[Sgt>Stackem]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I found this an interesting read. For those that may not know, AUSA is Association of the United States Army. For GR and MSGT, thought you old cav troopers might like to hear what your brethren have been up to.

Subject: Fw: [VHFCN] Real news from Iraq

> Went to an AUSA dinner last night at the Ft. Hood Officers' Club to hear a
speech by MG Pete Chiarelli, CG of the 1st Cav Div. He and most of the Div.
have just returned from Iraq. Very informative and, surprise, the Mainstream
Media (MSM) isn't telling the story. I was not there as a reporter, didn't
take notes but I'll make some the points I remember that were interesting,
suprising or generally stuff I had not heard before.

It was not a speech per se. He just walked and talked, showed some slides
and answered questions. Very impressive guy.

1. While units of the Cav served all over Iraq, he spoke mostly of Baghdad
and more specifically Sadr City, the big slum on the eastern side of
theTigeris River. He pointed out that Baghdad is, in geography, is about the
size of Austin. Austin has 600,000 to 700,000 people. Baghdad has 6 to7
million people.

2. The Cav lost 28 main battle tanks. He said one of the big lessons learned
is that, contrary to docterine going in, M1-A2s and Bradleys are needed,
preferred and devastating in urban combat and he is going to make that point
to the JCS next week while they are considering downsizing armor.

3. He showed a graph of attacks in Sadr City by month. Last Aug-Sep they
were getting up to 160 attacks per week. During the last three months, the
graph had flatlined at below 5 to zero per week.

4. His big point was not that they were "winning battles" to do this but
that cleaning the place up, electricity, sewage, water were the key factors.
He said yes they fought but after they started delivering services that the
Iraqis in Sadr City had never had, the terrorist recruiting of 15 and 16
year olds came up empty.

5. The electrical "grid" is a bad, deadly joke. Said that driving down the
street in a Hummv with an antenna would short out a whole block of apt.
buildings. People do their own wiring and it was not uncommon for early
morning patrols would find one or two people lying dead in the street,
having been electrocuted trying to re-wire their own homes.

6. Said that not tending to a dead body in the Muslum culture never happens.
On election day, after suicide bombers blew themselves up trying to take out
polling places, voters would step up to the body lying there, spit on it,
and move up in the line to vote.

7. Pointed out that we all heard from the media about the 100 Iraqis killed
as they were lined up to enlist in the police and security service. What the
media didn't point out was that the next day there 300 lined up in the same
place.

8. Said bin Laden and Zarqawi made a HUGE mistake when bin laden went public
with naming Zarqawi the "prince" of al Quaeda in Iraq. Said that what the
Iraqis saw and heard was a Saudi telling a Jordainan that his job was to
kill Iraqis. HUGE mistake. It was one of the biggest factors in getting
Iraqis who were on the "fence" to jump off on the side of the coalition and
the new gov't.

9. Said the MSM was making a big, and wrong, deal out of the religious
sects. Said Iraqis are incredibly nationalistic. They are Iraqis first and
then say they are Muslum but the Shi'a - Sunni thing is just not that big a
deal to them.

10. After the election the Mayor of Baghdad told him that the people of the
region (Middle East) are joyous and the governments are nervous.

11. Said that he did not lose a single tanker truck carrying oil and gas
over the roads of Iraq. Think about that. All the attacks we saw on TV with
IEDs hitting trucks but he didn't lose one. Why? Army Aviation. Praised his
air units and said they made the decision early on that every convoy would
have helicopter air cover. Said aviators in that unit were hitting the 1,000
hour mark (sound familiar?). Said a covoy was supposed to head out but
stopped at the gates of a compound on the command of an E6. He asked the SSG
what the hold up was. E6 said, "Air , sir." He wondered what was wrong with
the air, not realizing what the kid was talking about. Then the AH-64s
showed up and the E6 said, "That air sir." And then moved out.

12. Said one of the biggest problems was money and regs. There was a $77
million gap between the supplemental budget and what he needed in cash on
the ground to get projects started. Said he spent most of his time trying to
get money. Said he didn't do much as a "combat commander" because the the
war he was fighting was a war at the squad and platoon level. Said that his
NCOs were winning the war and it was a sight to behold.

