Time for a reminder. This just happens to be the first link I came across, but there are plenty.

From NPR, dated March 6:

If conflict does come, Clinton said, he thinks a war could be "over in a week" because of what he sees as the overwhelming capability of U.S. forces and the depletion of Iraq's military strength.

"I think it's important to disarm this man, I think he's a bad fella, but our military superiority is so great -- it's far greater than it was in the Gulf War, and the Gulf War was over in 100 hours after we bombed for 43 days," Clinton said. "And so now they can bomb for a couple of days and then just roll into Baghdad."

Every now and again I hear some speculation as to why Saddam hasn't tried to fly a single plane yet. The usual answer given is that any plane that goes into the air would be shot down right away, so he's holding them in reserve.

Perhaps that's true, but if he doesn't use his planes, he'll soon lose the opportunity to use them at all. And his tanks aren't that useful, but he sends his ground troops out to get themselves killed day in and day out.

I wonder if it might be something else. If you were in Baghdad and you were given the kys to a supersonic plane, wouldn't you just try to fly the hell out of there? I suppose that Saddam could do the same "torture the family" trick on the pilots that he uses on his other hapless troops, but I wonder...

Amongst all the tooth gnashing about Peter Arnett's horrible suck-up to the Iraqi powers-that-be comes the more treasonous tactics of Fox News' Geraldo Rivera. Apparently unbowed by Geraldo's playing fast and loose with the facts during the Afghan conflict, the Fair and Balanced news network sent the mustachioed one once again into the breach - only to have him endanger American soldiers for the chance to make a few headlines.

Rivera, traveling with the 101st Airborne Division in Iraq, revealed tactical information and at one point told about an attack two hours before it took place, according to sources at the U.S. Central Command who asked not to be identified.

Hey, Geraldo, the mustache should have been the clue - but we never really thought you were working with Saddam!

The Gannett News Article U.S. losing battle worldwide on public relations front states the obvious when it says the coalition - specifically, the U.S. - is losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the middle east.

That's not surprising. We never had the hearts and minds of the middle east. The best hope for turning that tide of public opinion may be the simplest: keeping our word.

About U.S. efforts at propaganda, Khaled Al-Maeena, editor in chief of Arab News, had this to say:

"It has fallen on deaf ears, I have been crisscrossing the country for the past week: the eastern region, the western, talking to liberals, conservatives, socialists, agnostics and very secular people, too. All of the people have come to the conclusion that America speaks with a forked tongue, as Chief Sitting Bull would say,'' he said. "People simply do not believe Mr. Bush.''

Truthfully, the U.S. hasn't been in the role of "oppressed people" in over 200 years. So it's no wonder that we don't understand the hatred that's emerged in the "Arab Street." (Geez, I hate that phrase)

But the one thing that becomes crystal clear when listening to the semi-rational Arab reasons against the war is this: lack of trust. Nobody trusts the U.S.

And this is not just a Bush thing. This lack of trust is linked to the Palestinian Issue, it's linked to the support of oil-rich patriarchies in OPEC. It's linked to colonialism. It's a given.

But it's a mistake to think that such mistrust will go away if we throw more money at it. Such is the solution proposed by the likes of Richard Lugar, R-Ind.

"There's no way the U.S. can sell this war to anyone,'' she said. "It's not a matter of packaging. It's not a matter of public diplomacy. ...America's imperialism is clear and blatant. This is the only solution they have: bombing, bombing, bombing. This is why they're losing in the Arab world.''

So how do we combat such views? We don't. But we don't ignore them either. The coalition has been doing a pretty good job of this in some ways early in the war - avoiding civilian casualties as much as possible, bringing in humanitarian aid as swiftly as possible, reinstating the oil for food program.

But the real test will come soon, after the fall of Baghdad. The U.S. can only "win the peace" by being transparent in establishing democracy. We have to install an iraqi government as soon as possible. We have to ensure that Iraqi oil remains in Iraqi hands. And, most importantly, we need to leave as soon as it is diplomatically possible.

The solution is not "selling" the war to the Arab world. It's keeping our word. Doing what we said we'd do for the reasons we said we were doing it, and leaving Iraq in the hands of the Iraqis.

Only then will the public relations tide really begin to change.

When our American actions fit our American ideals and American words, then we will see the "Arab street" change their minds about our motives.

File this under valor. From the Guardian.

``We've got to get her off that bridge,'' he said.

Capt. Chris Carter winced at the risks his men would have to take. Engaged in a lightning-fast raid for this Euphrates River town, they were battling for a bridge when - through the smoke - they saw the elderly woman. She had tried to race across the bridge when the Americans arrived, but was caught in the crossfire.

At first, peering through their rifle scopes, they thought she was dead, like the man sprawled in the dust nearby. But then, during breaks in the gunfire that whizzed over her head, she sat up and waved for help.

Carter, a 32-year-old Army Ranger, ordered his Bradley armored vehicle to pull forward while he and two men ran behind it. They took cover behind the bridge's iron beams ...

When antiwar demonstrators gathered outside the Fox News building in Manhattan, the network's outdoor news zipper replaced its headlines with taunts:

"War protester auditions here today. . . . Thanks for coming!" And: "How do you keep a war protester in suspense? Ignore them." And: "Attention protesters: The Michael Moore Fan Club meets Thursday at a phone booth at Sixth Avenue and 50th Street."

Unfair and unbalanced? "I thought I'd have some fun with it," says Fox zipper-writer Marvin Himelfarb, a former Hollywood screenwriter. "I couldn't resist."

