Meblog

The UN and North Korea

The UN's house of cards seems to be falling down around it and you have to wonder what is going through Kofi's mind as he surveys the ruins. 

Of course, maybe it is not the beginning of the end for the UN.  Maybe the world won't care that the UN is an utterly corrupt, immoral institution.  History and media coverage would seem to indicate that Kofi still has a chance. 

It is sad but not surprising that it is sex scandals within the UN that are getting the most press coverage while the more horrific abuses like the rape and prostitution of the refugees in the Congo by UN personnel and the oil for food scandal get but brief mentions.  Is this another sign of media bias or are we really more interested in a sexual harassment charge coming out of a plush UN office than the plight of hundreds of starving women and children who are raped and forced to sell themselves for food?  If it is the latter, the UN can look forward to a long life. 

And then there is Rwanda. That word alone should prove the complete worthlessness and failure of the UN.  Hundreds of thousands hacked to death.  Rivers so full of bodies you can't see the water.  The UN deliberating.  Help blocked by the word genocide.  And yet not only does the UN still exist, but nothing has changed as Claudia Rosett's latest article shows.

Hugh Hewitt links to Ms Rosett's editorial in the Wall Street Journal on another UN scandal: "the UNHCR's failure in recent years to stand up for refugees fleeing North Korea."

The situation, by U.N. lights, is of course complex. For more than a decade, North Koreans have been fleeing their country by the only avenue even partly open to them--past the northern border patrols, into China. An estimated 300,000 North Koreans are in hiding in China today. They have a well-founded fear of persecution, should they be sent back. Testimony has stacked up high and wide--much of it over the past four years, on Mr. Lubbers's watch-- that if returned these refugees would likely end up starved or worked to death in the labor camps of Kim Jong Il. Some are murdered outright. One recent dispatch from a South Korean private aid group, the Headquarters for the Protection of North Korean Defectors, reports that according to sources inside North Korea the regime there just last month executed some 60 North Korean would-be defectors sent back by China, killing at least eight in public, in the northern city of Chongjin--to deter others from making a run for it.

Such would-be refugees have been dying faceless, nameless and scarcely even remarked upon by the world community. But these were human beings. They had faces and names. From what we know of conditions in North Korean detention centers, it's a good bet they were freezing, famished and quite possibly tortured in the hours before they were then murdered in public due to the combined and systematic state policies of China and North Korea.

Where is the U.N. in all this? Under the U.N. Refugee Convention--which Beijing has signed and the UNHCR, with its $1.1 billion budget, is supposed to administer--these North Koreans refugees had rights. The convention promised them not a return to their deaths, but at least safe transit through China to a place of asylum.

The UNHCR keeps an office in Beijing, with a budget this year totaling $4.4 million, to which asylum seekers have no access. Four years ago, a family of North Korean refugees actually stormed the premises and gained asylum after threatening to eat rat poison from their pockets if forced back out onto the street. Since then, the UNHCR has allowed China's security agents to better defend the compound against further visits by the people the UNHCR is supposedly in China to protect.

For years now, the U.N. policy in dealing with North Korean refugees in China has been one of what its spokesmen call "quiet diplomacy." The hushed implication is that behind the scenes, the UNHCR is in deep and earnest discussion with the Chinese authorities. No doubt. And there has been some help for a small number, mainly by way of easing them quietly out of the country once they have risked their lives by storming foreign compounds other than the UNHCR's. But the broad picture, for the hundreds of thousands, is a quiet but dire absence of any help whatsoever.

And this is the institution that John Kerry was going to come crawling to on his hands and knees to beg forgiveness of.

It stands to reason that freeing the world of the yoke of the UN is the next logical step towards the continued spread of democracy and an essential component for victory in the war on terror.

Reviewing Roger Hardy's Islam's Furthest Frontier (Part III)

Roger Hardy, BBC Islamic affairs analyst, has a four part series on Islam in countries like Malaysia and Indonesia called Islam's Furthest Frontiers.

Part III: Indonesia: The shadow of extremism

Roger Hardy begins his third piece with a mention of the September 2004 bombing of the Australian embassy in Jakarta by the radical Islamic group Jemaah Islamiah - "the regional arm of al-Qaeda".  Eleven people were murdered and many more wounded from the blast, and this incident, following the 2002 bombing in Bali and preceding the Indonesian presidential elections, showed, according to Hardy, "that Indonesia's fledgling democracy still faces daunting challenges."

Indonesia is the most populous Muslim nation in the world, and one of the most moderate. However, as Hardy notes in the following incident there must be a limit to tolerance. 

Back in the capital, I visited a bar which had been smashed up during Ramadan, the Muslim month of fasting.

There I met Hilmy Bakr Almascaty, one of the leaders of the Islamic Defenders' Front - the group which carried out the attack.

He made it clear that any bar or restaurant serving alcohol during the holy month was a legitimate target.

Islamic radicals like these pose a direct threat to Indonesia's centuries-old tradition of tolerance and moderation.

I began to wonder if the "silent majority" wasn't just a little too silent.

Hardy next describes going to the trial of Abu Bakar Ba'asyir.  Abu Bakar Ba'asyir is the cleric who is thought to be the spiritual leader of Jemaah Islamiah and is presently being tried in Jakarta for his involvement in the 2002 Bali bombings. 

There, at a distance, I saw the man who in many ways symbolises the radical Islamist challenge.

