Iraq's North

Once again, WaPo misleads its readers regarding the disputed north of Iraq. The reporter writes as though the Kurds are the only original residents of the region. In a story about the people of the area as they await the release of U.N. reports expected to propose joint administration of Kirkuk and make a case for the annexation of some districts to the Kurdistan Regional Government, WaPo ignores entire communities.

"Many of the urban areas in the disputed territories were predominantly Kurdish until the 1970s, when Saddam Hussein razed hundreds of Kurdish villages, displacing thousands of people," the reporter says without explaining how he knows this. There has been no census for 50 years, and traditionally Kurds and Turkoman dressed the same, so looking at photos does not determine who belongs to which community.

Obviously what Saddam did to the Kurds was wrong. But what the Kurds have done since is no less wrong. The Kurds have displaced thousands of people by force. The WaPo story is typical of the coverage that reports as though there are no Turkoman, no Assyrians, no nobody but the cheated Kurds and the viscious Arabs in the area. Sure their numbers are small and the Turkoman and the Assyrians are unarmed, but is that reason to ignore them and their plight?

The WaPo story says, "Talib Mohamed Hassan, a Kurdish politician in Khanaqin, recently took visiting journalists to one of the villages razed during the 1970s. For Kurds, he said, these areas are hallowed ground." Hallowed ground? WaPo really must send a reporter to Kirkuk to read the names off the gravestones in the cemetaries and tell their readers how many of them are Kurdish.

Today's problems are complicated. And certainly there are Arab politicians in Iraq who wrongly refuse to consider the Kurdish side. But the Kurds are equally wrong in ignoring the other groups. Whatever dialogue and negotiations are conducted over Kirkuk must include the Assyrians, Turkoman, and other communities.

Misrepresenting the story doesn't help anyone. The mainstream media were fooled by Ahmad Chalabi who for years sold them nonsense before the 2003 invasion. And now they are being fooled by the Kurdish politicians who are selling them another version of nonsense. When will they learn?

Civilian Death Studies

For those who are unsure who the bad guys and the good guys are in Iraq, there are a couple of a new studies to help you decide. The researchers conclude that terrorists killed women and children less often than U.S. raids in Iraq. The studies show that al-Qaeda is not nearly as bad as everyone says they are.

The Independent reports that "Analysis carried out for the research group Iraq Body Count (IBC) found that 39 per cent of those killed in air raids by the US-led coalition were children and 46 per cent were women. Fatalities caused by mortars, used by American and Iraqi government forces as well as insurgents, were 42 per cent children and 44 per cent women."

The study reportedly also found that al-Qaeda fights much more humanely: "Twelve per cent of those killed by suicide bombings, mainly the tool of militant Sunni groups, were children and 16 per cent were females. One in five (21 per cent) of those killed by car bombs, used by both Shia and Sunni fighters, was a child; one in four (28 per cent) was a woman." Good to know.

The Independent says, "figures, compiled by academics at King’s College and Royal Holloway, University of London, show that hi-tech weaponry has caused lethal damage to those in the population who would be furthest away from the conflict."

Meanwhile, The AP reports that a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that al-Qaeda is not as bad as the Shiite thugs because the study says executions were the major killers and "point to the brutal sectarian nature of the conflict, where death squads once roamed the streets hunting down members of the rival Muslim sect."

Estimates of the number of civilians killed in Iraq vary widely. Both studies were based on the database maintained by Iraq Body Count, a private group that among other sources uses media reports. The AP says, "the authors concede the data is not comprehensive but maintain that the study provides a reliable gauge of how Iraqis have died in the six-year conflict."

Of course I'm horrified to learn of the deaths of civilians as a result of U.S. raids. But I can't help but think of the disgraced Lancet study. That study originally angered everyone but later was discredited because of faulty research.

The new studies tell us what we already know, that war is hell and that civilians always pay the heaviest price. How can we not be angry to read the results? But the studies did not appear to distinguish between targets. The U.S. military is told to avoid civilians, while al-Qaeda and the Shiite militias are told to specifically target civilians.

In the end, the civilians are just as dead no matter who kills them. For families of the dead, the pain is overwhelming. For researchers, the civlian deaths are career advancing. For the U.S. military, the civilian deaths are reason to change war planning. And for the terrorists, the civilian deaths are reason for celebrating.

The Luxury of Debate

While many countries debate whether Iraq deserves support or not, civilians are being killed by terrorists who know where they stand -- against Iraq's people.

The NYT reports that Iraq is trying to prove that it's a real country: "With the Americans leaving and security improved, the Iraqi government has been on a nonstop campaign to convince the world that it is a sovereign state, a client neither of the United States nor of Iran."

The writer says countries are suspicious of Iraq's relations to other countries. "In most of the Middle East, being too close to the Americans earns leaders the scorn of Arabs who view the United States as a heavy-handed ally of Israel, a colonialist empire builder and anti-Muslim. In Europe, where many countries opposed the American invasion, the continuing presence of American soldiers coupled with Iraq’s unstable security situation meant that until recently many countries remained skeptical of Iraq’s independence."