You just have to love George Bush's sense of gratitude and loyalty. We have a "coalition" fighting a war in Iraq, but when it comes to bidding on post-war reconstruction contracts that coalition suddenly shrinks to....the United States of America:

"In my organization of 350 U.K. major consultancies and construction firms, 84 have expressed a wish to go work in Iraq -- and 50 have been there before," said Colin Adams, chief executive of the British Consultants and Construction Bureau. Given Britain's support for the war, he said, his members felt they should at least be considered for subcontractor work.

"There's a feeling that not only is there some moral justice that we ought to be able to bid, but also common sense," Adams said.

And why aren't British firms allowed to compete? It gets even worse:

USAID administrator Andrew S. Natsios testified before Congress last week that secrecy was necessary because bidders had to look at "top secret" documents.

So the bottom line is that it's OK for British soldiers to die on the battlefield along with ours, but their firms can't be allowed to see top secret documents that we trust American firms to look at. Sheesh.

I wonder how long before Tony Blair's patience finally evaporates and he suddenly starts ranting gibberish on one of his his transatlantic chats with his friend W? It's bound to happen sooner or later.

This war really is beginning to resemble World War II with Iraq gladly playing the role of NAZI Germany as opposed to Vietnam. Torture/Death rooms discovered, The Fayhadeen playing the part of the Werewolves (Germans who were in disguise trying to sabotage the Allies military movement are notable. But the biggest is the use of Fear and threats to keep the normal military fighting. In WWI, The Germans executed 48 of their own soldiers. In WWII, it was between 13 and 15 thousand soldiers executed.

Anyone want to place bets that if Saddam is still alive right now, at the very end of the war he'll go out by committing suicide and having his minions destroy his corpse?

Re: Animal abuse
Date: 31 March 2003

Sir -The use of dolphins and sea lions by the American military in the war with Iraq must be unreservedly condemned. Dolphins are highly intelligent and sensitive animals. Using them in a war zone is deplorable.

When the United States used dolphins in the Persian Gulf during the Iran-Iraq war, it was reported that Iranian patrol boats would machine gun any dolphin they saw, fearing it might be laying mines.

Former trainers have alleged that dolphins are trained by withholding food (a common training method for captive dolphins) and physical beatings, and that electrodes are implanted to enable the military control room to stimulate the dolphins to attack.

There have even been claims, following the beaching of 22 dolphins in France five years ago with holes in their necks, that military-trained dolphins were fitted with a small explosive charge which was set off by radio-control if they "deserted".

Animals have been used as combatants and weapons for centuries. Footage of remote-controlled equipment that searches for mines in the oceans has been shown during television coverage of the war against Iraq. Why does the military feel the need to use a living creature, when they have another option that does the same job, without endangering either human or dolphin welfare?

From:
Craig Redmond, Captive Animals' Protection Society, Liz Sandeman, The Marine Connection, and Alan Cooper, Cetacea Defence

MORE

Re: Lessons from the Boer War
Date: 31 March 2003

Sir - As someone who has written a book on the Boer army and is researching British intelligence in the Boer War, I have noticed similarities between the Boer tactics and developing Iraqi tactics. These include guerrilla raids on supply lines, approaching allied troops under a white flag, the wearing of civilian clothing and blending in with the civilian population.

Other similarities include widespread sympathy in other countries for the Iraqi cause, coupled with an inability to actively intervene - in 1899, Britain was diplomatically isolated, but her military power made her unassailable - as well as a politically motivated peace movement in Britain.

We have not yet seen, as occurred in South Africa, thousands of foreign volunteers pouring into Iraq. Nor have we seen Iraqis formerly opposed to Saddam Hussein fighting against teh coalition forces, because their loyalty to their homeland is greater than their dislike of Saddam.

Such was the case with many Boer leaders, such as Gen Jacobus Hercules De La Rey, who initially opposed both the war and President Paul Kruger, but who fought skilfully against the British even after Kruger went into exile.

One wonders how the coalition would handle such a nightmare scenario, with Saddam killed in a cruise missile attack but resistance continuing under a charismatic younger general.

If the parallels noted above continue, how could the war develop? Iraqi bitterenders will continue the struggle, even after the fall of Baghdad. Operating from bases deep in the deserts, and almost certainly from across international boundaries, they could launch sudden attacks on coalition garrisons and supply lines.

These men could encourage or inspire former Iraqi soldiers who had given up the fight to rejoin the struggle. Therefore, as unpopular as it may seem, no prisoners of war should be prematurely released.

How could these groups be overcome? By mobile columns of special forces hunting out known guerrilla leaders and their men, and then calling in superior firepower to eliminate them. It will be an intelligence-led small unit campaign. Just like the tail-end of the Boer War.

From:
Anthony David Jones, Ashton under Lyne, Lancs

Geert Groot Koerkamp from Radio Netherlands reports from Russia: "The popular protests against the war in Russia cannot be compared to those in many western countries. Russian critics of the war have hardly ventured out into the streets to show their dissent. And in the Russian media, the war in Iraq gets a relatively low-key coverage when compared to the attention it receives in the rest of the world.

What then about Russia's economic interests in Iraq? Much has been said about the importance of Russian oil contracts with the regime of Saddam Hussein, worth billions of dollars. Certainly, there are short-term losses, for Russia was Iraq's main trading partner under the UN's oil-for-food programme.

But many observers here agree that most of the lucrative oil contracts mainly existed on paper, since under the sanctions regime of the United Nations, they could not be implemented. Therefore, say people (...), Russia's best bet would be now to focus on the post-war period in Iraq, and try to play its role in rebuilding the country."

Ingo Mannteufel of Deutsche Welle writes Russia might even have an interest : "The war in Iraq has threatened not only the Persian Gulf region, but also the stability of the international oil and gas supply. One of the consequences could be that interest in important Russian energy reserves rises."