Sitting with a red and white keffieh draped around his shoulders, the elderly cleric smiled for the cameras.

Many Indonesian Muslims seem to regard him as a kindly old man who has no link whatever to Bali and the other bombings Indonesia has suffered.

One young radical I met at the trial said bluntly that the Bali attack had been carried out by the CIA - and that the trial was a CIA conspiracy.

A CIA conspiracy to do what?  How could the CIA benefit by blowing up a bunch of tourists in Bali?  I'm sure the answer would be entertaining.  I think this young fellow would get along famously with Eason Jordan.

The good news is that this conspiracy believing radical and others like him are the minority, but as Hardy makes clear, unless the majority resists the extremism of the minority, Indonesia's democracy is in trouble.

In numbers, Indonesia's moderate mainstream - bolstered by groups like Muhammadiyah - dwarfs the radical fringe.

But I was reminded of the cryptic words of a former British prime minister.

"It's not enough to be nice."

(I'm guessing that in Part IV of his series, Hardy is going to look at the Philippines.)

Reviewing Roger Hardy's Islam's Furthest Frontiers (Part II)

Roger Hardy, BBC Islamic affairs analyst, has a four part series on Islam in countries like Malaysia and Indonesia called Islam's Furthest Frontiers.

Part Two: Thailand: The riddle of the South

What has happened to Thailand?  This predominately Buddhist country has enjoyed a peaceful existence until recently when violence erupted in it's southern provinces where Muslims enjoy a majority.  In his second article on Islam in Asia, Hardy tries to understand what destroyed the peace.

According to Hardy, the violence started in January of 2004, and over 500 have died as a result. 

Although Hardy does not describe the initial incident, the one's he does describe start with either a demonstration or a violent act(s) on the part of the Muslims toward the Thai military and police.  He gives three reasons to explain the hatred behind these acts. 

There seem to be three underlying factors fuelling the Muslims' sense of grievance.

*They believe their history and culture are not acknowledged. For
centuries, Pattani was the centre of an independent Muslim kingdom - the Pattani sultanate - which was only incorporated into the Thai state in the early 20th century.

*They feel economically marginalised. The south is one of the
poorest parts of the country - drawing little benefit, for example, from the country's successful tourist industry.

*Thanks to globalisation, they have much stronger links with the
wider Muslim world - and share Muslim anger over such issues as
Palestine and Iraq.

Even though Thai Muslims feel wronged it is still unclear what their role in the recent violence is.  Are they starting the incidents or is an outside Muslim terrorist organization taking advantage of the situation?  Hardy describes two theories:

But who these militants are, and what drives them, remains a mystery....

Experts can shed some light on the puzzle, but not much.

They believe an older separatist movement - active in the south in the 1960s and seventies - has now been superseded by a newer Islamic one.

Government advisers in Bangkok go further and allege the involvement of Jemaah Islamiyah, regarded as the regional arm of Al-Qaeda.

But they offer little by way of proof.

The main thrust of Hardy's articles, however, seem to be that the Thai government has mismanaged the situation from start to finish, and that there is a grave danger that the violence will spread to the rest of Thailand unless the 'pervasive prescence of the military," and the "hard-line policies of the government" are taken care of.

Is Hardy right?  Is the Thai government and Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra primarily to blame for the violence?  I'm sceptical especially since every incident that I read has the Muslims starting the problems. 

And why is there an obsession in the media with bloody?  Every day in Iraq is supposedly bloodier than the day before no matter how much blood flows.  And here in Hardy's article we have two seemingly separate incidents earning the coveted title bloodiest:  "bloodiest moment in a year of violence" and "bloodiest day of fighting since violence resurfaced in the region in January."

Reviewing Roger Hardy's Islam's Furthest Frontier (Part 1)

Roger Hardy, BBC Islamic affairs analyst, has a four part series on Islam in countries like Malaysia and Indonesia called Islam's Furthest Frontiers.

Part One: Malaysia: Islam and multi-culturalism

In the 1980s and 1990s, Malaysia's course was charted by its ambitious Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohamad.

He and his ruling Umno party pursued a modernisation programme based on two guiding principles.

First, they gave Islam a new pre-eminence in public life. This meant stressing Muslim values and identity, building up Islamic institutions and forging new links with the wider Muslim world.

Second, they continued the "affirmative action" policies, begun in the 1970s, which gave the ethnic Malays - who form some 60% of the population - a privileged position in government, education and the bureaucracy.

(I'm struggling to see progressiveness in these principles.  How are they going to modernize Malaysia?)

But where do these twin goals leave the Chinese, Indians and others who form the non-Muslim minority?

Can a society based on these two principles also be genuinely democratic?

Despite his ambition, Mahathir's plan ran into a few snags. First there was the opposition.  Secular liberals think the "'Islamisation' of Malaysian society and politics has gone too far," Umno's Islamic opposition party (Pas) wants it to go further so that Malaysia becomes an Islamic state governed by Sharia law, and the non-Muslim minorities are worried about their basic rights.

Secondly, in addition to the opposition, there was the slight problem of corruption.  Mahathir stepped down in 2003, but his most likely successor,Anwar Ibrahim, was convicted and sentenced on charges of corruption and sodomy.  So instead of passing "the plan" onto an ambitious, leading Muslim intellectual, Mahathir was succeeded by quiet, cautious Abdullah Badawi.