Though security is improving, Iraq's not quite there yet. Al-Qaeda and other terrorists are still determined to destory Iraq. That's why the recent comments in the press about U.S. presence and deadlines.

Defence Sec. Gates's "last gasp" comment was a mistake. Gen. Raymond Odierno, who had mentioned the possiblity of an extention of the U.S. presence, said he was certain the U.S. would honor the status of forces agreement and depart on schedule. Now Col Gary Volesky said his soldiers would stay in Mosul and other nearby cities where al-Qaeda remained a threat if the Iraqi government asked them to remain past deadline.

While the Saudis try to decide whether or not they should open an embassy in Baghdad, and Gates and Odierno examine and re-examine the sofa deal, the terrorists are looking most decisive for definitely sticking to their original plan of attacking civilians. Today car bomb injured [Arabic] five civilians at a Baghdad cafe.

It's a luxury to sit around and debate whether a population deserves support. It's much more basic to know that supporting civilians requires no discussion.

Obama and the Pirates

The rescue of the American captain from the Somali pirates was greeted positively by the press, and rightly so. I'm not sure about WaPo's comment about the president's decision when the paper called it, "an early victory that could help build confidence in his ability to direct military actions abroad." But there was no real surprise in the way the media handled a clear struggle between the Somali pirates (bad guys,) and Capt. Phillips (good guy), and U.S. President Obama, (good guy). Even journalists couldn't mess that one up.

If only media could see Iraq as clearly, perhaps they could allow President Obama to make the right decisions about Iraq. If most news reports portray Iraqis as supporters of thugs who want only to kill, how could anyone care what happens to them and their country?

The Washington Post today says, "the recent spate of bombings that bear the trademarks of the group have raised concerns about a possible resurgence of violence as the U.S. military begins to close small outposts and prepares to once again operate almost exclusively out of large bases."

When journalists report on violence today, they imply that things were better under the Baathists. Saddam Hussein prevented suicide bombs, gays were not killed, books were plentiful.
Never mind the Baathists killed plenty of non-Baathists, or gays were jailed, or book titles were banned. The message from the media is that Bush disturbed a delicately balanced country.

A McClatchy reporter writes, "Iraq once was widely regarded as country of fervent readers, as reflected by an adage on books well known in the Arab world: Cairo writes, Beirut publishes, Iraq reads." Yes, we are familiar with that saying. "That began to change after Saddam Hussein took power. Education was free to all Iraqis under Saddam, and early on, his regime kept schools well stocked with current materials." Current materials? The reporter makes it sound like good books when actually they were the Baathist version of history and geography.

To many who rely on journalists for their information, the fighters are humble patriots (good guys) trying to liberate their beloved land from the wicked Americans (bad guys). Never mind they terrorists target civilians, to the media their hats are white.

Iraq was a horribly difficult place under Saddam. It's a difficult place today. But if journalists could distinguish between murderers and civilians, maybe Obama would feel he has support in doing the right thing in Iraq.

Iraqis as Traitors?

Seems like plenty of people are excited to hear that the U.S. is still on schedule to leave Iraq. And it looks as though Gen. Odierno misspoke when he said al-Qaeda might request an extention. Hey, why help Iraq fight off the vultures waiting to butcher civilians and destroy Iraq? Iraqis are working hard for Iraq, but sometimes it seems like they're working alone in the neighbourhood.

The AP reports today that a senior leader in a Sunni Arab movement founded to combat al Qaeda in Iraq is edging away from the military activity of the past, toward a once unthinkable alliance with the country's Shi'ite prime minister.

To the pan-Arabist media, leaders like Abu Risha are traitors for not supporting the media's false reports, and the Iraqi government are cry babies for objecting to inaccurate coverage of Iraq.

The Iraqi government complained to Al Hayat newspaper and Al Sharqiya TV station for inaccruate and provocative reporting. Maybe the Iraqi government should complain to the U.S. media for reporting that Iraq's getting better. Positive stories seem to horrify the pan-Arabist media and inspire terrorists to murder Iraqis. How else can the killers prove that they're still around and sectarian strife is the way to go?

"If we want a unified Iraq, we must work in that direction, on unifying Sunnis and Shi'ites to build one country," Abu Risha said. Must be a pretty horrific goal to Al Hayat and Al Sharqiya.

Al-Qaeda's Last Gasp?

Robert Gates reminded people of Dick Cheney earlier this week. Speaking Tuesday on PBS's NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Defence Sec. Gates said that recent violence in Baghdad was an attempt by "al-Qaida, trying sort of as a last gasp, to try and reverse the progress that's been made." How dare he? He knew Cheney was wrong in saying the violence in 2005 was ending. If Cheney was wrong, surely Gates must be wrong, too.

Never mind that Gates didn't say all violence was ending. Rather, he said the al-Qaeda attacks were the last gasp. Never mind that Iraq is more complicated than just suicide attackers. The media are ready to conclude that Iraqis are savages bent on killing each other and that the wisest thing to do is leave them to the violence.