Struck me while watching retired Col John Warden go over current activities in front of a large map of Iraq just how much he looked like a local TV weather-type guy talking...

Gesturing, sweeping, pop up graphics. Kind of dissapointed he didn't give temperatures and precip forecast.

PLEASE COME OUT FOR THE RALLY TO SUPPORT OUR TROOPS. SATURDAY, APRIL 12, 2003, FROM 12:00 NOON TO 3:00 PM AT THE ELLIPSE IN WASHINGTON, D.C. DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE BELOW AND AT THE CITIZENS UNITED WEBSITE.

JUST ANNOUNCED:

CITIZENS UNITED FOUNDATION AND YOUNG AMERICA'S FOUNDATION TO SPONSOR:

"RALLY FOR THE TROOPS, RALLY FOR AMERICA"

G. GORDON LIDDY, ANN COULTER, LAURA INGRAHAM AND OTHERS TO HOST RALLY ON THE MALL FOR THE TROOPS.

SATURDAY, APRIL 12TH, 2003 AT THE ELLIPSE (located on Constitution Avenue, across from White House)

NOON-3PM

BRING YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS. RAISE YOUR FLAGS AND SHOW YOUR PRIDE.

CHECK THE CITIZENS UNITED WEBSITE FOR UPDATED INFORMATION AND NEWLY ANNOUNCED SPEAKERS. TO BECOME A CO-SPONSOR AT THE RALLY PLEASE CALL 703-464-8572.

Regular visitors to this site know that I don't often post on the Op/Ed page ... a choice that reflects my focus on working with Michele to run the overall site and my desire to stick to the news end of things.

That said, I wanted to post a link that a reader had forwarded to this flash presentation titled "Why The War Is Wrong." NOTE: This presentation DOES NOT reflect my view on the war. I have nothing to do with the presentation, or the site on which it resides ... we simply have a dearth of opinion on this page from those against the war, and I thought this link would provide fodder for all.

Enjoy, and I look forward to reading the comments.

Bęte noire and all around superhawk Richard Perle has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal explaining why he resigned from the advisory Defense Policy Board:

Last week I resigned my position as chairman of the advisory Defense Policy Board after news stories, rich in innuendo, suggested that I had acted improperly in advising Global Crossing (the New York Times) and, in a separate matter, in meeting over lunch with two Saudi businessmen (The New Yorker). They provoked an avalanche of stories, mostly repeating points in those first two, with each iteration making more extreme allegations than the last. There was no way I could quickly quell the press criticism of me, even though it was based on factual errors and tendentious reporting. So I wrote to Donald Rumsfeld, "I have seen controversies like this before and I know that this one will inevitably distract from the urgent challenge in which you are now engaged. I would not wish to cause even a moment's distraction from that challenge."

Do read it all since there's plenty of red meat for sharks all along the political spectrum.

PALM BEACH -- As many as 150 guests stormed out of a posh charity fund-raiser at the Four Seasons Saturday after a Nobel Peace Prize winner harshly criticized the war with Iraq.

After guests had been served chocolate mousse and berries, former Costa Rican President Oscar Arias took the mike and spent about 15 minutes lambasting the United States -- telling some 225 guests that hopes of peace had been dashed by President Bush, said Rex Ford, a Miami federal immigration judge who was in attendance.

First a trickle, then a stream of about 150 guests left the room as Arias spoke, Ford said. Arias' remarks then triggered an impromptu protest outside the banquet hall.

"People assembled outside and sang God Bless America," Ford said.

A perfect example of the difference between the right to say anything one would like, and the right to be listened to. Someday they'll figure out that the latter does not exist.

Virginia Postrel wonders: "Is War a Generator of Expenses or an Economic Stimulus?" A generation ago, conventional wisdom held that an occasional war was good for the economy, but these days economists see war as an expense, although the Iraq war is a much smaller percentage of the GNP than previous wars. Postrel also mentions a U Chicago business school comparison of the projected cost of war vs. the cost of containment, using the containment of North Korea as a guideline. (You can download the PDF of that report here.)

Some interesting numbers from the latest Gallup poll show support for the war at 70% and the President's approval rating at 71%. More people support the President than support the war? Judging by the coverage most places, I would have assumed the opposite. We keep hearing that people think the war was mistake on Bush's part, but they, of course, support the troops.

The Findlaw site has a page of links to op-eds about the war from a legal perspective. Very interesting takes on issues such as the right to self-defense, POWs and journalists, state and local government resolutions on the war, congressional approval for war, and much more.

Here is a six and a half minute interview with Peter Arnett on The Today Show.

Perhaps he can hook a gig with Al Jazeera now.

"Any satisfaction in that? Ha, ha, ha, ha."

Retired US Army Major and Methodist minister Donald Sensing compares the suicide attacks of the Japanese kamikazi in WWII and those of Islamists of various stripes.

Baghdad Pete Soon to be Embedded at Unemployment Office

Cross-post: Little Tiny Lies.

NBC has canned treacherous, self-promoting windbag Peter Arnett, who endangered the lives of coalition soldiers and Iraqis by stating on Iraqi TV that our first war plan was a failure. What a glorious piece of news to wake up to. Arnett, an American citizen, now says he's sorry. We're sorry, too, Petie. Sorry NBC had the poor judgment to hire you in the first place.

First of all, let's address the content of Arnett's idiotic claim. The war was about ten days old when Arnett announced that our plan had failed. As an analyst on Fox pointed out last night, in Afghanistan, it took us around forty days to get where we currently are in Iraq. Funny how forty days make a whirlwind campaign and nine days make a quagmire. As the analyst noted, GRENADA took longer than this. Grenada, the North Vietnam of the Caribbean.