It will be interesting in the next few years to see who will gain the upper hand in Malaysia.  Will Umno with Anwar Ibrahim now out of prison - early, of course - be able to rise to it's former glory?  Will Pas have it's way and see Malaysia enter the Dark Ages?  Or will the secular liberals and non-Muslim's restore the principles of democracy and equality for all men?

Hardy ends with these questions:

So will Malaysia be able to shake off the corruption and authoritarianism which have tarnished the Umno project?

And can it transform its disparate communities into a unified Malaysian nation where everyone is equal?

(I will have to discuss this with my Chinese Malaysian friend.)

Securing Social Security

Social security, taxes, the economy are all issues that don't really interest me.  I know I want a strong economy.  I'm all for tax cuts, the bigger the better.  And I think social security should be secure.  However, the nitty gritty details escape me. 

Needless to say, I was not exactly thrilled to see that the cover story for National Review's January issue was on social security reform - An Idea Whose Time Has Come: The necessity and desirability of Social Security Reform.  But Ramesh Ponnuru does an excellent job of summing up the problem drawing even someone like me into the discussion:

People think that Social Security reform is an incredibly complicated and difficult subject.  But it's not, really.  The program's benefits are rising faster than its revenues, which means we're going to have a lot of trouble paying for those benefits.  The program also offers young people a lousy deal.  The solution is, first, to keep future benefits from growing so fast.  But acknowleding that benefits have to shrink doesn't make the program a better deal for young workers.  So, second, something should be done that lets them build up retirement savings to make up for it.  Which means their taxes should be cut a bit, too, on the condition that the invest the money they get for retirement.  That, in a nutshell, is the reform President Bush seems inclined to propose.  There: Was that so hard?

To be continued...

The social security crisis scoffers (Click to enlarge):

"Crisis, what crisis?  There's no crisis.  Bush is just crazy."  and Noah was crazy too.

Pirates Have Disappeared and So Will Dayton

One positive thing to come out of the December Tsunami is the disappearance of the pirates that targeted ships in the Malacca Strait.  It's hard to believe but yes piracy is still a problem in the world most especially in Indonesia and the Malacca Strait. And these pirates are not your Johnny Depps riding in on a sinking pile of boards; they often chase the ships in high powered speed boats, shoot assault rifles, and communicate via satellite phones.  Due to outside pressure from those concerned about the potential of terrorists attacks in the shipping lanes (that pressure source would be us), Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore created "joint patrols to curb [the] rampant piracy," but the pirates have left at least the Indonesian navy in the dust (or should I say spray). 

But the tsunami has stopped all that.  As reported by Reuters, there hasn't been one instance of piracy since the deadly waves.  The article gives several explanations:

1.) the pirates may have been killed since they are thought to hid out along the northern tip of Sumatra

2.) their boats may have been destroyed

3.) it may be too dangerous for them since there are many military vessels in the vicinity helping with the aid operations

Only time will tell:

Noel Choong, who heads the International Maritime Bureau's (IMB) piracy reporting centre in Kuala Lumpur, says "When the situation returns to normal, if the pirates were not killed, we will see the attacks start up again. The money is just too good."

Guess who is behind much of the piracy?   GAM (the Free Aceh Movement rebels).  The article says they are like Robin Hood:

"People who are living on the coast always protect them. The pirates are like Robin Hood. They always give some of their takings to the people, so people protect them from us," Marine Colonel Buyung Lelana of the River Mouth Task Force told Reuters.

Well, we can hope that if the humanitarian mission did improve relations between the US and Indonesian militaries, either Indonesia will allow the US navy to help patrol their waters or they will allow the US navy to help train the Indonesian navy to handle their pirate problem.

Speaking of Robin Hood, Mark Dayton, Minnesota's senior senator, announced today that he will not run for a second term.  The poll numbers would suggest he's thinking "nobody likes me, everybody hates me, my fellow democrats tell me to go eat some worms," but he claims his decision is based on his dislike of fundraising.  So why did I think of Mark Dayton at the mention of Robin Hood?  Well, the Northern Alliance Radio Network guys call Mark Dayton Brave Sir Robin after the Robin Hood in Men In Tights (I think) because of Dayton's incredible display of courage in pulling his staff out of Washington due to threats on our capital.  While the rest of Washington went about their business, Dayton ran away to hide.  Therefore, when Dayton is mentioned on the Northern Alliance it is always proceeded by the Brave Sir Robin song:

Brave Sir Robin ran away
Bravely, ran away...away...
When danger reared its ugly head
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out
Bravely talking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin

And awhile back, Captian Quarter's posted this picture of "the fearless Senator":

Even though he's brought shame and disgrace to Minnesota destroying what little self-respect we had after Jesse, Wellstone, and Mondale, I'm rather disappointed he's on the retreat again.  It would have made the race much easier for the Republicans had he sought a second term.

Iraqi Election Coverage by the Big Four

I usually visit Hugh Hewitt's blog first because he is like a traffic cop, something I'm sure I have heard him say about himself.  He directs the traffic on the blogosphere sending you in the right direction.  He said Powerline, Roger L. Simon, Friends of Democracy and Instapundit have great election coverage so that's where I went. 

I think if I saw nothing else the slideshow of photos Instapundit links to put together by Adam Keiper would be enough.  The last picture in fact says it all, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if it becomes one of the defining pictures of election. A woman.  A tear.  An ink stained finger. The joy of freedom. (Here's a thumbnail size copy I lifted from powerline blog.)

