Jill Carroll statements

When Jill Carroll got released, her captors released a propaganda video of her making several statements that were favorable to her captors and not-so-favorable to the United States, our military and our efforts in Iraq.

I am reluctant to prescribe malice to anyone unless I have a good reason to do so, and it doesn't look like Ms. Carroll spoke with malevolent intent. Rather, it looks like she was doing what she needed to do in order to survive and that she made those statements under duress.

From the Associated Press, via the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel online:

RAMSTEIN AIR BASE, Germany (AP) -- Protected by the U.S. military and far from the country where she had been held hostage, Jill Carroll strongly disavowed statements she had made during captivity in Iraq and shortly after her release, saying Saturday she had been repeatedly threatened.

In a video, recorded before she was freed and posted by her captors on an Islamist Web site, Carroll spoke out against the U.S. military presence. But in a statement Saturday, she said the recording was made under threat. Her editor has said three men were pointing guns at her at the time.

As Grehawk points out in this post, this new revelation should make two groups feel silly: conservatives who immediately criticized her without thinking through the context of the situation and liberals who agreed with the comments and jumped on the story as if it proves some point or provides some justification their position.

Be safe, drink water.

Phil

Change in tactics?

I found this article from Stars and Stripes via the Mudville Gazette this afternoon. Apparently, some unit thinks that fighting through ambushes is a new idea.

GRAFENWÖHR, Germany — In a change to Army tactics, U.S. soldiers will stand and fight instead of shooting and pressing on when their convoys are attacked on Iraqi roads, according to Harvey Perritt, spokesman for the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command at Fort Monroe, Va.

“In the first two years of Iraq, convoys (under attack) just fired and kept rolling,” said Maj. Roger Gaines, the battalion’s operations officer said Thursday. “That gave bad guys the perception that Americans run away. Now, convoys will stop and engage the enemy.”

Huh? Gaining and maintaining contact is not a new idea. The whole point is that the enemy doesn't show his face for very long and so you need to make the most of every opportunity. You NEVER just drive through an ambush... that is just silly talk.

Of course, the article is profiling a company in a Signal battalion. Maybe combat support units would do that. But I am going to go out on a limb here and say that there isn't an Infantry or Armor platoon the face of the earth (or in the U.S. Army at any rate) that would just drive by when someone was shooting at them unless they had a darn good reason to do so (i.e. they had a time-sensitive mission that they couldn't deviate from).

The article should distinguish between escorts for logistics convoys and combat patrols. It implies that for the past two years, combat patrols don't "stand and fight" when they're attacked. I promise, that isn't the case. As far as logistics patrols are concerned, the React to Contact battle drill is slightly different than for a typical motorized platoon, but they do have a battle drill.

Be safe, drink water.

Phil

Media coverage

Kelly Vlahos from Foxnews send Becky and me an email about a week ago asking for some thoughts on media coverage of the war in Iraq. Here is her email:

hi there!i dont know if you remember me, but we did a story together a while back for foxnews.com? i was wondering if you could help me with another one ... i was hoping phil might have some insights on the media reporting on the war? i know there is an ongoing debate over the media coverage of the war, and whether it is disproportionately skewed to depict a negative view ... how is/has been phil's experience with the media? does he believe the reporting is skewed? does he think the media is doing a good job with the tools/resources/access they have?

As a Unit Public Affairs Representative in Iraq, I have a little bit of firsthand experience with embedded journalists. I don't know if any of my thoughts will make it into the final draft of the article (particularly since I procrastinated so long in sending them to her), but here is what I wrote to her:

Media coverage is definitely biased, but not necessarily in the way that most people think. News media, particularly television, is biased towards drama, especially drama that can easily be covered in a brief segment. It is an undeniable fact that ratings influence coverage, and spectacular, dramatic events are more likely to draw in ratings than other segments. Insurgents conduct spectacular attacks not necessarily because the attack itself does anything for their cause but rather because the media coverage advances their agenda in the information war.

I don't begrudge journalists for gravitating to the excitement; I do, however, fault them for failing to recognize that tendency and curb it when necessary in the interest of our ultimate strategic victory. This is because journalists have such strong potential to be unwitting pawns in the enemy's information operations campaign.

Abu Ghraib was not a significant strategic event until the media published the now-infamous photographs of everything those perverts did to the prisoners there. The enthusiasm of seemingly every major print and television media to cover this unfortunate series of events ad nauseum hugely aided the insurgency in Iraq. One could say that the Abu Ghraib scandal and its ensuing media coverage did more damage to our efforts in Iraq than any other event since the invasion.