Saddam Hussein is probably dead and almost certainly wounded, and he has been since the day the war started. Imagine if our first attack in Afghanistan had put bin Laden out of commission. Imagine if we had nailed Hitler in 1941.

Fighting a war is not like baking a cake. It takes time, especially when you take the kind of unprecedented pains we are taking to avoid harming civilians. Every war can't be an MTV war, a video game that conveniently ends in time for the weekend.

So, Arnett's remarks were unbelievably stupid and indisputably wrong.

Now, let's talk about the traitorous nature of Petie's disgusting pronouncements.

There is an important word we all need to keep in mind. That word is "morale." More than food, more than bullets, more than diesel, this is the fuel that drives the enemy. We can slaughter them like sheep, but if their morale remains high, they will continue fighting even if they have to use sharpened spoons.

Peter Arnett's deliberate lie fed our enemy's morale. We have total dominance of the air, we control a huge percentage of the country, we have probably killed Hussein and at least one of his sons, we own the country's borders and its only port, but partly because of the treachery of Peter Arnett, there are still Iraqis who think they can win. That means they will continue to fight, and that means Arnett's remarks will probably cause some coalition soldiers to die.

Arnett can always find another job--we'll always need strip-club barkers and people to test new drugs on--but the soldiers who die because of his unthinking blather can't be brought back to life. And let's not even think about the ones who will be shipped home to rot in VA hospitals. I don't know why the government doesn't require us all to visit VA hospitals for three hours a week. I don't know why we don't do it without being told.

Our own soldiers will only compose a small fraction of Arnett's victims. The ratio of Iraqi to coalition casualties is very high; as much as we suffer to hear about coalition soldiers being hurt, we need to remember that Iraqis are being killed and wounded by the hundreds, and not all of them support Hussein.

We know who Arnett harmed. Who did he help? There are two classes of people who could have benefitted from what Arnett said. The first class is made up of members of the brutal, oppressive, parasitic regime that has the Iraqi people under its heel. The second class is made up of Peter Arnett.

Obviously, Saddam's underlings benefit. Arnett's propaganda makes Iraqis fear that Saddam and his people will still be in charge after the war. Still capable of inflicting reprisals on those who opposed them or simply didn't help. More rape, more beatings, more mutilation, more torture of children in front of their horrified parents. So Arnett has made ordinary Iraqis more likely to cooperate with Saddam's regime, not out of loyalty, but out of the usual motive: terror.

Arnett was supposed to benefit as well. He has two Pulitzers that I know of. He was angling for another. He wanted to show off his Iraqi connections and punish CNN for letting him get away; his snotty remarks regarding CNN's expulsion from Baghdad prove it (wonder if Arnett had anything to do with that). And he surely wanted to secure himself a pedestal from which to receive worship from his liberal peers, who would donate vital organs for the opportunity to humiliate George Bush.

Petie wanted to be the King of Baghdad. CNN was gone, he had his Gulf War connections, established during a previous round of boot-licking, and he was going to be the dean of the Baghdad press corps. Sorry, Petie. Not going to happen. Better buy some batteries for your remote, because if you want to get war news from now on, you're going to need it.

It's wonderful to live in a time when unprincipled liberal journalists are occasionally held accountable. No one minded when Don Hewitt admitted he dedicated an episode of 60 Minutes to saving Clinton's first campaign. No one fired Dan Rather when he lost his composure and tore his panties at Bush I in prime time, causing Walter Cronkite to say he should have been fired. Connie Chung still had a job the day after she lied to an elderly woman to get her to drop a verbal bomb on her own son, the Speaker of the House. But Baghdad Pete is packing his bags, because the seasons have finally changed.

Now, if we can just do something about Robert Fisk.

Impressed with how effective the US military was in the first hours in the campaign to liberate Iraq, many journalists have started second-guessing the military now that the war is into its second week.  Its second week!  And the coalition already has established air superiority, taken control of all Iraqi ports, and controls the majority of the country.  In addition, the coalition has managed to protect most of the country's resources for its people, including dams, bridges, and oil fields.  The coalition has managed to do this while (to date) suffering a remarkably low number of casualties.  In addition, the coalition has done all of this while taking extreme care to minimize the number of civilian casualties and offering Iraqi soldiers many, many opportunities to surrender.

Instead of downbeat reports about 'unexpected' resistance, the media should be discussing the amazing military prowess of the coalition.  The only thing unexpected about the war so far has been its rapid progress.  Every casualty is regrettable, but only a fool would expect a war with no casualties.  More people died from lightening strikes in the US last year than have been killed fighting Saddam's troops.  I predict far more people will die from fatal car accidents in Los Angeles County alone in 2003 than all coalitions losses from the entire war.

Let's also look at a reasonable timeframe.  The Taliban, a government with only a small fraction of the military resources of Saddam Hussein, lasted 14 weeks against the US government.  As Jonathan Last pointed out, even the French - hardly the epitome of military competence - lasted 7 weeks against the Germans.  Surely, one would expect the Iraqi regime to fight harder than the French.  After all, the thugs that support Saddam Hussein expect death by the hands of their fellow Iraqis for their past atrocities should they ever lose their grip on power.  Unless they see an opportunity to survive the peace, they will fight to the last man.

I would be surprised if this war was over in less than 7 weeks.  I would not be surprised if it took 14 weeks.  Some statistics are available to help you keep the war in context.  Next time someone bemoans our "slow" pace, rattle off a few of them as a reality check.  You'll be glad you did.

Much has been made about the flag-waving pro-war stance of Fox News. Although they call themselves "Fair and Balanced," most people think they are anything but.

In fact, Oliver Willis recently compared Fox to al Jazeera, while Laurence Simon pointed out the blatant jigoism of Fox.