All that talk about violence at the polls, and then there is a semi quiet day in Iraq.  However, the naysayers weren't completely wrong; they were just looking at the wrong country.  Instapundit links to Norm Geras who found the BBC story about the fight that broke out between demonstrators and Iraqis who had come to vote in Manchester.  The demonstrators weren't Iraqis, and they were from Hizb-ut-Tahrir - an Islamic group which is against the elections in Iraq.  What more can you say?

From Instapundit, I got to Jeff Jarvis' Buzz Machine blog and from there to Cigars in the Sand, which has some great pictures.  Here's my favorite.  The caption says, " How bad do Iraqis want to vote? This guy had himself wheeled to the polling station, in what looks like a modified shopping cart [CORRECTION: baby carriage].
Cigars in the Sand said to check out Friends of Democracy so I did.  If you want to know what's going on in the election process in Iraq, this is the site to visit. I liked this picture of the debates in Samawa. I wish we had debates like this.  I hate the dry soliloqy style format we use because there's not enough accountability. It's hard in three minutes to challenge every lie your opponent made in five.  And wouldn't it be great if we had some Ann Coulters and Hugh Hewitts in congress who would actually talk back to the Barbara Boxers and John Kerrys?  I have to say I was very proud of Norm Coleman for his opening remarks in Dr. Rice's confirmation hearings.  No mister nice guy.

Thanks to Instapundit I also made my first and probably my last visit to the Democratic Underground.  My reaction to many of their posts on the Iraqi election can be summed up in one word: disgust.  They all hate Bush, but they are divided in their reaction to the election based upon whether or not they can separate their hatred of Bush from the events in Iraq.  (Interestingly enough, Bush is called a chimp.  I have never gotten why that is such a put down since according to the theory of evolution chimps are our ancestors.  If the person using the term in a derogatory manner believes in evolution, they are in essence not only disrespecting their ancestor they are also casting themselves in a less than flattering light.  Since I don't want to use the term and don't believe in evolution, I guess I don't have to worry if it makes sense or not.  As I said, I don't think I'll be headed back underground anytime soon.  After seeing part of one beheading, I don't know how anyone could ever respect someone who sides with the terrorists and calls this election illegitimate. 

From Instapundit, I jumped to Roger L. Simon.

Pink Eye, Blogging, and the Iraqi Elections

January 28, 2005.  I have pink eye.  The name seems quite self explanatory so needless to say since I was feeling quite ill and not able to see even a hint of pinkness, I was skeptical at first that I had caught the virus from my roommate.  However, one of the benefits of having a brother who is studying to be a doctor is that he can tell you that you have acute conjunctivitis without the redness to guide him to his diagnosis.  He recommended that I stay off my computer to avoid further eye strain.  However, because of the election in Iraq this weekend, I cannot be a good patient.  I want to know what is happening when it happens so I will be surfing the blogosphere for the most up-to-date news despite the pain in my eyes and head. 

I was listening to Hugh Hewitt interview Iraqis who are voting in California today.  I didn't catch the whole show since I was cleaning the house, but of the interviews I heard speak, every voter was excited and thankful.  I hope the Ted Kennedys, the Barbara Boxers, the John F. Kerrys, the Michael Moores, the Peter Jennings, the Dan Rathers, and everyone else in the antiwar camp takes note of who the Iraqis are thanking this weekend.

The protesters and "no" votes on the security counsel in the UN were bumps on the road to freedom.  They will be quickly forgotten though maybe not forgiven.  This weekend as Iraqis vote they won't be thanking the guy with the "no blood for oil" sign.

Hugh was also asking his regular guests what this election will mean.  Why is the election important?  Here are my answers to that question. 

This election is important first of all to all those Iraqis who for too long have yearned for freedom.  They are men, women, and children. They are Kurdish, Arab, Turkoman, Assyrian, Chaldean, Persian, and Armenian.  They are Muslims, Christians, Yazidis, Mandeans, Jews and Baha'is. They were an oppressed people, and now they are tasting freedom.  They have a say in their government; democracy has come to Iraq.

This election is important for all those who gave their lives, sacrificed their own freedom, put their lives on hold, and said goodbye to family and friends to make and ensure that this election would happen.  They are from Iraq, the United States, the UK, Australia, Poland, Georgia, Latvia, Moldova, Macedonia, Azerbaijan, Tonga, Ukraine, Thailand, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Mongolia, Latvia, Slovakia, Lithuania, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, Romania, Denmark, Portugal, Czech Republic, Lithuania, New Zealand, Singapore, Estonia, Albania, and South Korea.  They also were from Norway, Kazakhstan, the Dominican Republic, Spain, and Honduras. And after this weekend, the world will no longer be able to willfully ignore the fruit of their often degraded and even maligned hard work and sacrifice as democracy has come to Iraq.

This election is important to President George W. Bush who saw the need for a free Iraq, built a coalition, and moved ahead with courage and steadfastness.  When those who should have didn't join him, when there were cries of "another Vietnam" and "quagmire," when he was called a liar, when the casualties were exploited, when he was fighting for his own reelection, and when others were speaking of retreat, President Bush believed that freedom could be spread to Iraq, and he will be remembered for it.  He made the hard decisions looking to the outcome and now they are paying off.  America is safer, and democracy has come to Iraq.

