Victory? What victory?
Powerline -
If the Fallujah campaign had been long and difficult, and had given rise to many casualties, the hysteria in the media would have been unrestrained. Instead, however, the Fallujah campaign was one of the most stunning successes in the history of urban warfare. Consequently, it has dropped off the media radar screen. Newspaper attention immediately turned, not to the important strategic advantages of depriving the terrorists of their home base, or to the horrifying discoveries of torture and murder chambers, the "Iraq al Qaeda" headquarters, or vast quantities of munitions that have been captured in Fallujah, but to:
1) video footage of a Marine shooting a wounded terrorist, and
2) terrorist attacks in other parts of Iraq. The point of the latter coverage is not subtle; the reader is intended to conclude that the battle of Fallujah has been futile.
Today, the Associated Press reports: "Violent Attacks Sweep Baghdad; GI Killed":
<<<
Insurgents ambushed a U.S. patrol, killing a soldier, gunned down four government employees and clashed with American troops in neighborhoods across Baghdad on Saturday. Nine Iraqis died in fighting west of the capital — another sign the insurgency remains potent despite the fall of its stronghold, Fallujah.
>>>
If you keep reading, you find this:
<<<
"[T]he widespread clashes in Baghdad — which broke out early Saturday in at least a half-dozen areas — and other areas of central and northern Iraq underscored the perilous state of security in this country after 18 months of American military occupation — and just more than two months before vital national elections."
>>>
Baghdad is, I believe, a city approximately equal to Los Angeles in area and population. One can fairly question whether incidents occurring in six locations constitute "widespread clashes" "sweep[ing] Baghdad." But, as always, the tone of the coverage of the Iraq war reflects the agenda of those who write the news. |