In my personal experience with journalists as a Unit Public Affairs Representative while deployed, I found most journalists to be polite, friendly and generally skeptical of our efforts in Iraq. However, nearly all of them were good listeners, and I shared many conversations and friendly debates with our embedded journalists.

Media coverage is definitely skewed disproportionately to depict a negative view, but it is not necessarily due to malevolence on the part of journalists. Part of the problem is that negative events are easily reportable. It is easy to report the facts on a spectacular event, and accompanying video of an explosion makes for a good segment on the evening news. Positive developments, on the other hand, are less tangible and less reportable. For example, a positive development in Iraq is that citizens can now criticize the government in personal conversations without fear that the secret police will drag them and their families away to Saddam's torture chambers. But it is hard to imagine, every single day, seeing a segment on the news profiling a different Iraqi citizen who freely spoke to his or her neighbor and wasn't thrown into a dungeon. Negative events are easily reportable while positive developments are less so.

Some elements of the media coverage in Iraq, unfortunately, do seem to be due to malevolence. One such item can be the headline attached to an article. One journalist who embedded with us wrote a good, objective, balanced piece about events in a particular part of our area of operations. The content of the article highlighted both successes and challenges, but the headline that ran was "Iraqi Army Endures Desertions" even though the article had nothing to do with the Iraqi Army as a whole but rather discussed some specific circumstances surrounding a particular Iraqi Army unit in a particular place at a particular time. It was a great article but an intentionally and inexcusably negative headline. Additionally, the overexposure of scandals like Abu Ghraib can only be intentional; members of the media cannot plead ignorance after three years of war -- they know the impact of continually showing these photographs and they do it anyway. That's not right.

In other news, the reason for the long gap in posting to the blog is that work has been absolutely crazy. An S1's work is never done, especially when the stop loss is removed and the floodgates have opened up for soldiers to ETS or PCS from the unit. Departing soldiers need awards and evaluations and this and that and it has been crazy. Plus, we had a battalion ball to celebrate our redeployment, and I was fortunate enough to get to play a significant role in the planning and execution of that adventure. :)

Be safe, drink water.

Phil

Cartoon violence reaches our shores

Now here are some cartoons to get upset about...

Seething Midwest Explodes Over Lombardi Cartoons (via Michelle Malkin)

Green Bay, WI - Like a pot of bratwurst left unattended at a Lambeau Field pregame party, simmering tensions in the strife-torn Midwest boiled over once again today as rioting mobs of green-and-gold clad youth and plump farm wives rampaged through Wisconsin Denny’s and IHOPs, burning Texas toast and demanding apologies and extra half-and-half.

The spark igniting the latest tailgate hibachi of unrest: a Texas newsletter's publication of caricatures of legendary Green Bay Packers coach Vince Lombardi.

Protestors demonstrated against the images throughout the Badger State yesterday, with violent egging and cow-tipping incidents reported in Oconomowac, Pewaukee, Sheboygan, Ozaukee, Antigo, Oshkosh, Waubeno, Wauwautosa, Waunewoc, Wyocena, Waubeka, and Washawonamowackapeepee.

Out of respect for the Packers, I will not display the offending cartoons here. But if they are so blasphemous as to enrage the peaceful citizens of Washawonamowackapeepee, you can only imagine what they might be like.

Becky and I are preparing to make our annual pilgrimage to Wisconsin since we missed the last one due to my deployment. We may even attend a demonstration or two... :)

Be safe, drink water.

Phil

Iraq war referendums in Wisconsin

I learned today, while perusing the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, that several localities in Wisconsin are putting Iraq war referendums on the ballot in their April and November elections. I first learned about the Milwaukee referendum when I came across this editorial from the 10 February 2006 MJS. The editorial, written by a supporter of the referendum, offers a laundry list of negative assertions about Operation Iraqi Freedom that the reader must unquestioningly and uncritically accept because she doesn't offer any substantiation to her claims -- just the list. It goes back to something my high school history teacher would tell her students -- something is not true simply because you say it is true. You need to establish that it is true through your argument. And a list is not an argument.

But I'm not writing this post to talk about this particular editorial, although I may address it in the future. Rather, I want to talk about these referendums popping up across Wisconsin and their possible significance.

