. Some believe the women converted to Islam to leave their husbands because divorce is banned by the church.
Over the past few years in Egypt, arguments over these kinds of alleged conversions have exacerbated Muslim-Christian tensions already high over issues like the construction of new churches. The two communities generally live in peace, though clashes have taken place.
The Baghdad church siege was the deadliest ever recorded against Iraq's Christians, whose numbers have plummeted since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion as members of the community have fled to other countries to escape the violence.
The death toll in a series of attacks mainly targeting Shiites in Baghdad, meanwhile, rose to 91, according to Iraqi police and hospital officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the press.
Iraqi state TV aired footage Wednesday of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki visiting victims of the blasts in Baghdad's hospitals. The televised trips to civilians wounded in attacks were a first for al-Maliki, who has been struggling to keep his job since his Shiite-dominated alliance was narrowly defeated by the Sunni-backed bloc of former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi in the March 7 parliamentary election.
Neither bloc won an outright majority, setting up a fight for allies that has left the government stalemated. There was a glimmer of hope for political progress Wednesday when parliament's acting speaker, Fouad Massoum, called the lawmakers to convene Monday and elect his successor.
However, the acting speaker only has the right to call parliament to session and can't necessarily force all the members to show so it was unclear whether the date would hold or that the announcement signified any progress in the political talks.
Last week, Iraq's highest court ordered the 325 lawmakers back to work after a virtual eight-month recess. The parliament has met only once since the March 7 vote for just 20 minutes to allow more time to choose a new leadership.
Under the constitution, parliament was required to meet within 15 days of final court approval of election results and choose a speaker, then a president. The appointments had to be put off because they are part of the negotiations over the rest of the new leadership — including a prime minister and top Cabinet officials.
.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Was Obama Right on his Afghanistan Policy? Is it a War that can't be Won?
.
In all the uproar over the new book by Bob Woodward, Obama's Wars, and the volatile internal debate, denunciations and recriminations raging in the media, we tend to get distracted from the underlying policy actions of the President in the midst of the internal conflicts.
What needs to be assessed is did the President come to the right conclusions in overriding the advice of his military commanders and attempting to contain the build up in Afghanistan?
What seems clear is this. The president redirected the war effort from one of nation rebuilding to one of targeted terrorist attacks. At the same time he greatly expanded the use of drones and other counter terrorism efforts and increased coordination with Pakistan in an effort to reach beyond the Afghan border in pursuit of Pakistan based terrorists.
History has demonstrated that no outside nation has successfully undertaken a war against Afghanistan and won including the world's only super powers the Soviet Union and the United States. Afghanistan is a tribal run society with no particular loyalty to anyone or any political philosophy.
Could a conventional war ever be successful in Afghanistan? Hardly, but war is seldom waged for conventional purposes. Prior to World War II it was the arms dealers of the world and the international bankers, both of whom were based primarily in Europe, who dictated the proliferation of war in the world.
With American intervention into World War II the American military industrial complex became the dominant world force in war, or the instigation of war more properly. We were warned of this danger in explicit terms by President Eisenhower, the Commander of the Allied war effort, just three days before he gave up his presidency to newly elected John F. Kennedy.
The haunting words of Eisenhower delivered to the nation are as follows:
Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
(Excerpts delivered 3 days before leaving office)
"A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present - and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society."
Nearly 100 years earlier and just before his death President Abraham Lincoln also warned of the dangers facing America:
"We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood. It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.
I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless."
The passage appears in a letter from Lincoln to (Col.) William F. Elkins, Nov. 21, 1864.
History would indicate President Obama has taken the right course in seeking a means to get out of the Afghan country as soon as possible. His compromise with the military by sending 30,000 more troops will make the path more difficult and his goal is opposite of the military industrial complex will to keep America at war. It will be a task he faces and one all presidents have faced throughout our history.