The fact is, you will not be able to find a fair and balanced television news channel anywhere in the world during wartime.

I watch Fox News because I find it has the most interesting reports, the best view of Iraq and the most straight-forward war reporting. That is not to say it is even handed all the time. The cheerleading and pro-war ruminations exist often on Fox. One only has to listen to Sean Hannity or Neil Cavuto to see that.

There's not a lot of choice out there, despite the fact that there are a zillion news channels between cable tv and live streaming news on the internet. You're either going to get feel-good, rally around the U.S.A. and tie a yellow ribbon reporting, or you are going to get look at the carnage the U.S. and coalition forces are producing reporting.

Each view of the war exploits different things. al Jazeera exploits American casualties and death in general. Fox exploits the same thing, but in a different way. They want to tug at your red, white and blue heartstrings so you start seeing things through the same colored glasses as they do.

The war is everywhere. If you turn on your tv or radio or boot up your computer it is staring you in the face, be it with bombs or bodies or flags. The media is changing to fit itself into the war niche. Radio stations are either banning war related songs or urging listeners to go to pro-war rallies. Every local news station has already done a story on how the war is effecting children.

It's really not up to the media to decide what we see or how we perceive their views. It's up to us to make our own choices and to disseminate the information as best we can. Even if you watch a channel that seems to trasmit with a closed mind, it's up to us to watch with an open mind.

Yes, there is liberal media bias. And there is conservative media bias. And in this age of readily available information from all over the world, there is bias news to be found everywhere. Pro-Palestine and anti-Israel, pro-Iraq and anti-America, whatever bias you are looking for, it's out there.

If al Jazeera is not your cup of tea - and I imagine that most of us look at in order to fuel our outrage - then make the choice to not watch it. If Fox News is too jingoistic for you, try CNN. If you are sick of the war at all, turn on your local news station where they are probably right now debating the merits of fertilizer. And you just know that someone is going to write into the station accusing them of being biased against the fertilizer industry.

The "coalition of the willing" has taken unprecedented steps to minimize the number of civilian and even enemy casualties in this war. While Saddam's henchmen hide behind women and children coalition forces have been especially careful to avoid firing at their enemy with innocents in the way. Coalition forces have even taken into account the locations of some important archeological sites to avoid destroying them in bombing attacks. All this is well known here in the United States.

None of this makes any impression on the Arab media. Al Jazeera and other Arab news outlet are playing whatever messages the Saddam Hussein regime decides to put out and broadcast it across the Middle East. If Saddam's propaganda machine decides to put out the story that the U.S. has bombed an Iraqi market, the Arab channels disseminate it uncritically. Someone watching Arab TV is not watching the same war that their counterpart who is watching the war unfold on CNN.

If CNN strives to live up to their motto as "the World's News leader," and Fox News tries to live up to its pledge to give you the news, "Fair and Balanced," sometimes it seems like the motto of the Arab media is essentially, "the facts, while interesting, are irrelevant." For them, press releases from Saddam are more credible than George W. Bush's press conferences are. There is a message that those broadcasters want to disseminate, and that is what they will broadcast.

At this point, the PR that the coalition is getting wouldn't be any worse if they actually stopped worrying about collateral damage. Of course, I don't think that they should do that. My point is that they shouldn't worry about collateral damage in order to win the PR war. They should do it because it is the right thing to do. But trying to win over the Al Jezeera's of the world just isn't going to happen, and if the coalition started to pound Iraq without any regard to the damage caused to civilians, it wouldn't change the reporting on Al Jezeera. After all, they are already saying that the coalition is targeting civilians. What would they say if the coalition actually did target civilians? "I know we told you that the coalition is targeting civilians, but now they're really doing it? "

Many so-called Middle East experts, especially those in Britain, will tell you that until the U.S. addresses the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, it won't be taken seriously by the Arab world. You have many old hands like James Baker, Colin Powell, and Jack Straw who say that solving this intractable problem is the key to the improvement in relations with the Arab world. Once this issue is addressed the U.S. will become more credible to the Arab world. This is clearly nonsense.

The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is worth resolving for its own sake. If there is a possibility for a true and lasting peace between them then the coalition partners should make every effort to make that possibility into a reality. But if Al Jazeera alternatively ignores and glorifies the atrocities of Saddam Hussein, but instead runs images of Iraqi civilians allegedly hurt by the coalition, what makes anyone think that they'll report any peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians in a balanced way?

If George Bush and Tony Blair manage to perform a miracle and broker an agreement between Ariel Sharon and Abu Mazen that leads to a two state solution how would it be seen in the Arab world? I imagine that it would not be painted in a positive light by Arab countries and their media outlets. Judging by the current coverage of the war, I would expect the Arab media to dwell on any concessions that the Palestinians make and emphasize whatever Israel would gain.

The truth is that the Palestinian issue is just a convenient lightening rod to release some steam for the oppressed Arab citizens. If you look at the coverage say in and day out you are hard pressed to find any coverage at all that is mildly sympathetic to the needs of the Israelis. They see only one side to this conflict, and they usually condone terrorism against Israel.

Even the supposedly enlightened country of Kuwait is deeply antipathetic to Israel and to Jews. You only have to look at the difficulties that Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post had in getting accredited to report from Kuwait to see this. In that respect they are no different from Tariq Aziz, who also has no interest in answering questions by Israeli reporters.

