Sunday, March 05, 2006
Searching for war in all the wrong places
I'm trying. I've been trying all week. The other day, I drove another 30 miles or so on the streets and alleys of Baghdad. I'm looking for the civil war that The New York Times declared. And I just can't find it.
Maybe actually being on the ground in Iraq prevents me from seeing it. Perhaps the view's clearer from Manhattan. It could be that my background as an intelligence officer didn't give me the right skills.
Indeed, Peters is seeing blowback of an entirely different kind:
Rolling with the "instant Infantry" gunners of the 1st Platoon of Bravo Battery, 4-320 Field Artillery, I saw children and teenagers in a Shia slum jumping up and down and cheering our troops as they drove by. Cheering our troops.
All day - and it was a long day - we drove through Shia and Sunni neighborhoods. Everywhere, the reception was warm. No violence. None.
And no hostility toward our troops. Iraqis went out of their way to tell us we were welcome.
Instead of a civil war, something very different happened because of the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra. The fanatic attempt to stir up Sunni-vs.-Shia strife, and the subsequent spate of violent attacks, caused popular support for the U.S. presence to spike upward.
Think Abu Musab al-Zarqawi intended that? (emphasis in original)
Notwithstanding the support for American soldiers described in that passage and elsewhere in Peters' excellent dispatch, I have never subscribed to the optimists' idea that Iraqis would love us, even if they did great us with flowers. But I am also utterly convinced that Arabs in Iraq and elsewhere will form an alliance of convenience with us to defeat jihadis even if they are also anti-American, and that that is the key to victory in the wider war. We have accelerated that process by polarizing the Arab and Muslim world, which polarization recruits enemies of al Qaeda to the counterinsurgency even faster than it radicalizes new jihadis. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi proves that point every day.
You're a fool if you don't read the whole thing.
3 Comments:
By 
Assistant Village Idiot, at
Sun Mar 05, 02:35:00 PM:
Actually, I'm pretty much a fool whether I read it or not. But thanks for the attempt to help me.
By PeterBoston, at
Sun Mar 05, 03:13:00 PM:
Once we catch on that NYT reporting does not reflect actual reality but the one the editorial board would like to see there will be fewer surprises.
I hope those kids stay well after we leave because that is where things are heading. Public support for the mission is in cardiac arrest and will probably expire in the spin of the Ports deal, notwithstanding the remarkable achievments of our troops.
The isolationist mood appears irresistible. I only hope that also inludes dumping the UN.
By 
, at
Sun Mar 05, 07:29:00 PM:
Not directly related to this post...but somewhat relevant. There is a book by B.G. Burkett and Glenna Whitley, Stolen Valor. It is an impressive research product. Time and time again, the authors highlight the media's insistance on telling the story they want to tell, ignoring significant inconsistencies or blatant inaccuracies. (Including an earlier Rathergate more than a decade ago). The Media's crisis is not the focus of the book, but it is a recurrent theme and the Burkett delivers some very condemning evidence. Very worth reading. (Here is a link)
http://www.stolenvalor.com/
Sorry it's not right on topic.