All Americans should support a path to a return to America's role as a peacekeeper, not an advocate of war. By now we should have learned the dangers of war after Viet Nam, Desert Storm, Iraq and Afghanistan. It is time we return to traditional American values.
.
In all the uproar over the new book by Bob Woodward, Obama's Wars, and the volatile internal debate, denunciations and recriminations raging in the media, we tend to get distracted from the underlying policy actions of the President in the midst of the internal conflicts.
What needs to be assessed is did the President come to the right conclusions in overriding the advice of his military commanders and attempting to contain the build up in Afghanistan?
What seems clear is this. The president redirected the war effort from one of nation rebuilding to one of targeted terrorist attacks. At the same time he greatly expanded the use of drones and other counter terrorism efforts and increased coordination with Pakistan in an effort to reach beyond the Afghan border in pursuit of Pakistan based terrorists.
History has demonstrated that no outside nation has successfully undertaken a war against Afghanistan and won including the world's only super powers the Soviet Union and the United States. Afghanistan is a tribal run society with no particular loyalty to anyone or any political philosophy.
Could a conventional war ever be successful in Afghanistan? Hardly, but war is seldom waged for conventional purposes. Prior to World War II it was the arms dealers of the world and the international bankers, both of whom were based primarily in Europe, who dictated the proliferation of war in the world.
With American intervention into World War II the American military industrial complex became the dominant world force in war, or the instigation of war more properly. We were warned of this danger in explicit terms by President Eisenhower, the Commander of the Allied war effort, just three days before he gave up his presidency to newly elected John F. Kennedy.
The haunting words of Eisenhower delivered to the nation are as follows:
Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
(Excerpts delivered 3 days before leaving office)
"A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present - and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society."
Nearly 100 years earlier and just before his death President Abraham Lincoln also warned of the dangers facing America:
"We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood. It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.
I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless."
The passage appears in a letter from Lincoln to (Col.) William F. Elkins, Nov. 21, 1864.
History would indicate President Obama has taken the right course in seeking a means to get out of the Afghan country as soon as possible. His compromise with the military by sending 30,000 more troops will make the path more difficult and his goal is opposite of the military industrial complex will to keep America at war. It will be a task he faces and one all presidents have faced throughout our history.
All Americans should support a path to a return to America's role as a peacekeeper, not an advocate of war. By now we should have learned the dangers of war after Viet Nam, Desert Storm, Iraq and Afghanistan. It is time we return to traditional American values.
.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
The Second End to Combat in Iraq Celebration Featuring VP Joe Biden
.
As the carefully staged White House theatrical play of The End to Combat in Iraq continues it's road show this time the second team took center stage as Joe Biden filled in for the vacationing President Obama to declare, according to the Los Angeles Times Joe Biden update:
No 'Mission Accomplished' claim on Iraq, but no 'victory' either.
Andrew Malcolm went on to report:
Fortunately, Sen. Barack Obama was about as wrong as he could possibly be opposing President Bush's 2007 troop surge in this news video from the former state senator's favorite TV channel.
As one result, the vacationing president and, this week, the peripatetic vice president are busy celebrating the U.S. military's success in Iraq with the withdrawal this month of the last American combat brigade.
Of course, the Democrats are not dumb enough to repeat the notorious "Mission Accomplished" banner of the previous administration. Nor is the White House No. 2 going to repeat his notorious claim from a February "Larry King Live" show that Iraq represents one of Obama's "great achievements."
Today, in an Indianapolis speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Joe "Let's Divide Iraq Into Three Parts" Biden did not mention his opposition to the Bush troop surge either. But he was naturally effusive in his praise of American service personnel, present and past.
Two other things to note in this administration's public relations war wind-down:
A) The administration's third commander in Afghanistan in 19 months, Gen. David Petraeus, as JB so carefully put it today in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Indianapolis, "now has all the resources that the strategy calls for." (Full text below.)
B) What's missing from Biden's remarks about all the sacrifices being made as it was missing from Obama's 4,582-word West Point speech announcing his second Afghan troop surge and outlining a strategy there (including a pre-announced withdrawal starting next July), is the key word: "Victory."