The truth is that from the perspective of the "Arab street" the solution to the Palestinian problem is the dismantling of the Israeli state its replacement by a Palestinian one. Sad to say it, but if this was accompanied by the killing of Jews this would be welcomed as well. It doesn't take too much effort to unearth articles all over the Arab press to confirm this. Thus, appeasing the "Arab street" is futile. Even if the U.S. and the U.K. were willing to accommodate them (which they aren't), appeasement won't work in the long term. As long as the Arab press and the "Arab street" willfully ignore the facts there is nothing to stop them from "raising the bar" every time the coalition does something good. If they don't appreciate the heroic effort that the coalition soldiers are making to avoid hurting civilians what will they be satisfied with?

L T Smash has been going through his inbox and quotes a letter whose "writer is not too far away, as the crow flies - but lives in a very different world".

I am an Iranian citizen watching the current events with attention. I'd like to send you the sympathy and blessing of many Iranian citizens who believe that the intervention in Iraq was necessary and just. We hope that this intervention will help us to pressure our evil government and help us in our stuggle for democracy.

Indeed our government is frightened. Saddam is our common enemy and many Iranian soldiers died during the Iran-Iraq war in the 80's. However, the Iranian regime is showing signs of sympathy toward the Iraqi governement and its army. They have no shame. Many of our fellow citizens were killed by Saddam's WMD. Hence, they support him indirectly in their speeches and infamous television programs. But the overwhelming majority of Iranians won't forget Saddam's crimes and support you and your troops in your combat for his removal from power.

May God bless you all. May God bless a free Iran and may God bless America.

Tareq Aziz must be getting his war reports from Reuters:

Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz said in an interview on Sunday that the war against U.S. and British invasion forces was going well, and he described Iraq's decision to use suicide bombings as heroic."When you fight an invader by whatever means available to you, you are not a terrorist; you are a hero," he told the ABC television network a day after an Iraqi officer killed four U.S. soldiers in a suicide bombing at a checkpoint near Najaf.

Aziz said Iraq has been bringing in would-be suicide bombers from other parts of the Muslim world for further attacks on the U.S.-led invasion force.

"From outside or from inside (Iraq), these people are heroes. They are freedom fighters against invaders, against colonialists, against imperialists," he said.

A while back I saw a report from a journalist with a Marine unit. This journalist asked a Marine if he understood his mission. The Marine replied, "yes sir, our mission is to beat the Army to Baghdad." I'm sure that when Aziz meets the Marines (or the Army) they will have a nice chat about how well the war is going.

I wanted to post quickly on a new book by Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson, USAF (retired). He was the carrier of the "nuclear football" (the luggage that contains the nation's nuclear launch codes) when Bill Clinton was President. Some of you probably have heard of this book, others who haven't, should.

The book is called: Dereliction of Duty, The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Compromised America's National Security

I heard Lt. "Buzz" Patterson speaking about his book this afternoon on 770 WABC radio, he mentioned how President Clinton once lost the nuclear launch codes (and never found them), I went out and bought the book this afternoon. It should be a great read for anyone who wants to learn more about how President Clinton compromised our nation's military and national security.

A first hand account from a man who served by Clinton's side during his Presidency.

A major in the Marines has a few things to say about his service, the progress of the war, and the spirit of the troops in this letter posted on NRO's The Corner. A fine read.

Patrick Tyler, in this NYT article (registration required) leads off with the news of the 3d ID beginning probing attacks against RG positions of the outer Baghdad defensive ring. He quotes a field unit spokesman saying they are 'maintaining the initiative'. He includes words from Gen. Franks, contradicting yet again the concept of a 'pause' in operations. But then....

...he jumps right into proclaiming that momentum has stalled due to 'fierce attacks' on supply lines, and obliquely references the beltway sniping at the SecDef in recent days. Both activities are superfluous to what's actually happening at the front. The beans and bullets are getting through, and all the sore-toed sour grapes being tossed at Rumsfeld are having the same effect that Feydayeen with AK-47's are having against Bradleys and Abrams tanks.

Taylor can't let it go, flatly stating that the regime hasn't crumbled as quickly as imagined, despite a growing number of reports of individual Iraqis beginning to point out the Ba'athists for the benefit of Allied targeting. Citing the 'seasoning' that the 3d ID has received through fire and sandstorm, he mentions that they've been 'mired' for a whole week surrounding Najaf.

This article is a clear example of the syndrome Steven Den Beste describes in this opinion piece at USS Clueless. Basically, Steven points out that no matter how efficiently or quickly this is rolled up, that because US troops don't live up to pre-war expectations of the 15 minute news cycle, they won't have 'beat the spread' and thus, its somehow a failure, or not quite good enough.

Well folks, this thing is barely a week and a half old, and we're basically dusting ourselves off getting ready to ring the front doorbell of Baghdad. We've virtually decapitated the leadership from the field, if not actually. We've opened and are sustaining operations on three fronts - from the southeast, the north, and from the west. Still qualifies as 'Hyper War' in my book.

The debate over troop strength in Iraq has shown us the media at its most myopic. Before the war, there was some back-and-forth in the Pentagon over the force strength needed to get this done. It was reported upon extensively. Rumsfeld wanted a smaller strike force centered around the Special Forces, or "the Afghanistan model." (Remember "inside out?") The generals wanted 250,000 troops. The generals won. Rumsfeld lost. The war plan now being criticized by certain unnamed military officers is very much that of the generals. For goodness sake, even Powell vetted this.

Meanwhile, the elements of the Afghanistan model now at work in Iraq seem to have gone off without a hitch. The special forces who captured H2 and H3, and who for all intents and purposes now own Western Iraq, haven't faced any of the "intense resistance" we see the South. Now, adding more troops into the theater may be a very good thing in and of itself. But what it won't do is solve the media problem where everytime we're shot at, it's a victory for the Iraqis. A heavier force spread out in more places will make our troops more, not less, of a target for the feyadeen. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. It gives us more of an opportunity to smoke out and eliminate these Uday-contolled killers, who may well include Al Qaeda operatives. A leaner force, dependent on Special Forces, wouldn't face the "resistance" that supposedly invalidates the war plan because they're less of a stationary target.