This election is important to us, the American people who voted on November 2, 2004 filling out our ballots with our security and values on our mind.  We remember September 11, and therefore want to remain on the offense in this war on terror.  We are thankful that Sadaam can no longer provide aid and safe haven to terrorists, and we are thankful that Sadaam can no longer make, buy and sell weapons of mass destruction.  We rejoice at another victory in the war on terror as democracy has come to Iraq. 

This election is important to the coalition, "the coalition of the willing."  Over forty-six countries saw the threat and acted.  Some like Costa Rica, backed out, but to those who did not watch the polls nor let the terrorists intimidate them, their parts, large and small, have made the world a safer place as democracy has come to Iraq. 

Finally, this election is important to those who have not experienced freedom.  There are those in countries like Iran, Sudan, North Korea, Syria, China, and Vietnam who will be inspired by what is happening in Iraq.  It will give them the courage and energy to start fighting or keep fighting to be free.  Freedom is closer to others because democracy has come to Iraq.

 

Down the Road of Compromise

JivenJehoshaphat is carrying on a debate, of sorts, with Greg Boyd, senior pastor at Woodland Hills Church here in Minnesota on the issue of abortion.  Greg Boyd's theory is that an acceptable compromise between the pro-choice and pro-life positions, which he feels is necessary to lower the number of abortions and avoid war although he says he himself abhors all abortions, would be that second and third trimester abortions should be made illegal but first term abortion should remain the choice of the mother since before the 11th or 12th week the baby's brain waves are below the level at which a person is declared legally brain dead.  Jiven Jehoshaphat argues that compromise is unacceptable and not necessary. 

Jiven Jehoshaphat mentions Maureen Condic's article on why functioning as a whole, "integrated (organismal) function," not brain wave levels should be used to determine the beginning of life since it is the loss of organismal function alone that distinguishes life from death.

What interests me about this debate, besides the fact that as Christians I can't believe we are even having this argument since the Bible is pretty clear about protecting the innocent, is who is involved.  Usually you hear about these things and it's some pastor you don't know.  In this case, Greg Boyd is a pastor here in the Twin Cities who I've heard speak so it feels more real. 

You compromise on where to park, what color the cushions should be for the church pews, who should sing in the service but not on when life begins.

Why is it that compromise seems to be the thing to do within the Christian community?  As if standing firm about what you believe is somehow unloving.  Why can't we sincerely disagree?

As noted on Jiven Jehoshaphat's blog, the chair of the board of overseers at the church has a good response.

What happens after we make this compromise?  What do we say to a woman in her first trimester wanting an abortion if we have said the fetus is not "alive" yet?  It's not really a person.  Why should she look at the other options? 

This is not Greg Boyd's first time to be involved in a controversy.  I first heard about him in connection to the debate about the foreknowledge of God.  He believes God does not know the future - his answer to the problem of evil - which seems like a compromise of sorts too. 

Update: Jiven Jehoshaphat did not ask Greg Boyd to publish his e-mails which was definitely wrong on his part.

Here's an article written by LTC Tim Ryan printed in the World Tribune that I found on Smarter Cop's blog.  I'm pasting the whole thing here since if I were a teacher reading it would be homework.

Media's coverage has distorted world's view of Iraqi reality

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM

Tuesday, January 18, 2005

Editors' Note: LTC Tim Ryan is Commander, Task Force 2-12 Cavalry, First Cavalry Division in Iraq. He led troops into battle in Fallujah late last year and is now involved in security operations for the upcoming elections. He wrote the following during "down time" after the Fallujah operation. His views are his own.

Photos by CPT Joseph James, 2-12 CAV

All right, I've had enough. I am tired of reading distorted and grossly exaggerated stories from major news organizations about the "failures" in the war in Iraq. "The most trusted name in news" and a long list of others continue to misrepresent the scale of events in Iraq. Print and video journalists are covering only a fraction of the events in Iraq and, more often than not, the events they cover are only negative.

The inaccurate picture they paint has distorted the world view of the daily realities in Iraq. The result is a further erosion of international support for the United States' efforts there, and a strengthening of the insurgents' resolve and recruiting efforts while weakening our own. Through their incomplete, uninformed and unbalanced reporting, many members of the media covering the war in Iraq are aiding and abetting the enemy.

The fact is the Coalition is making steady progress in Iraq, but not without ups and downs. So why is it that no matter what events unfold, good or bad, the media highlights mostly the negative aspects of the event? The journalistic adage, "If it bleeds, it leads," still applies in Iraq, but why only when it's American blood?

As a recent example, the operation in Fallujah delivered an absolutely devastating blow to the insurgency. Though much smaller in scope, clearing Fallujah of insurgents arguably could equate to the Allies' breakout from the hedgerows in France during World War II. In both cases, our troops overcame a well-prepared and solidly entrenched enemy and began what could be the latter's last stand. In Fallujah, the enemy death toll has exceeded 1,500 and still is climbing. Put one in the win column for the good guys, right? Wrong. As soon as there was nothing negative to report about Fallujah, the media shifted its focus to other parts of the country.

More recently, a major news agency's website lead read: "Suicide Bomber Kills Six in Baghdad" and "Seven Marines Die in Iraq Clashes." True, yes. Comprehensive, no. Did the author of this article bother to mention that Coalition troops killed 50 or so terrorists while incurring those seven losses? Of course not. Nor was there any mention about the substantial progress these offensive operations continue to achieve in defeating the insurgents. Unfortunately, this sort of incomplete reporting has become the norm for the media, whose poor job of presenting a complete picture of what is going on in Iraq borders on being criminal.

