Concentrating against weakness
The enemy in Iraq is ruthless when it comes to the rules of war. He is too weak to attack defended positions and avoids contact with US and Iraqi forces. His major targets are non combatants, some of whom are recruits.
His targets also include media representatives and contractors working on infrastructure. These targets usually do not have the capacity to fight back. Ironically, the media has become his best asset in Iraq. While they have been directly targeted by the enemy, many in the media have gone out of their way to blame US forces for attacks on their brethen. The media has also been eager to get the enemy message out too.
Perhaps the worst offense of the media is the setting of a ridiculous standard for judging the effectiveness of the US war effort. Failed attacks are deemed as significant as successful attacks. Any death of a US fighter is deemed significant, even though none of these deaths has effected the US's ability to conduct operations.
As soon as the Al Qaeda insurgency started showing signs of defeat the media moved the goal post again with its semantic battle over a civil war. Never mind that none of the instances of sectarian violence demonstrate the capacity to or even the objective of overthrowing the new government. You would think that if there were a real civil war that would at least be a stated objective of someone.
The Mookie Sadr's Madi have already been easily defeated by the US twice, and Sadr himself seems eager to avoid any direct confrontation in a contest of arms. I think that is one reason for this latest political kerfuffle. The question is, will the media have an inquiring mind when it comes to the bogus claims coming from the Shia politicians?
His targets also include media representatives and contractors working on infrastructure. These targets usually do not have the capacity to fight back. Ironically, the media has become his best asset in Iraq. While they have been directly targeted by the enemy, many in the media have gone out of their way to blame US forces for attacks on their brethen. The media has also been eager to get the enemy message out too.
Perhaps the worst offense of the media is the setting of a ridiculous standard for judging the effectiveness of the US war effort. Failed attacks are deemed as significant as successful attacks. Any death of a US fighter is deemed significant, even though none of these deaths has effected the US's ability to conduct operations.
As soon as the Al Qaeda insurgency started showing signs of defeat the media moved the goal post again with its semantic battle over a civil war. Never mind that none of the instances of sectarian violence demonstrate the capacity to or even the objective of overthrowing the new government. You would think that if there were a real civil war that would at least be a stated objective of someone.
The Mookie Sadr's Madi have already been easily defeated by the US twice, and Sadr himself seems eager to avoid any direct confrontation in a contest of arms. I think that is one reason for this latest political kerfuffle. The question is, will the media have an inquiring mind when it comes to the bogus claims coming from the Shia politicians?
Comments
Post a Comment