So the media've got it backwards. It's not the skimpiness of our force that's invited these tactical countermaneuvers, but the fact that, at the behest of the generals, we've erred on the side of a traditional, massed invasion. And ultimately, an advantage of doing it the traditional way is that we get to actually fight the meaningful battles that will loosen Ba'athist political control over Iraq, not avoid them.

Fox News just interviewed Liz Trotta, a veteran journalist now working for the Washington Times who, like Arnett, was a war correspondent in Vietnam. She is not amused...

Trotta:

Peter is a very charming, lovely guy...I don't know what he's doing on Iraq TV...
I must say more in sorrow, his track record is a long one and he is always on everyone's other side... He narrated a story that we [the U.S.] used poison gas on our own soldiers in Laos. it ruined his career at CNN...maybe would have ruined it forever if he wasn't a man...He is out there again doing his CNN number.

Peter likes to be an outrider. Nothing wrong with that. Unfortunately, he rides with the wrong people. He's a tool of the propagandists....

I hope he doesn't bump into those special forces troopers who remember what he did to them with the sarin gas story in Laos.

Robert Fisk might as well come out and say he's rooting for the Iraqis. He hasn't missed an opportunity to criticize the allied forces even when the evidence isn't in: the bombing in the market the other day is but one example.

His predictions of catastrophe aren't supported by the facts. He's making a rather heroic assumption: that we will tolerate suicide bombers in the way we have hypocritically forced Israel to do. My prediction is this: if Hamas or Islamic Jihad, or any other terrorist group, is tied to suicide bombings that kill Americans they'll go on the list with al Qaeda and we will seek to destroy them by whatever means is at our disposal.

Remember Mr. Fisk, the United States doesn't tolerate threats, we remove them.

Suicide Bomber ‘Opens Door to Jihad’:

Sergeant Ali Jaffar Moussa Hamadi Al-Nomani was the first Iraqi combatant ever known to stage a suicide attack. Not even during the uprising against British rule did an Iraqi kill himself in order to destroy his enemies. Al-Nomani was also a Shiite Muslim — a member of the very group whom the Americans faithfully believed to be their secret ally in their invasion of Iraq.

The details of the 50-year-old army sergeant’s life are few but nonetheless intriguing. He was a soldier in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war and volunteered to fight in the 1991 Gulf War, dubbed the “Mother of All Battles” by the Iraqi leader who believes he was the victor.

Then, overage though he was willing to partake in further fighting, Al-Nomani volunteered yet again to defend his country from the Anglo-American invasion. And so it was, without telling his commanding officer and in his own car, he drove into the US Marine checkpoint just outside Najaf.

Imagine the Left's reaction if we denied access to Iraqi POWs. It would be outrage and talk of war crimes. It's early yet, but I fully expect to hear outrage on the part of the Left on this issue. Not.

U.S.: Iraq not letting Red Cross visit POWs:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iraq still has not let the International Committee of the Red Cross visit U.S. prisoners of war, Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Sunday.

"We would hope that the Iraqi regime would do the honorable and the right thing and allow the International Committee of the Red Cross in to visit these prisoners of war," Myers said on CNN's "Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer."

"That's their obligation. They said they were going to do it, and we just hope they follow through."

The United States has agreed to let the Red Cross visit more than 4,000 Iraqi POWs, Myers said. He said the Red Cross wanted to wait until conditions are more secure. He said he did not know whether the visits had taken place yet.

"I think they have probably been inside," he said.

Myers said it is unclear how many Americans are POWs in Iraq. At least five soldiers were captured after an ambush near Nasiriya. More troops are reported as missing in action, he said.

Now is the time to mend fences — with our historic allies, the Western democracies, and with the U.N. We can win the war without them, but we cannot win the peace. [FORWARD]

I'm not sure whether to think this is pathetic or an improvement for the Chinese people. On the one hand they got to protest. On the other hand it was state sanctioned. To make matters worse they are not well informed because they see only what the government wants them to see. That's what makes it pathetic: they're protesting a war they know nothing about and has nothing to do with them.

Students hold first anti-war protest in China:

Chinese students staged a rare state-sanctioned demonstration as part of worldwide protests against the war in Iraq.

Students at the elite Peking University took part in a quiet anti-war demonstration, in an unusual case of campus political activism permitted by Chinese authorities.

About two dozen students set up signboards displaying photographs of wounded Iraqi civilians and passed out leaflets criticising the war. A box was set out for donations to help Iraqi refugees, and five students briefly held up letters spelling "No War" in English.

However, police dispersed anti-war protesters who sought to gather in other parts of Beijing, continuing the practice of forbidding most public demonstrations.

Everybody's been saying for a couple of days that the worst is still in front of us. Well, this is probably part of it. Our Marines and Airborne are making a strong northward push and in some cases going door-to-door to find the enemy. They're hiding among civilians and our boys sometimes don't actually know who the enemy is until they're being shot at. That's bravery and worthy of our admiration, praise and prayer.

Marines Press 'Seek and Destroy' Missions:

SOUTH-CENTRAL IRAQ - Thousands of U.S. Marines pushed north toward Baghdad in "seek and destroy" missions Sunday, trying to open the route to the Iraqi capital and stop days of attacks along a stretch that has become known as "Ambush Alley."

Charging into previously unsecured areas, the Marines tried to provoke attacks in order to find Iraqi fighters and defeat them. A chaplain traveling with them handed out humanitarian packages to distrustful Iraqi civilians encountered along the way.