Much of the problem is about perspective, putting things in scale and balance. What if domestic news outlets continually fed American readers headlines like: "Bloody Week on U.S. Highways: Some 700 Killed," or "More Than 900 Americans Die Weekly from Obesity-Related Diseases"? Both of these headlines might be true statistically, but do they really represent accurate pictures of the situations? What if you combined all of the negatives to be found in the state of Texas and used them as an indicator of the quality of life for all Texans? Imagine the headlines: "Anti-law Enforcement Elements Spread Robbery, Rape and Murder through Texas Cities." For all intents and purposes, this statement is true for any day of any year in any state. True — yes, accurate — yes, but in context with the greater good taking place — no! After a year or two of headlines like these, more than a few folks back in Texas and the rest of the U.S. probably would be ready to jump off of a building and end it all. So, imagine being an American in Iraq right now.

From where I sit in Iraq, things are not all bad right now. In fact, they are going quite well. We are not under attack by the enemy; on the contrary, we are taking the fight to him daily and have him on the ropes. In the distance, I can hear the repeated impacts of heavy artillery and five-hundred-pound bombs hitting their targets. The occasional tank main gun report and the staccato rhythm of a Marine Corps LAV or Army Bradley Fighting Vehicle's 25-millimeter cannon provide the bass line for a symphony of destruction. As elements from all four services complete the absolute annihilation of the insurgent forces remaining in Fallujah, the area around the former insurgent stronghold is more peaceful than it has been for more than a year.

The number of attacks in the greater Al Anbar Province is down by at least 70-80 percent from late October — before Operation Al Fajar began. The enemy in this area is completely defeated, but not completely gone. Final eradication of the pockets of insurgents will take some time, as it always does, but the fact remains that the central geographic stronghold of the insurgents is now under friendly control. That sounds a lot like success to me. Given all of this, why don't the papers lead with "Coalition Crushes Remaining Pockets of Insurgents" or "Enemy Forces Resort to Suicide Bombings of Civilians"? This would paint a far more accurate picture of the enemy's predicament over here. Instead, headlines focus almost exclusively on our hardships.

What about the media's portrayal of the enemy? Why do these ruthless murderers, kidnappers and thieves get a pass when it comes to their actions? What did the the media show or tell us about Margaret Hassoon, the director of C.A.R.E. in Iraq and an Iraqi citizen, who was kidnapped, brutally tortured and left disemboweled on a street in Fallujah? Did anyone in the press show these images over and over to emphasize the moral failings of the enemy as they did with the soldiers at Abu Ghuraib? Did anyone show the world how this enemy had huge stockpiles of weapons in schools and mosques, or how he used these protected places as sanctuaries for planning and fighting in Fallujah and the rest of Iraq? Are people of the world getting the complete story? The answer again is no! What the world got instead were repeated images of a battle-weary Marine who made a quick decision to use lethal force and who immediately was tried in the world press. Was this one act really illustrative of the overall action in Fallujah? No, but the Marine video clip was shown an average of four times each hour on just about every major TV news channel for a week. This is how the world views our efforts over here and stories like this without a counter continually serve as propaganda victories for the enemy. Al Jazeera isn't showing the film of the C.A.R.E. worker, but is showing the clip of the Marine. Earlier this year, the Iraqi government banned Al Jazeera from the country for its inaccurate reporting. Wonder where they get their information now? Well, if you go to the Internet, you'll find a web link from the Al Jazeera home page to CNN's home page. Very interesting.

The operation in Fallujah is only one of the recent examples of incomplete coverage of the events in Iraq. The battle in Najaf last August provides another. Television and newspapers spilled a continuous stream of images and stories about the destruction done to the sacred city, and of all the human suffering allegedly brought about by the hands of the big, bad Americans. These stories and the lack of anything to counter them gave more fuel to the fire of anti-Americanism that burns in this part of the world. Those on the outside saw the Coalition portrayed as invaders or oppressors, killing hapless Iraqis who, one was given to believe, simply were trying to defend their homes and their Muslim way of life.

Such perceptions couldn't be farther from the truth. What noticeably was missing were accounts of the atrocities committed by the Mehdi Militia — Muqtada Al Sadr's band of henchmen. While the media was busy bashing the Coalition, Muqtada's boys were kidnapping policemen, city council members and anyone else accused of supporting the Coalition or the new government, trying them in a kangaroo court based on Islamic Shari'a law, then brutally torturing and executing them for their "crimes." What the media didn't show or write about were the two hundred-plus headless bodies found in the main mosque there, or the body that was put into a bread oven and baked. Nor did they show the world the hundreds of thousands of mortar, artillery and small arms rounds found within the "sacred" walls of the mosque. Also missing from the coverage was the huge cache of weapons found in Muqtada's "political" headquarters nearby. No, none of this made it to the screen or to print. All anyone showed were the few chipped tiles on the dome of the mosque and discussion centered on how we, the Coalition, had somehow done wrong. Score another one for the enemy's propaganda machine.