From the February 4, 2006 edition of the MJS: State a 'test site' for referendums on the war

A growing movement of local referendums on the Iraq war is making a name for Wisconsin in a way that proponents see as an achievement, but critics regard as an embarrassment.
Depending on the outcome of referendums scheduled so far in 21 communities, including Milwaukee, anti-war activists in other states might follow Wisconsin's lead in using the ballot box to gauge opposition to the war.

The intent, according to article, is to "send a symbolic message about whether Wisconsin voters think U.S. troops should withdraw from Iraq." According to an MJS article appearing on 19 January 2006, here is how the question will appear on the Milwaukee ballot in November, to which voters will respond with a yes or a no vote:

Milwaukee voters will be asked: "Shall the United States commence a humane, orderly, rapid and comprehensive withdrawal of United States military personnel and bases from Iraq?" An early version called for the nation to "immediately" begin withdrawing troops, but Mayor Tom Barrett and others criticized that language.

I don't have the specific language of the referendums on the ballot in other communities but surmise that they are probably similar. The question, of course, is whether these referendums are a good thing, a bad thing or simply a thing.

My initial reaction is that, regardless of the outcome, there is little real significance to this sort of thing but strong potential for abuse in the information war.

I say that there is little real significance to a referendum of this sort because local elections generally don't see voters turn out in significant numbers. I don't particularly place much importance on the results of a referendum when only a small minority of voters participates.

I say that there is strong potential for abuse in the information war because numbers are funny things and it seems that creative spinsters can always make the numbers support their particular point of view. The full story must include context and details about voter demographics and turnout. In this case, I strongly suspect that antiwar groups will take the results of these referendums and use them to support the notion that support for the war is waning. The converse is also true, but, pardon my cynicism, I think that the former will get the bulk of the sympathetic coverage.

Bottom line, I don’t think that these referendums will produce anything beneficial to the war effort unless they are overwhelmingly rejected and that voters turn out in numbers significant enough to dispel the notion that the pool of votes was too small and only representative of the dedicated minority as opposed to the population in general. If the results are close, then we will have to endure apologists from each camp explaining why the results should be viewed in a certain way. If voters accept the referendums, I don't necessarily expect it to be front-page news all over the world -- Wisconsin is probably too small a stage, I think. But I wouldn't be surprised if the referendums received widespread, if brief, coverage. If voters reject the referendums in a gesture of support for our efforts in Iraq, I would expect much less coverage.

On the other hand, it is entirely possible that the results of these referendums could get widespread publicity. Suppose the Milwaukee referendum passes -- a not too farfetched notion. It is by no means inconceivable that our antiwar friends in other states (especially blue states -- or "blue big cities" in otherwise red states) would do the same thing with similar results. This could easily develop into a campaign with the goal of proving that support among the American people for our efforts in Iraq is weak. That's not good for morale. The last thing we should do is communicate to our soldiers an eroding foundation of support. I promise, nothing good can come of that.

The way I see it, people who want us to win in Iraq have two options. The first option is to get the referendums off of the ballot. That will prevent biased individuals or groups from twisting the results. I don't think that this is feasible or even smart because it will undoubtedly produce criticism about suppression of democracy and such. And that criticism would not be entirely incorrect. The other option is to campaign aggressively and vote to reject them. Like I said before, the only way that these referendums can benefit the war effort is if they are overwhelmingly rejected. That will be easier said than done because some of these cities are fertile ground politically speaking for antiwar sentiment. If you look at a map of election results, you would observe that Wisconsin is a blue state. That isn't quite accurate -- it's actually a red state with two really big, really blue blobs centered vicinity Milwaukee and Madison (and a few smaller blobs elsewhere). Unfortunately, I would be surprised if voters in Milwaukee and Madison reject these referendums. As far as the other referendums, I'm not sure; but I'm guessing that antiwar groups won't push for a referendum in a city where they thought they'd lose...

I'll continue to follow this topic. It deals with the Iraq war, it deals with Wisconsin... what more could a soldier blogger from Wisconsin ask for? :)

Be safe, drink water.

Phil

Moderate Muslims speak up

Found this on Instapundit...

We are sorry.

Actually, I have no way to verify if this website is indeed created by moderate Muslims or not. But at least it says a lot of the things that we wish got said more often. :)

And for something totally different, here is something awful from Something Awful (also found via Instapundit).