In Najaf, 100 miles south of Baghdad, the 101st Airborne division encircled the city Sunday, severing inroads and preparing to go door to door to root out paramilitary supporters who have waged stiff resistance for days.

"This is our type of fight," said Command Sgt. Maj. Marvin Hill. "This is probably the most dangerous part of combat, and that's urban. Sometimes you don't find out who the enemy is until they're shooting at you."

Ten days onto the offensive, it is clear that the Wehrmacht is exactly where the French want them, as evidenced by their pause to refuel their tanks and rearm with more ammunition.

Continue reading 'The era of compressed expectation'...

"A quick war no longer appears to be likely. Indeed, the Administration has now shifted its tone, warning that the conflict could stretch on for some time. This raises a key question: why did the coalition warplan fail to produce a quick victory? If the coalition is to repair its warplan and ultimately prevail, then how one answers this question is crucial. Understanding the problems in the warplan as it has been developed so far would lead to ways to improve it." - read the sharp analysis of Paul MacDonald in Casus Belli.

While watching Fox News, I saw a soldier in the field, in front of a helicopter. He was holding up a mini-clipboard with a picture of his daughter. In addition to giving the prerequisite "Hi Mom, Hi Wife, Hi Daughter!" he said he loves Fox News.

Is it right for soldiers to give promos for the news networks? Is Al-Jazeerah showing bumpers, teases, and promos using the Feyadeen tossing V-signs at the cameraman, dedicating the next executed soldier back to their favorite news network Al-Jazeerah?

And who will get a job with them first... Phil Donahue or Connie Chung?

I hate to admit it, but Oliver Fisk Willis might be right here, folks...

Tim Blair has a post discussing the missile. Apparently Robert Fisk was given a piece of metal with serial numbers on it, and those seem to indicate that the missile was American. Fisk says "The piece of metal bearing the codings was retrieved only minutes after the missile exploded on Friday evening, by an old man whose home is only 100 yards from the 6ft crater. Even the Iraqi authorities do not know that it exists." The possibility exists however that the missile fragment was planted in some way.

You can't help but notice it... the anchor back in Washington says something, they toss to the correspondent on the other side of the Earth, and you get a few seconds of silence as they just stand there waiting for their cue to rain down from the sky in bursts of ones and zeroes.

I'm not sure how long this has been going on, but I just noticed on FOX News that when Tony Snow tossed to the correspondent in Jordan, FOX put a full-screen transition animation with sound effect/music to cover a large portion of the satellite, relays, and A-to-D router delay. I can't remember if it had a fly-in map or not.

Very clever magician's trick to wiggle the fingers on the left hand while the right hand is reaching for the stowed-away rabbit.

Also, a lot of videophone reports are being framed with the correspondent's location, which unit they're embedded with, a bug or two, and the ever-present ticker. The impact of the reduced resolution and pixelation of the phones is reduced considerably, and it doesn't depend on some wired-up producer in some glass booth in Atlanta or New York to scream a cue over a flaky IFB connection when their news system can't compensate for delays, let alone can the producers backtime manually in their head anymore.

Just as the military is refining and testing procedures to run their operations more smoothly, so is the media.

One final note... just as pilots train on flight simulators, it wouldn't be a bad thing for J-schools and major networks to consider running Satellite-Delay Simulators for producers, correspondents, and up-and-coming anchors.

Of course, with a glut in the talent market, who needs to waste money on training when you have a whole crop of disposables to pick and choose from, especially when those you train only end up getting picked off by the competition.

Ground Intel Sources Record Conversation

Corpsman: BRING OUT YOUR DEAD! BRING OUT YOUR DEAD!

Qusay Hussein: Here's one.

Corpsman: Nine dinars.

Saddam: I'm not dead!

Corpsman: What?

Qusay Hussein: Nothing. Here's your nine dinars.

Corpsman: Here! He says he's not dead.

Qusay: Yes he is.

Saddam: No I'm not.

Corpsman: He isn't!

Qusay: Well, he will be soon. He took a cruise missile right in the shorts.

Saddam: I'm getting better!

Qusay: No, you're not. You'll be stone dead in a moment.

Corpsman: I can't take him like that! It's against Sharia!

Saddam: I don't want to go on the cart!

Qusay: Oh, don't be such a baby!

Corpsman: I can't take him.

Saddam: I feel fine!

Qusay: Well, do us a favor.

Corpsman: I can't.

Qusay: Well, can you hang around a couple of minutes? He won't be long.

Corpsman: No, I've got to go to the Aziz's. They've lost nine today.

Qusay: Well, when's your next round?

Corpsman: Thursday.

Saddam: I think I'll go for a walk.

Qusay: You're not fooling anyone, you know. Look. Isn't there something you can do?

Saddam: [singing] I feel happy. I feel happy. [Qusay looks around; Corpsman unholsters CZ75. TAP TAP.]

Saddam:

Qusay: Allah be praised. Thanks very much.

Corpsman: Not at all. See you on Thursday.

Qusay: Right. All right. [Humvee rolls by with disguised George Bush at wheel] Who's that, then?

Corpsman: I dunno. Must be a President.

Qusay: Why?

Corpsman: He hasn't got s___ all over him.

Cross-posted: Little Tiny Lies.

A British man living in France has changed his name from 'Bush' to 'Buisson', claiming that Pres. Bush is "outside the law", operating without UN sanction.

There go the extended-family reunion invitations to the ranch.

Forgive the bizzare layout changes whilst we work with our template ...

The PNAC ( Project for the New American Century ) has some influence on the National Security Strategy of the Bush administration. That why it is interesting to read their recent statements on post-war Iraq: Statement of March 28 and Statement of March 19.