Additionally, 50,000 heavily-armed American troops still remain in Iraq for....
... not always courteous counter-insurgency operations in coming months. So, "non-combat troops in Iraq" all depends on what your definition of "combat" is.
But with homefront approval of the nation's wars waning and an angry, frustrated electorate scheduled to vote in a midterm looming for Democrats on Nov. 2, we will be hearin
Now some might think after the NBC End of Iraq Combat staging last week this might be the end of the Administration efforts to capitalize on the public relations surrounding this ongoing historic event which is scheduled to really be completed August 31 but the President has now scheduled a major address for August 31 about, what else, the end of combat in Iraq in case you missed the first two events proclaiming the end of combat.
Apparently the hoopala is designed to make us overlook the fact about 50,000 combat ready troops will remain in Iraq after we have finished combat, that thousands of private contactors will be hired to fight in Iraq and that no one thinks the remaining 50,000 troops will be withdrawn by the end of next year as also promised.
I find the Administration reference to private contractors not being a combat force rather odd as long ago governments and kings hired such private contractors to fight their wars only they called them paid mercenaries and they were the fighting force.
One final note as I mentioned in my last article is that the real last remaining combat brigade in Iraq is the Stryker 2-25 brigade as reported by a soldier still in Iraq fighting after the NBC end of combat show. Perhaps Obama will acknowledge this truth as the 2-25 is from his home state of Hawaii and would make for more great theater.
.
Friday, August 20, 2010
NBC Iraq Staging Drama - The Latest in News Media Reality Shows?
.
Call it manufactured news, news manipulation or whatever the NBC extravaganza showing the last combat troops leaving Iraq was high in theater and low on truth. For a few hours yesterday even the Huffington Post, the liberal sanctuary, posted the Coltons Point Times article exposing the sham as nothing more than a public relations stunt by NBC and MSNBC to prop up sagging ratings.
However, the Huffington Post caters to the will of the White House and someone must have called for dropping the negative article about NBC because it disappeared soon after it appeared. However, since truth is so hard to find on the internet, here is a copy of the Google search that showed the Coltons Point Times article on the Huffington Post yesterday.
Now for more truth, the same day NBC was heralding an end to combat in Iraq Obama was speaking in Ohio and said the following:
“We are keeping the promise I made when I began my campaign for the presidency,” Obama said at a fundraiser at the Columbus Anthenaeum. “By the end of this month we will have removed 100,000 troops from Iraq and our combat mission will [end].”
No mention that all troops would be out that day and a reinforcement of his goal to be out by August 31. A military web site, Open Security contemporary conflict, reported the following in reaction to the NBC snow job:
"The last United States’ army combat brigade left Iraq early this morning, crossing the border into Kuwait in a carefully-planned, top-secret journey. The departure of the 4th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, will leave 6000 support troops in Iraq until end of August, when US combat operations will formally end.
US State Department Spokesman PJ Crowley said American involvement in Iraq is far from over, but would be less intrusive and more civilian-focused from now on. Crowley emphasised that the US remains committed to its trillion dollar investment in Iraq, and needed to honour the memory of almost 4,500 troops who lost their lives in the war. Crowley made no mention of the estimated 100,000 Iraqi civilians who also lost their lives in the conflict.
Despite White House reassurances that continued unrest and a six-month old political deadlock following indecisive elections in March will not “derail democracy” in Iraq, many commentators are sceptical that the end of combat operations can be as clear cut as the Obama administration would like it to be. Although 50,000 troops will remain in support of the Iraqi army until the end of 2011, current plans would see all US forces withdrawing from Iraq by the end of 2011, leaving only a small contingent of diplomats and civilians, protected by less than a few thousand troops."
Finally a serviceman blogging from Iraq wrote that "there is still a Stryker brigade" remaining in Iraq after the departure of the Stryker 4-2 brigade on NBC. He said the Stryker 2-25 brigade, the only combat brigade left in Iraq, will be the last to leave before the end of the month.