13. Said that of all the money appropriated for Iraq, not a cent was
earmarked for agriculture. Said that Iraq could feed itself completely and
still have food for export but no one thought about it. Said the Cav started
working with Texas A&M on ag projects and had special hybrid seeds sent to
them through Jordan. TAM analyzed soil samples and worked out how and what
to plant. Said he had an E7 from Belton, TX (just down the road from Ft.
Hood) who was almost single-handedly rebuilding the ag industry in the
Baghdad area.

14. Said he could hire hundreds of Iraqis daily for $7 to $10 a day to work
on sewer, electric, water projects, etc. but that the contracting rules from
CONUS applied so he had to have $500,000 insurance policies in place in case
the workers got hurt. Not kidding. The CONUS peacetime regs slowed
everything down, even if they could eventually get waivers for the regs.

There was more, lots more, but the idea is that you haven't heard any of
this from anyone, at least I hadn't and I pay more attention than most.

Great stuff. We should be proud. Said the Cav troops said it was ALL worth
it on Jan. 30 when they saw how the Iraqis handled election day. Made them
very proud of their service and what they had accomplished.

[negative]

I enjoy these kinds of messages-I just wish more people would listen to them.

[rdeyes]

nice post , something for the anti-war chaps to read

[Sgt>Stackem]

Originally Posted by rdeyes

nice post , something for the anti-war chaps to read

you notice they wont post in this thread though

[negative]

thats true-they talk and complain about how close minded we are, but when they here something positive- they automatically believe it. There may be right wing biased on faoxnews-but there is EXTREME left wing bias on every other news channel, and thats what they dont realize.

[ninty]

I read it.

I've never denied the fact that good things can come out of the war. It doesn't mean I have to agree with it however.

There are really only a couple positive points in there which are the terrorist recruiting and less attacks, the other stuff isn't positive or negative, their just facts from the front.

I don't see this article as being "liberal or conservative" in nature, rather details and progress being made in the country, so I don’t know what you guys are getting excited about.

It doesn’t matter who you are, or what policies you believe in, I don’t think anyone like to see people die. I don’t want any Iraqis to die. I don’t want any Americans to die either. If there are less attacks and less terrorists in Iraq, then that’s good. I hope that’s true. My personal opinion is that the US is just creating more terrorists with the invasion and occupation. I don’t see it good for anyone.

As for Liberal media, I always laugh when I hear this.

I don't watch any main stream new channels because their ALL BS. All of the channels are neither Liberal nor Conservative with the exception of Fox. I think we can all agree that Fox is right wing. The rest of the news stations report news, but they don't investigate or detail the news. They report it and give opinions which are not what a news organization should do in my opinion.

A true news organization gets a story, checks the facts and investigates the story, airs the story, facts and the results of their investigation. A news station should not be giving these liberal and conservative opinions, because really, politics shouldn't matter in the story. What should matter is a truthful telling of the story backed up by facts without an agenda.

The facts should be conveyed. All main stream news does is put spin on stories. Channels should be held responsible for what they put on the air. By this I mean that they should have to investigate before putting something up. There are an extremely high number of false stories and reports that news channels try to put out there without first checking because they want to be the first ones to have it up. It doesn't matter if it’s true or not.

The media censors itself. You may think the stations are liberal, but there are hundreds of stories that get thrown by the wayside because they don’t agree with the current political climate.

Freedom of the press should be just that. Reporters should be able to present their story with facts to back it up without having to look over their shoulder, without having the worry of being fired. In today’s news industry, if you don’t conform to those stations policies, you won’t have a job. I see that pretty clearly, and it’s not right.


Mainstream news don't report news, they report bullshit.

[ninty]

I found an article that pertains to this topic:

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_ ... 050001.htm



Also on the topic of mainstream news:

[quote:63089]
One of the most significant findings was "the amount of editing that went into content after it was gathered but before it was published," the study stated. Of those who reported from Iraq, 15% said that on one or more occasions their organizations edited material for publication and they did not believe the final version accurately represented the story.

Of those involved in war coverage who were in newsrooms and not in Iraq, 20% said material was edited for reasons other than basic style and length.

Some 42% of those polled said they were discouraged from showing photographic images of dead Americans, while 17% said they were prohibited. Journalists were also discouraged from showing pictures of hostages, according to 36% of respondents, while only 3% reported being prohibited from showing them.[/quote:63089]

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp ... 1000846234

[negative]

this article isnt by a journalist-it is by an officer back from Iraq.

[ninty]

Originally Posted by negative

this article isnt by a journalist-it is by an officer back from Iraq.

You have to read the article to be able comment on it.


