Looks like the Iraqis didn’t get the leftwing MSM memo about Sadr’s ‘victory’ in Operation Cavalry Charge.
Below is a Reuters photo of hundreds of Iraqis in Basra lining up to enlist in the Iraq Army.
Nibras Kazimi at Talisman Gate has more:
The western media operating in Iraq regurgitated the Mahdi Army’s bravado as fact thereby serving as useful propaganda tools for the criminal cartels. I’d single out the New York Times, the Associated Press, McClatchy and CNN as the worst transgressors. Many journalists were positively orgasmic in anticipation of another ‘intifada’ or uprising to crease Bush’s message of hope and regeneration. But as the dust began to clear and the real scope of the battle was revealed, these journalists were reduced to alarmism of the “What if Martians decide to invade Basra too?” variety. Understandably, some of these journalists wanted the Iraq scene to heat up so that the public back in America would pay attention to Iraq and consequently to the careers of those reporting on Iraq for their once-glamorous war zone beat that was sure to land one a book deal a couple of years back had gone dull and dreary.
What then did these journalists do when they didn’t get their ‘intifada’? They couldn’t further imperil their careers by admitting that they were wrong—hell no!—so they’ve decided to brand Maliki and the Iraqi Army as the losers.
Talisman is right on the money.
Richard Miniter, at Pajamas Media points out that the New York Times hired a former officer in Saddam Hussein’s Army to serve as a pro-terrorist mouthpiece:
……Take today’s New York Times dispatch from Basra.
……First of all, who is Qais Mizher, who owns the byline on the piece? Well, he tells us this in passing: “Calling on my experience as a captain in the Iraqi Army before the 2003 invasion and essentially a war correspondent since then…” Got that? The New York Times reporter was an officer in Saddam’s army. Nice. By the way, officers were not drafted (that’s how the enlisted ranks were filled). Officers had to be selected and regularly vetted for loyalty and effectiveness. So Saddam decided that he could trust our intrepid correspondent and so did the New York Times.
……It is simply a traveleogue meant to convey that Basra is a dangerous and confusing place. The reporter makes no attempt to clarify anything. He does not interview any Iraqi army officers, whom, he admits, are holed up 50 feet from his hotel.
……As for his statement that the Mahdi Army can strike anywhere in Basra and the Iraqi Army really controls nothing, well, how would he know? He is not quoting an expert, say a American or Iraqi commander with access to maps and satellite imagery that shows the Mahdi Army striking at will across the metropolis. He cites no independent named source at all. He just retails Mahdi Army propaganda as fact.
From one of my previous posts:
The enormous headway being made by the United States Army against al Qaeda is largely unreported. I monitor blogs and websites by Soldiers and journalists still on the ground, as well as keep in touch with those still in Iraq and Afghanistan. When I was there, I saw and experienced a totally different war than what the stateside media portrayed. We kick in doors and kill bad guys. We also feed, clothe, and provide medical care for the local populace. The members of fledgling Iraqi and Afghan governments are working through tribal and political problems. For the first time in the history of these two countries, representative governments are being formed, public and business infrastructures are being built, and the people are practicing new found freedoms that we take for granted.
……The ‘Fourth Estate’ has mutated into the Fifth Column.
There’s ample proof of success in the GWOT, but no willingness on the part of the MSM to make it public. The answer lies in the editorial slant of the news itself; the bulk of which is unabashedly pro-al Qaeda. If you think that’s too harsh, take a look at the accumulative reporting. Most dispatched civilian ‘journalists’ write their stories from air-conditioned hotel rooms and get their feeds from sources that are at best suspect. The home-bound desk jockeys write their opinions without ever leaving the confines of their newsrooms. The real embedded reporters who have the guts to point out the great success of campaigns are squelched by a MSM with anti-military/Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Unfortunately for rags like the New York Times, civilian, military, and former military bloggers, take the time to scrutinize and refute the ‘news’ which New York Times sees ‘fit to print’.