His response to NBC was "along the way you missed out on pointing out true facts that there is still a brigade here that is just as large and has the same if not more vehicles than 4-2 does. So look deeper and remember soldiers watch the news as well and the piece as a whole was nice but I hope you come see us since we are the last Strykers here and will be turning out the lights on this show."
You will get the truth if you are open to it. As for me, I really don't like network news using our brave American troops as props for their reality shows. It is a disgrace to journalism, it trivializes war, and makes the blood of over 4,400 Americans who died in Iraq seem more like a TV script than the reality it was to the families and loved ones of those we lost.
.
Call it manufactured news, news manipulation or whatever the NBC extravaganza showing the last combat troops leaving Iraq was high in theater and low on truth. For a few hours yesterday even the Huffington Post, the liberal sanctuary, posted the Coltons Point Times article exposing the sham as nothing more than a public relations stunt by NBC and MSNBC to prop up sagging ratings.
However, the Huffington Post caters to the will of the White House and someone must have called for dropping the negative article about NBC because it disappeared soon after it appeared. However, since truth is so hard to find on the internet, here is a copy of the Google search that showed the Coltons Point Times article on the Huffington Post yesterday.
“We are keeping the promise I made when I began my campaign for the presidency,” Obama said at a fundraiser at the Columbus Anthenaeum. “By the end of this month we will have removed 100,000 troops from Iraq and our combat mission will [end].”
No mention that all troops would be out that day and a reinforcement of his goal to be out by August 31. A military web site, Open Security contemporary conflict, reported the following in reaction to the NBC snow job:
"The last United States’ army combat brigade left Iraq early this morning, crossing the border into Kuwait in a carefully-planned, top-secret journey. The departure of the 4th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, will leave 6000 support troops in Iraq until end of August, when US combat operations will formally end.
US State Department Spokesman PJ Crowley said American involvement in Iraq is far from over, but would be less intrusive and more civilian-focused from now on. Crowley emphasised that the US remains committed to its trillion dollar investment in Iraq, and needed to honour the memory of almost 4,500 troops who lost their lives in the war. Crowley made no mention of the estimated 100,000 Iraqi civilians who also lost their lives in the conflict.
Despite White House reassurances that continued unrest and a six-month old political deadlock following indecisive elections in March will not “derail democracy” in Iraq, many commentators are sceptical that the end of combat operations can be as clear cut as the Obama administration would like it to be. Although 50,000 troops will remain in support of the Iraqi army until the end of 2011, current plans would see all US forces withdrawing from Iraq by the end of 2011, leaving only a small contingent of diplomats and civilians, protected by less than a few thousand troops."
Finally a serviceman blogging from Iraq wrote that "there is still a Stryker brigade" remaining in Iraq after the departure of the Stryker 4-2 brigade on NBC. He said the Stryker 2-25 brigade, the only combat brigade left in Iraq, will be the last to leave before the end of the month.
His response to NBC was "along the way you missed out on pointing out true facts that there is still a brigade here that is just as large and has the same if not more vehicles than 4-2 does. So look deeper and remember soldiers watch the news as well and the piece as a whole was nice but I hope you come see us since we are the last Strykers here and will be turning out the lights on this show."
You will get the truth if you are open to it. As for me, I really don't like network news using our brave American troops as props for their reality shows. It is a disgrace to journalism, it trivializes war, and makes the blood of over 4,400 Americans who died in Iraq seem more like a TV script than the reality it was to the families and loved ones of those we lost.
.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
NBC & Obama Gang Stage "Historic" End to Iraq Combat - Then get Busted!
.
It seems the Obama boys cannot stop trying to manipulate the national news media to get favorable stories and to drive unfavorable stories off the air and there is no grater co-conspirator than the White House propaganda machine at NBC and MSNBC.