[quote:aea8f]
...the American Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA), which monitors the situation daily, says it has worsened.

"The insurgency in Iraq has grown in size and complexity over the past year. Attacks numbered approximately 25 per day one year ago," DIA Director Vice Admiral Lowell Jacoby told the Senate Armed Services Committee in Washington.[/quote:aea8f]

This isn't some journalist making things up. This is a journalist writing about an organization that is set up to monitor the Iraq situation. They look over the whole of Iraq. Not one part of it as the Officer would have.

Why do I even respond to your posts? You realize your integrity in such matters as these deminish when you can't even read a simple article.

[Colonel]

Thanks Stackem - very interesting.

ninty9 - isn't that article from India? It is interesting also, but the number of attacks, etc don't seem to jive with what the guy on the ground reports. As for the highlighted quotes, many of the rules about what you can show (pictures of prisoners, etc) was part of the Geneva Convention wasn't it? Or does that not apply to the media. Maybe not, I'm not sure. But if you ask a guy that has written a story that was edited, even if it is an article about the local spelling bee, I would be surprised if you didn't get 15 or 20% of them complaining that their story was not what they wrote.

[ninty]

Yes it is from India.

Here's the full report right from the DIA website if you feel more comfortable:

http://www.dia.mil/Public/Testimonies/statement16.html

[quote:25c6e]The insurgency in Iraq has grown in size and complexity over the past year. Attacks numbered approximately 25 per day one year ago. Insurgents have demonstrated their ability to increase attacks around key events such as the Iraq Interim Government (IIG) transfer of power, Ramadan and the recent election. Attacks on Iraq’s election day reached approximately 300, almost double the previous one day high of about 160 during last year’s Ramadan. Since the January 30th election, attacks have averaged around 60 per day and in the last two weeks dropped to approximately 50 per day.[/quote:25c6e]

========

I don't think the Geneva Conventions have anything to do with what is aired on TV:

* First Geneva Convention (1864): Treatment of battlefield casualties.
* Second Geneva Convention (1906): Extended the principles from the first convention to apply also to war at sea.
* Third Geneva Convention (1929): Treatment of prisoners of war.
* Fourth Geneva Convention (1949): Treatment of civilians during wartime in enemy hands.
* Protocol I (1977): Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts
* Protocol II (1977): Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts

And I agree with your last point, however in my mind, if it happens on every story that doesn't make it right.

The fact is that according to this, reporters feel that their stories were somewhat changed during the processes and the version that aired, didn't properly represent the story.

[Drew]

I'm pretty sure that the Geneva Conventions ban showing POWs on television.

[ninty]

I believe your right, but I don't think the article is only talking about POW's.

The article takes more of general form.

I think this is a big deal. If there are stories being run that are not truthful to the original writers investigation and opinion, then what kind of story is it?



[quote:e2f66]Among respondents who were in Iraq, 27% said their organization had prior rules in place about what they would or would not publish, and 31% of those who were based in newsrooms said their organization had prior rules. Coverage sensitivity focused more on the type of images published. [/quote:e2f66]

[quote:e2f66]
"Our duty is to report as vividly and accurately as we can what is happening in Iraq. But we have to make difficult judgments about some of the shocking raw footage we or agencies film of death, horrific injuries, hostage murders filmed by hostage takers, etc," another journalist wrote back. "We want to show what is happening, but also to avoid causing unnecessary shock and distress to viewers or encouraging further brutality by hostage takers. It is a difficult task." [/quote:e2f66]

To me its important to get what is really happening to the public. Its the publics tax dollars and sons and fathers who are dying. When this is sensored, news media loses all credibility in my mind.

Found this link there as well:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp ... 1000846805


Here are actual journalists comments:

[quote:e2f66]“Our one raging controversy was over an interview with members of a departing National Guard unit. Our reporter, a Navy veteran of the Gulf War, quoted some of the troops as expressing fear. That provoked enormous outrage from higher-ups — to the point where we were barred from even setting foot on armory grounds in our own town. Passions run high.”

"In general, coverage downplayed civilian casulaites and promoted a pro-U.S. viewpoint. No U.S. media showed abuses by U.S. military carried out on regular basis.”

“Friendly fire incidents were to show only injured Americans, and no reference made to possible mistakes involving civilians.”

Among other telling comments:

“On some occasions, the reports were subtly edited to make them less negative and more in line with official views. This was not systematic, though.”

“The real damage of the war on the civilian population was uniformly omitted.”

