The rather disreputable bunch (or individual) at WikiLeaks has captured the attention of entirely too much of the world's mainstream media. In a case which resembles a sort of "this verse, same as the first," WikiLeaks has provided its favorite media outlets with advance copies of an enormous (391,000+) low level, tactical "Significant Activities" reports. These are the same sort and level of routine document as constituted the earlier and much smaller batch release.
The SigAct reports provide a blurry look at a complex war from the perspective of a myriad of eyes quite close to the ground. Their content varies in actual significance. Similarly, the documents range in quality from highly incisive to pretty much of a let's-pretend-we've-done-something-today sort. There are more than a few occasions when two or more SigActs cover the same events in the same period of time but with such different perspectives that the result seems to be several different events occurring at widely separated times and places. Depending on the mindset of the person compiling the SigAct, the verbiage may be so dense in milspeak as to be incomprehensible without a translator.
The reporting of the contents of the mountain of milspeak by the assorted mainstream media is like that which took place a few months ago after WikiLeak's first release. The best way to characterize the MSM approach is to recollect a brilliant scene from the classic movie Casablanca.
Remember the scene where Claude Raines as the smarmy French police official tells Rick that his bar is being shut down? "I'm shocked, shocked I tell you to find out gambling is going on here." At that point a flunky comes in and says, "Your winnings, inspector."
A more perfect emblematic rendition of hypocrisy cannot be found--unless it is in the media treatment of the current data dump. Maidenly protests of shock have ensued over several matters found in the great mound of otherwise boringly repetitive, utterly mundane, and, taken overall, quite insignificant activities.
(Shock the First) More Iraqi civilians may have been killed by either friendly or hostile forces than officially announced to date.
(Shock the Second) American troops did use lethal force when vehicles approaching checkpoints or overtaking convoys did not heed warning signals--including shots--and stop as ordered.
(Even Bigger Shock Number Three) Iraqi security forces abused, even killed, suspected insurgents without the Americans acting immediately and robustly to stop the illegal acts.
The media could not contain their surprise when the documents demonstrated that the oft repeated American accusations of Iranian direct involvement in the arming, training, and directing of insurgent forces were based in fact.
Each and every one of these highlighted matters constitutes either base hypocrisy or utter idiocy for two simple reasons. Simple reason number one: The assorted MSM outlets had reporters in theater, assigned to the relevant American and other allied forces throughout the period covered by this dump. Simple reason number two: We have been down this road before, during the Vietnam War--and the same MSM had reporters covering that war as well.
If any of the Chorus of Shocked And Outraged Maidens had consulted their own morgues, the result would have been both educational and important for accurate framing of the Iraq story. Leaving aside the one very high profile war crime committed by US personnel, the Mai Lai shootings, the files would have shown reports both spiked and printed of other American acts which could accurately be termed war crimes. The files would also have disclosed the widespread and very widely covered stories of South Vietnamese security forces abusing captured hostile personnel and those suspected of assisting the hostiles in manifold ways--including murder. The US and other media also noted the US personnel on scene usually did not stop the abuses.
The morgue search would also have revealed that in the Vietnam War as in wars generally, civilians are killed. As in the cases cited from Iraq, the killing of civilians can and often has resulted from actions on the part of the civilians which seem to the soldier to be a threat. Since war is a get-or-get-got activity, it should not surprise anyone oriented in time and place that the soldier will shoot if warnings have no effect.
Because civilians tend to litter the battlefield in unseemly numbers and at most inconvenient locations, it is not shocking that some are killed despite the best intents of the troops. Nor is it shocking that fatality counts can vary widely over time. Disparities of count between "official" reports and the SigActs is not evidence of cover up or a policy of understating the lethal effects of American combat operations.
The war in Iraq was an interventionary war after the defeat of the Saddam Hussein regime. Even though the US was the major actor in theater, the legal and policy fiction that we and other foreign forces were operating in support of the Iraqi government was paramount. The Iraqi security forces not unlike their South Vietnamese equivalents forty years earlier had a very touchy sense of nationalism.
The sensitivities of Iraqi personnel--particularly at the command level--inhibited the capacity of the US to act robustly and rapidly to end abusive practices. The relations between tactical units in the field in Iraq, as had been the case in Vietnam, were always problematic so company and field grade officers rarely felt free to get tough with their Iraqi counterparts. This meant the most common response was to file a report, kick the problem upstairs, and hope the heavyweights topside would solve it.
More than that the Americans could not do if there was going to be any realistic possibility of shifting combat and security responsibilities to the Iraqi forces. It is simple for a journalist to sit back and engage in condemnation. That is not a luxury available to the guy at the spot.
Then it must be recalled that Iraq had a pre-invasion history which was heavy in torture and extajudicial executions. The history lacked any appreciable dedication to the rule of law or the tempering of "justice" with either mercy or self-interest. The same history also produced a lengthy record of scores in need of settling while abrading any concern about the judgement of the future.
Given the history of Iraq prior to the invasion as well as the nature of the war being waged between the security forces (including foreign contingents) and the insurgents propelled by faith in violent political Islam, the real shock is how few unnecessary deaths are recorded in the SigActs. Considering the contexts, both historical and contemporary, the Americans not only fought a clean war but exercised a great deal of influence on the behavior of Iraqi security units. Had it been otherwise the blood would have gushed rather than merely oozing from the released documents.
Either the NYT or the WaPo (they run together in the Geek's mind) characterized the SigAct reports as providing a "fine grained" view of the war. That's true as long as it is remembered that in this case the view is an extreme close up, the sort of close up which distorts the image beyond both comprehension and accuracy. The distortion is made all the greater when a media outlet chooses to ignore the weight of the majority of the reports--mundane, not filled with atrocities real or imagined, but replete with fire missions not fired, aborted air strikes, and all the other consequences of a command structure and operational doctrine which exhibited a sound and accurate understanding of the basic principle of counterinsurgency--You Cannot Kill Your Way To Victory--as well as the corollary--A Dead Civilian Is A Victory For The Enemy.
Arguably, the release of the reports by WikiLeaks has harmed both the US and the fragile polity in Iraq. But it is incontrovertible that the treatment of the leak by the MSM has done even more damage. By their framing and inexcusable idiocy, evidenced by willful historical ignorance as well as overlooking the presence of their own reporters during the time and at the places covered by the SigActs, the MSM has done a potentially great harm to the US.
The degree of harm is indicated by the totally expectable demands by the UN for a complete investigation of the American inaction in the presence of Iraqi human rights abuses and possible war crimes. By setting the stage for an exhibition of America bashing by an organization filled with professional haters of all things and all actions American, the MSM--particularly those located in the US--have hit a new low point in their "buyers remorse" over having sung unquestioning hosannas in support of the invasion of Iraq.
American MSM have not been noted in recent years for having either a sense of shame or a commitment to telling it like it is rather than how they would like it to be. The full-throated pursuit of a blame-America-first agenda by leading news outlets in the US does journalism no credit. Nor is it in the better interests of the country or We the People.
Nor will all the boiler plate special pleadings about the sacred right to know make the treatment of the leak and its contents any less dishonest. The public does have a right to know, but that right is for the entire story, the whole truth, not carefully selected and framed portions of a complex reality.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Good article.
Post a Comment