Last night on NBC news and then on every MSNBC talking head program we were served a historic story of the last combat troops leaving Iraq and crossing the border to Kuwait. Lights, camera, applause and action and there you have it, Obama meeting his promise to remove combat troops as the MSNBC heads feigned tears.
The story continued this morning on Morning Joe and other MSNBC outlets to maximize the bang for the buck. This well planned and staged media extravaganza went without a hitch as reporter Richard Engel rode with the troops through the border crossing, acting as if he didn't know the scripted moment was being staged and as if he didn't know what the border crossing looked like.
There had to be a sigh of relief from the White House as they watched NBC document history and maybe knock the Moslem mosque at Ground Zero and Obama's strange flip flopping on his position out of the headlines.
But alas they failed once again to trick the American public although they did trick the left leaning media into buying into the deception. You see, after the NBC exclusive of the last combat soldier leaving Iraq we come to find out there are actually 6,000 other combat soldiers still fighting in Iraq who will not be gone until the August 31 deadline.
Does this mean any other liberal media supporting Obama will have their own staging of the historic last combat soldier leaving Iraq? Are these media manipulators insane? Do they really think the public will buy this deception while 6,000 combat troops still remain in Iraq?
Shades of Dan Rather and CBS falsifying the military records of George Bush, Jr. to smear him in the 2004 presidential election. So here we go again, more media lies, more administration lies, and more deception by the politicians and media. These people should be investigated for fraud, the NBC people perpetrating the fraud should be thrown off the air and the Obama people using the brave military combat troops in Iraq as props for campaign commercials should be thrown out of public office.
I wonder if Obama knew about and approved of this cruel deception?
Here is the truth about how the staged broadcast was assembled as reported by Brian Stelter of Media Decoder.
Inside an NBC News control room, they were also nerve-racking, as the network prepared on Wednesday night to broadcast live from a convoy that carried elements of the last United States combat brigade to leave the country. It was a high-stakes broadcast, one that the network had secretly worked for weeks to pull off.
Shortly before 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, producers were transfixed on the monitors that showed the correspondent Richard Engel positioned inside one of the vehicles in the convoy. Every time the picture lapsed, a result of satellite hiccups, the volume in the room dropped, only to be replaced by sighs of relief when it was restored a second or two later.
“The magic of live TV,” M.L. Flynn, a producer, remarked to no one in particular.
The existence of the convoy was kept secret until 6:30 p.m. Eastern, the same time that the “NBC Nightly News” started. To transmit the images, NBC at great expense shipped its so-called Bloommobile to Iraq for the first time since the war began in 2003. The Bloommobile is a specially outfitted vehicle that allows the network to transmit live pictures via satellite while on the road.
.jpg)
David Verdi, a vice president at NBC News, said that before the war’s beginning in 2003, network executives asked themselves, “What do we think our audience expects from us in covering this war?”
“The unanimous answer was, our audience most likely expects to see this war live,” he said. “That was the initial idea for the Bloommobile.”
When the time came to talk about the end of the combat mission there, he added, “We came to the same conclusion — that our audience would expect to experience it live as it’s happening.”
On Wednesday night, Mr. Engel was positioned in one of the military’s armor vehicles, directly in front of the Bloommobile. The signal from his vehicle was sent via microwave to the Bloommobile, which transmitted it back to the United States.
NBC had something of a scare on Tuesday when one of its satellite transponders burnt out, a casualty of the hot weather there. A network technician was able to replace the transponder in time.
In the control room on Wednesday night, Ms. Flynn, the producer, communicated with Mr. Engel via an earpiece. As the live shot from Iraq faded a bit, the producer said, “Richard, can you tell the Bloommobile to stay closer to you?”
The images from NBC and other outlets are important for the United States as a public relations tool, as they reaffirm with color and sound that the country is winding down a widely unpopular combat mission. But they are in part a media construct. Though the media may yearn for a dramatic finish to the war, there is not likely to be one, at least not yet.
Next thing you know the war coverage will be filmed in Hollywood.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)