Asked why Gates played down the rise in suicide bombings, a top administration official told McClatchy Newspapers: "He made a mistake. This is more likely the first gasp of more violence, not the last." Who knows who the official is, but he does not sound as though he knows much about Iraq.

Wonder if this guy knows more than those who said Obama didn't bow before the Saudi king. He might not, because the McClatchy story says, "whatever strength al-Qaida in Iraq may have, most officials agree that events in Iraq have drawn the ire of the Sunnis," so they won't join al-Qaeda, right?

The reporter adds: "Most notably, despite promises, the Iraqi government hasn't paid thousands of Sunnis, who drew a salary from the U.S. military to secure their neighborhoods." Maybe that's why al-Qaeda attacked the Sahwa fighters waiting for their cheques.

As long as al-Qaeda is determined to fight, there will be trouble. But that does not mean al-Qaeda is gaining or that the terrorists have the support of the Iraqi people. This AP story says Sunnis in Anbar worry about what might happen after the Americans leave. The people quoted did not say good riddance to the Americans and bring out the red carpet for al-Qaeda. Still, there are complications in Iraq.

Gen. Odierno says activities of al-Qaeda could keep US combat troops engaged beyond the June 30 deadline for their withdrawal. US troop numbers in Mosul and Baqubah, in the north of the country, could rise rather than fall over the next year if necessary, the general told The Times.

The Obama administration will soon have to listen to Odierno. The general said that he was concerned about the risk of renewed conflict between Arabs and Kurds in northern Iraq, where tensions are rising over the ownership of territory. Odierno also cited the “very dangerous” threat posed by Iranian-funded militants, who appear to be styling themselves on Lebanon’s Hezbollah. As long as Iraq is not yet strong enough, regional fighters will use its land for war. And when they do so, it is bad for everyone.

The McClatchy story blew it as the media often do. The reporter focused on Gates's words instead of listening to a counterinsurgency expert who tried to help the journalist understand what's really happening. At this time, Obama's position is let's stick to the announced timetable for withdrawal -- regardless of what might follow. Sure Obama always says "leave responsibly," but I can't help wonder where his advisers got that word. It sounds like a liquor commercial asking people to drink responsibly. It certainly sounds like the administration hasn't given Iraq too much thought.

"I think the Obama administration is learning that it may need to care more about Iraq," David Kilcullen, an Australian counterinsurgency expert told the McClatchy reporter. Is it too much to ask that the media learn to understand Iraq better?

"God damn al Qaeda, God damn al Qaeda"

There are many ways to look at Iraq these days. There is the democracy President Obama just mentioned, there is the Juan Cole perspective that Iraq is "an economic and political basket case," and then there is the Iraqi view.

Iraqi publications are reporting that there are deals between Iraq and Russia; deals between Iraq and Brazil. Iraqis are building recycling plants; and the Central Bank and the stock market are doing a brisk business. Others are reporting that Iraqis are buying new cars, and that with its limited banking system, Iraq has largely avoided the global financial meltdown.

What worries Iraqis is the possible re-escalation of violence. Recent suicide bomb attacks signal that al-Qaeda thugs are still around, ready to terrorize the Iraqi people. And an audiotape reportedly from a former top deputy of Saddam Hussein says Izzat Al Douri wants good ties with the United States -- but only after U.S. troops leave and the Shiite-led government is toppled.

If the theories out there are correct, that the former Baathists joined up with al-Qaeda, they would explain the bombings on the anniversaries of the fall of Baghdad and the establishment of the Baath party last week. My own relatives in Baghdad say there are rumours buzzing that are scaring everyone they know. The talk is that the terrorists are planning something big on the birthday of Saddam, which is Tuesday the 28th of April.

There is no way to know the source of the talk of the upcoming attack on the 28th. But on the tape Izzat al Douri called Maliki’s government and Iraqi elections illegitimate because they were a result of the American military occupation. Americans were withdrawing, he said, because they failed in Iraq but hoped to leave a puppet government in place, according to the NYT.
“The political process is the occupation’s main project, so attack it through all means available to you,” Douri said, addressing “jihadis” in Iraq.

Attacking the process, means attacking Iraqis. Today a suicide bomber killed 12 Sunni Arab Sahwa men queuing to collect pay cheques at an Iraqi army post south of Baghdad, and wounded 32, police said. U.S. and Iraqi officials said the Mosul and Baghdad bombings bore the hallmarks of Sunni Islamist al Qaeda.

What have we done to deserve this?" said patrolman Mohammed al-Janabi, who was badly wounded in the abdomen and legs. "We helped to make this area safe and when we come to receive our salaries, our bodies are ripped apart. God damn al Qaeda, God damn al Qaeda," he shouted. I assure you Mohammed al-Janabi's view is more representative of Iraqi opinion than Izzat al Douri's, and certainly more accurate than Juan Cole's take.