Phil

Muslims gone wild... again

It looks like, once again, crowds of angry Muslims are frothing at the mouth all over the Middle East. Apparently, a non-Muslim has committed the horrific act of drawing a satirical cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed.

This is completely absurd, obviously, and I'm sure that plenty of more eloquent folks than myself have already taken it upon themselves to discuss this. But, since I have been on block leave for approximately eight hours and I am already bored out of my mind, I will walk through a recent article from the Associated Press (via the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) covering this latest outrage forced upon the Muslim world.

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) -- Outrage over caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad erupted in a swell of protests across the Muslim world Friday, with demonstrators demanding revenge against Denmark and death for those they accuse of defaming Islam's holiest figure.

This sort of reminds me of Christians' response when the art exhibit "Piss Christ" opened. That federally subsidized form of self-expression depicted a caricature of Christ on the cross upside down and submerged in urine. I, myself, joined an angry mob from my church that burned flags and effigies of artists, demanded the artist's death and stormed city hall. Er... wait, that didn't happen. Silly me. :)

In Iraq, the leading Shiite cleric denounced the drawings first published in a Danish newspaper in September, one of which depicted the prophet wearing a turban shaped as a bomb. But the cleric also suggested militant Muslims were partly to blame for distorting the image of Islam.

To Sistani's credit, he acknowledges that the Muslim community bears some responsibility for its image and its reputation. Moderate Muslims do not distance themselves from the words and actions of the extremists. If somebody claiming to be a Southern Baptist decided to blow up an abortion clinic, the response from the vast majority of the Christian and pro-life community would be shock, horror and rejection of that tactic. The radio waves and TV shows would be bombarded with representatives from every pro-life organization and Christian denomination categorically rejecting that sort of activity and declaring it not representative of our faith. Unfortunately, I simply have not seen that response from moderate Muslims.

Clerics in Palestinian areas called in Friday prayers for a boycott of Danish and European goods and the severing of diplomatic ties. Tens of thousands of incensed Muslims marched through Palestinian cities, burning the Danish flag and calling for vengeance.

"Whoever defames our prophet should be executed," said Ismail Hassan, a tailor who marched in the pouring rain with hundreds of other Muslims in the West Bank city of Ramallah. "Bin Laden our beloved, Denmark must be blown up," the protesters chanted.

Tens of thousands of Palestinians calling for vengeance does not inspire sympathy in my mind. Rather, it invokes concern that extremism is a little too mainstream for comfort. Just last month, Palestinian voters overwhelmingly elected Hamas to power in their parliamentary elections. Commentators speculated that the vote for Hamas was not one for terrorism per se but rather a rejection of the rampant corruption in the ruling Fatah party. I suspect that the Palestinians knew exactly what they were voting for. Also, based on my unit's experience in Iraq, I can say with virtual certainty that Hamas is probably quite corrupt in its own right. Corruption is rampant over there and an assumed part of the way things are.

One more thing to rant about:

The U.S. and British governments criticized publication of the caricatures as offensive to Muslims, raising questions about whether the line between free speech and incitement had been crossed.

And a little farther down in the article...

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw criticized European media for reprinting the caricatures. While free speech should be respected, Straw said "there is not any obligation to insult or to be gratuitously inflammatory."

The State Department called the drawings "offensive to the beliefs of Muslims" and said the right to freedom of speech must be coupled with press responsibility.

"Inciting religious or ethnic hatred in this manner is not acceptable," State Department press officer Janelle Hironimus said.

The deference given to Muslim hypocrites full of righteous anger at an editorial cartoon but utterly desensitized to Muslims killing innocent civilians on a daily basis in Iraq strikes me as pathetic and somewhat patronizing. Apologetic statements like these only serve to legitimize the point of view of this mob, and it isn't right. The idea that an Al Qaeda strike against Denmark is an appropriate response to these cartoons is not a legitimate point of view and must be challenged on every front.

I will close with one more piece of commentary on the Piss Christ exhibit. As a Christian, I was extremely disappointed that something that offensive would be considered art (and eligible for federal grants). However, as a Christian, I also know that Jesus died for that artist's sins the same way that he died for mine. I also know that vengeance is not for me to take. God will judge that artist for his actions the same way that he will judge me for mine. And, if that artist decides to someday become a Christian and accept the forgiveness for sin that Christ offers, the angels in heaven will rejoice at his salvation the same way that they rejoiced at mine. So who am I to spew my hatred at him or to judge him? Everything will work out in the end -- it always does.

Phil