“I think we sanitized the images too much so that people do not see the reality of war.”

“There was excessive pressure to show the “good news’ in Iraq.” [/quote:e2f66]

Sums it up pretty well I think.

More:

[quote:e2f66]“I do believe the more graphic images of the war were covered up by many media outlets, which does everyone a disservice.”

“The human cost of the war has been routinely omitted from most U.S. broadcasts. The American people has definitely not gotten the entire picture of the war's devastation and the infernal conditions in Iraq today as a result of the our invasion.”

“We have heard, second-hand, that our corporate president has told producers to keep Iraq war coverage ‘positive.’"

“I was fortunate to not be embedded during the war when I think of the most blatant cases of self-censorship. I have heard many stories, from colleagues who were embedded, of execution of prisoners (included the wounded), of abuse of civilians, or cruelty and brutality by U.S. forces that were never reported.”

“Where were journalists--print and broadcast--before war was declared? Why was there no civic discourse or rigorous debate?”

“We didn't get everything we wanted, i.e. flag draped coffins, but we were not limited, what we saw we reported.”

“Mass media coverage in the U.S.--particularly cable--is horrible... the consequences are (will be) horrible."

“As long as you are not at the front, you can not trust anyone. Unless you cross-search foreign papers.”

“My main reason for filling out this survey is that I have been distressed at the way the ‘big boys’ have covered the war, the prelude to war and its aftermath. I think too many bought into the administration line. UK press has been considerably better in covering the humanitarian outcome and the mistakes and errors in judgment by U.S. forces…. But the lack of coverage of Iraqi war dead, etc., and the only recent questioning of the administration line is very disturbing."

“It seems to me that the American TV network coverage of the war and its aftermath was pretty disgraceful. There was virtually no skepticism about official claims. Americans who relied on TV for their news would have been utterly surprised by the current turmoil. I don't think that's true of British viewers.”

“In general, according to my experiences and observations, the media's flaws in covering Iraq come from: a) self-censorship of the reporters (often encouraged by the editors), b) failure to put stories into appropriate context, c) coverage of stories from a purely U.S. point of view (i.e., not providing much focus on Iraqi civilians, etc.). Our own newspaper has been guilty of each of these to some extent or other, whether on the news pages or editorial pages or both. U.S. coverage of the war in general is worse than I have seen in other countries (I regularly watch European and Asian news broadcasts). Especially during the early phases of the war, the U.S. media - including my newspaper - generally acted as cheerleaders. On the other hand, when reporters for my newspaper wrote articles that were critical of some aspects in the war (I wrote several articles critical of its economic implications, as well as the lack of planning), they were not censored or rewritten. I am not sure that is the experience of all U.S. reporters.”

“Our news organization failed to subject the administration’s various allegations to sufficient scrutiny and continues to do so. I believe this is primarily because it reflects--and does not challenge--the positions of those in power. The absence of opposition from elected officials in washington created a vacuum and our organization, like many others, completely failed in its responsibility to challenge the assertions of the White House. In short, it was not an independent voice intelligently assessing charges that would lead to war but instead a megaphone for a misguided policy. This was done presumably because our editors saw the story this way themselves and also I believe because they edit stories for 'Middle America' and they assumed that this is what Middle America thought as well--a great failure of the U.S. media that will no doubt be repeated. “[/quote:e2f66]

[Coleman]

Originally Posted by ninty9

I don't watch any main stream new channels because their ALL BS. All of the channels are neither Liberal nor Conservative with the exception of Fox. I think we can all agree that Fox is right wing. The rest of the news stations report news, but they don't investigate or detail the news. They report it and give opinions which are not what a news organization should do in my opinion.

dan rather? CNN does alot of negative reports about Iraq. Many of them are filled with hardcore facts but many times it concentrates on the mistakes of the American Gov't (as an example).

I don't know how you can say that Fox is conservative and everything else is neutral. That doesn't make sense to me.

[ninty]

Read the journalists comments above.

Fox is right wing because it is willfully censors itself. It does this knowing full well. Watch "Outfoxed".
http://www.outfoxed.org/

The other news channels are not so awake to their own censorship. For this, they end up more or less neutral. They censor things because they think that people can't take it, and that they'll get in trouble for it, no matter which side its slanted. I don't mean neutral in a good way, I mean that they take out parts of stories that make their ideology curve to one side or another, thus rendering the story useless just to try to appease everyone.

All news media is unreliable