Now, compare the Najaf example to the coverage and debate ad nauseam of the Abu Ghuraib Prison affair. There certainly is no justification for what a dozen or so soldiers did there, but unbalanced reporting led the world to believe that the actions of the dozen were representative of the entire military. This has had an incredibly negative effect on Middle Easterners' already sagging opinion of the U.S. and its military. Did anyone show the world images of the 200 who were beheaded and mutilated in Muqtada's Shari'a Law court, or spend the next six months talking about how horrible all of that was? No, of course not. Most people don't know that these atrocities even happened. It's little wonder that many people here want us out and would vote someone like Muqtada Al Sadr into office given the chance — they never see the whole truth. Strange, when the enemy is the instigator the media does not flash images across the screens of televisions in the Middle East as they did with Abu Ghuraib. Is it because the beheaded bodies might offend someone? If so, then why do we continue see photos of the naked human pyramid over and over?

So, why doesn't the military get more involved in showing the media the other side of the story? The answer is they do. Although some outfits are better than others, the Army and other military organizations today understand the importance of getting out the story — the whole story — and trains leaders to talk to the press. There is a saying about media and the military that goes: "The only way the media is going to tell a good story is if you give them one to tell." This doesn't always work as planned. Recently, when a Coalition spokesman tried to let TV networks in on opening moves in the Fallujah operation, they misconstrued the events for something they were not and then blamed the military for their gullibility. CNN recently aired a "special report" in which the cable network accused the military of lying to it and others about the beginning of the Fallujah operation. The incident referred to took place in October when a Marine public affairs officer called media representatives and told them that an operation was about to begin. Reporters rushed to the outskirts of Fallujah to see what they assumed was going to be the beginning of the main attack on the city. As it turned out, what they saw were tactical "feints" designed to confuse the enemy about the timing of the main attack, then planned to take place weeks later.

Once the network realized that major combat operations wouldn't start for several more weeks, CNN alleged that the Marines had used them as a tool for their deception operation. Now, they say they want answers from the military and the administration on the matter. The reality appears to be that in their zeal to scoop their competition, CNN and others took the information they were given and turned it into what they wanted it to be. Did the military lie to the media: no. It is specifically against regulations to provide misinformation to the press. However, did the military planners anticipate that reporters would take the ball and run with it, adding to the overall deception plan? Possibly. Is that unprecedented or illegal? Of course not.

CNN and others say they were duped by the military in this and other cases. Yet, they never seem to be upset by the undeniable fact that the enemy manipulates them with a cunning that is almost worthy of envy. You can bet that terrorist leader Abu Musab Al Zarqawi has his own version of a public affairs officer and it is evident that he uses him to great effect. Each time Zarqawi's group executes a terrorist act such as a beheading or a car bomb, they have a prepared statement ready to post on their website and feed to the press. Over-eager reporters take the bait, hook, line and sinker, and report it just as they got it.

Did it ever occur to the media that this type of notoriety is just what the terrorists want and need? Every headline they grab is a victory for them. Those who have read the ancient Chinese military theorist and army general Sun Tzu will recall the philosophy of "Kill one, scare ten thousand" as the basic theory behind the strategy of terrorism. Through fear, the terrorist can then manipulate the behavior of the masses. The media allows the terrorist to use relatively small but spectacular events that directly affect very few, and spread them around the world to scare millions. What about the thousands of things that go right every day and are never reported? Complete a multi-million-dollar sewer project and no one wants to cover it, but let one car bomb go off and it makes headlines. With each headline, the enemy scores another point and the good-guys lose one. This method of scoring slowly is eroding domestic and international support while fueling the enemy's cause.

I believe one of the reasons for this shallow and subjective reporting is that many reporters never actually cover the events they report on. This is a point of growing concern within the Coalition. It appears many members of the media are hesitant to venture beyond the relative safety of the so-called "International Zone" in downtown Baghdad, or similar "safe havens" in other large cities. Because terrorists and other thugs wisely target western media members and others for kidnappings or attacks, the westerners stay close to their quarters. This has the effect of holding the media captive in cities and keeps them away from the broader truth that lies outside their view. With the press thus cornered, the terrorists easily feed their unwitting captives a thin gruel of anarchy, one spoonful each day. A car bomb at the entry point to the International Zone one day, a few mortars the next, maybe a kidnapping or two thrown in. All delivered to the doorsteps of those who will gladly accept it without having to leave their hotel rooms — how convenient.

The scene is repeated all too often: an attack takes place in Baghdad and the morning sounds are punctuated by a large explosion and a rising cloud of smoke. Sirens wail in the distance and photographers dash to the scene a few miles away. Within the hour, stern-faced reporters confidently stare into the camera while standing on the balcony of their tenth-floor Baghdad hotel room, their back to the city and a distant smoke plume rising behind them. More mayhem in Gotham City they intone, and just in time for the morning news. There is a transparent reason why the majority of car bombings and other major events take place before noon Baghdad-time; any later and the event would miss the start of the morning news cycle on the U.S. east coast. These terrorists aren't stupid; they know just what to do to scare the masses and when to do it. An important key to their plan is manipulation of the news media. But, at least the reporters in Iraq are gathering information and filing their stories, regardless of whether or the stories are in perspective. Much worse are the "talking heads" who sit in studios or offices back home and pontificate about how badly things are going when they never have been to Iraq and only occasionally leave Manhattan.

Almost on a daily basis, newspapers, periodicals and airwaves give us negative views about the premises for this war and its progress. It seems that everyone from politicians to pop stars are voicing their unqualified opinions on how things are going. Recently, I saw a Rolling Stone magazine and in bold print on the cover was, "Iraq on Fire; Dispatches from the Lost War." Now, will someone please tell me who at Rolling Stone or just about any other "news" outlet is qualified to make a determination as to when all is lost and it's time to throw in the towel? In reality, such flawed reporting serves only to misshape world opinion and bolster the enemy's position. Each enemy success splashed across the front pages and TV screens of the world not only emboldens them, but increases their ability to recruit more money and followers.

So what are the credentials of these self proclaimed "experts"? The fact is that most of those on whom we rely for complete and factual accounts have little or no experience or education in counter-insurgency operations or in nation-building to support their assessments. How would they really know if things are going well or not? War is an ugly thing with many unexpected twists and turns. Who among them is qualified to say if this one is worse than any other at this point? What would they have said in early 1942 about our chances of winning World War II? Was it a lost cause too? How much have these "experts" studied warfare and counter-insurgencies in particular? Have they ever read Roger Trinquier's treatise Modern Warfare: A French View on Counter-insurgency (1956)? He is one of the few French military guys who got it right. The Algerian insurgency of the 1950s and the Iraq insurgency have many similarities. What about Napoleon's campaigns in Sardinia in 1805-07? Again, there are a lot of similarities to this campaign. Have they studied that and contrasted the strategies? Or, have they even read Mao Zedung's theories on insurgencies, or Nygen Giap's, or maybe Che' Gueverra's? Have they seen any of Sun Tzu's work lately? Who are these guys? It's time to start studying, folks. If a journalist doesn't recognize the names on this list, he or she probably isn't qualified to assess the state of this or any other campaign's progress.

Worse yet, why in the world would they seek opinion from someone who probably knows even less than they do about the state of affairs in Iraq? It sells commercials, I suppose. But, I find it amazing that some people are more apt to listen to a movie star's or rock singer's view on how we should prosecute world affairs than to someone whose profession it is to know how these things should go. I play the guitar, but Bruce Springsteen doesn't listen to me play. Why should I be subjected to his views on the validity of the war? By profession, he's a guitar player. Someone remind me what it is that makes Sean Penn an expert on anything. It seems that anyone who has a dissenting view is first to get in front of the camera. I'm all for freedom of speech, but let's talk about things we know. Otherwise, television news soon could have about as much credibility as "The Bachelor" has for showing us truly loving couples.

Also bothersome are references by "experts" on how "long" this war is taking. I've read that in the world of manufacturing, you can have only two of the following three qualities when developing a product — cheap, fast or good. You can produce something cheap and fast, but it won't be good; good and fast, but it won't be cheap; good and cheap, but it won't be fast. In this case, we want the result to be good and we want it at the lowest cost in human lives. Given this set of conditions, one can expect this war is to take a while, and rightfully so. Creating a democracy in Iraq not only will require a change in the political system, but the economic system as well. Study of examples of similar socio-economic changes that took place in countries like Chile, Bulgaria, Serbia, Russia and other countries with oppressive Socialist dictatorships shows that it took seven to ten years to move those countries to where they are now. There are many lessons to be learned from these transfomations, the most important of which is that change doesn't come easily, even without an insurgency going on. Maybe the experts should take a look at all of the work that has gone into stabilizing Bosnia-Herzegovina over the last 10 years. We are just at the 20-month mark in Iraq, a place far more oppressive than Bosnia ever was. If previous examples are any comparison, there will be no quick solutions here, but that should be no surprise to an analyst who has done his or her homework.

This war is not without its tragedies; none ever are. The key to the enemy's success is use of his limited assets to gain the greatest influence over the masses. The media serves as the glass through which a relatively small event can be magnified to international proportions, and the enemy is exploiting this with incredible ease. There is no good news to counteract the bad, so the enemy scores a victory almost every day. In its zeal to get to the hot spots and report the latest bombing, the media is missing the reality of a greater good going on in Iraq. We seldom are seen doing anything right or positive in the news. People believe what they see, and what people of the world see almost on a daily basis is negative. How could they see it any other way? These images and stories, out of scale and context to the greater good going on over here, are just the sort of thing the terrorists are looking for. This focus on the enemy's successes strengthens his resolve and aids and abets his cause. It's the American image abroad that suffers in the end.

Ironically, the press freedom that we have brought to this part of the world is providing support for the enemy we fight. I obviously think it's a disgrace when many on whom the world relies for news paint such an incomplete picture of what actually has happened. Much too much is ignored or omitted. I am confident that history will prove our cause right in this war, but by the time that happens, the world might be so steeped in the gloom of ignorance we won't recognize victory when we achieve it.

---

Postscript: I have had my staff aggressively pursue media coverage for all sorts of events that tell the other side of the story only to have them turned down or ignored by the press in Baghdad. Strangely, I found it much easier to lure the Arab media to a "non-lethal" event than the western outlets. Open a renovated school or a youth center and I could always count on Al-Iraqia or even Al-Jazeera to show up, but no western media ever showed up – ever. Now I did have a pretty dangerous sector, the Abu Ghuraib district that extends from western Baghdad to the outskirts of Fallujah (not including the prison), but it certainly wasn't as bad as Fallujah in November and there were reporters in there.

---

Copyright © 2005 East West Services, Inc.

By LTC Tim Ryan