Well, today is the day – the 5th anniversary of the liberation of Iraq and I have been watching and listening to the BBC coverage, have you?
Last evening’s “Newsnight” was a special devoted to the Iraq situation five years on and a more one-sided programme one could hardly conceive. I believe that the BBC aligned itself from the start with the anti-war pro-Saddam rabble and not a lot has changed since. The Newsnight mood music and the tone of the voice-overs was sombre, and even the charts that showed JUST how successful the Surge has been were caveated to ensure that no good news was let out untainted.
There was an interview with Jonathan Powell, the man who is so steeped in appeasement care of his work with the murderous IRA that he thinks we should be talking to Al Qaeda, Hamas et al. Then there was a panel of experts in the studio weighted 3:1 against the liberation, sorry, I meant occupation. (Always best to get the terminology right) There was Charles Kennedy, the uber liberal who wants troops taken out right now , no matter what the Iraqis think. Kennedy got away with blue murder making all kinds of claims suggesting that he was on the high moral ground when in fact he lies in the moral sewer. Then there was a former assistant to the first Iraqi PM who had nothing good to say about the US liberation. He was also a dissembler of the truth, lying through his teeth when he claimed AQ had no presence in Iraq prior to the war. Then there was a “wise old cove” from our diplomatic service, who had been based in Basra, whose insights extended to a complaint that there was no post-victory plan in place and it was all chaos. I wonder which wars he could point to that were on an orderly and bureaucratic basis?
Finally, the only voice in favour of what has been done was Richard Perle. With 3 voices against his, the BBC stacked this to ensure that the anti-war “all is doom and gloom” message got across loud and clear. Was there NO UK commentator that Newsnight could find to both defend the liberation and indeed warmly applaud what has been done by our armed forces?
I laughed when the anti-war panel all agreed that “everyone” knew that victory over Saddam would be quick. Total rubbish. At the time, we were regaled by the BBC over the prowess of the elite Iraqi Revolutionary Guard, and how they would constitute a formidable opposition. Remember? As we know, they scarpered when faced with the US armed forces.
It struck me that this was NOT a debate on the war in Iraq five years on, this was a debate on how the war had all gone wrong. This was a typical pre-determined BBC set-up, and I felt sorry for Richard Perle. Paxman is idolised by some as the tough talking no-nonsense journalist but he let Kennedy and co get away with some outrageous claims.
Questions he might have asked could have included;
-
Is it morally right to allow genocidal butchers like Saddam to stay in situ rather than risk military action?
-
What was Churchill’s post-war plan?
-
With Al Queda declaring Iraq the front-line in its war with us, what message would a sudden withdrawal send?
-
With US troops still in Germany and Japan 60+ years later, does that make these wars a failure? What about the failure of the EU and UN to rally behind this liberation?
-
Apart from the Ba’athists, who obviously enjoyed patronage from Saddam and have been resentful ever since, how do the rest of the Iraqi people feel five years on?
There IS a real debate to be had here but the BBC is not facilitating it. How about balancing the panel so we can have it? How about starting from the point that Saddam headed up a degenerate tyranny that funded terrorism and propagated genocide. Five years on, we have one less monster in power, an Iraq that is showing signs of improvement, and whilst it may not be a fully functioning Jeffersonian democracy, it is way better than what is was.
Now here’s a thing: papers in the US are carrying reports of a survey on Iraq conducted for, among others, the BBC. Since it’s our money they’re spending, you’d think they might like to report the results. . .
Or maybe not. . . . Here’s how it’s being reported in the US:
“Iraqis regard their safety, well-being, and prospects as substantially improved compared to last summer (when the surge was in progress), and last spring (when it was just beginning), according to a newly released poll of 2,228 Iraqis conducted by D3 Systems and KA Research, Ltd. on behalf of a consortium of new organizations, including ABC News and the BBC News.
“Compared to last summer, the percentage of Iraqis who regard their own security as good has risen 19 points, from 43 percent to 62 percent. The percentage of persons who describe their own life as “going well” has risen 16 points, from 39 percent to 55 percent. Sixty-five percent of Iraqis now describe the availability of household necessities as good, compared to 39 percent last summer.
“In August 2007, Iraqis expecting things to get worse over the next year outnumbered those expecting things to get better by a margin of 39 percent to 29 percent. Since then, civilian casualties have fallen by 60 percent. In the post-surge survey, the optimists out-polled the pessimists, 45 percent to 19 percent.”
Wonder why this survey didn’t feature in the BBC’s recent coverage?
good questions.
you could add one or two about the Kurds and their semi-independence right now.
or about Al Anbar and the Arab revolt against Al Qaeda.
in the wake of the HBOS short selling scandal and with the five largest UK banks going cap in hand to the Bank of England today (i.e. seriously big stories that should concern everyone) – the Today programme ignored all that , and you guessed it – led with IRAQ at 8am this morning..
how predictable..
“John | 20.03.08 – 5:49 pm”
i agree. oil is definitely a part of it , in a wider geopolitical sense. if saddam wasnt sitting on roughly 1/3 of the world’s reserves, he may well of been bought off – or even just ignored.
to ignore the oil factor is to be either a deluded fool or a liar..
for the record – i am pro-war and still am.
” Corlan | Homepage | 20.03.08 – 6:40 pm”
i agree – at a tactical level, i dont see how Britain has benefited. we should have just given logistical, intelligence and air support, but not committed land forces, beyond maybe special ops.
it was very much an American war.
Saddam was toast fromt he moment he fired scuds into KSA & Israel. The sanctions were designed to create the conditions for an overthrow and when that didn’t work it was nailed on that the next Republican administration (which contained so many Gulf War 1 protagonists, Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc) would finish the job off.
It’s amazing that the BBC can stay silent on PNAC’s ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses’ & the ‘Clean Break’ reports. The biggest advocates for regime change, not just in Iraq, but in Syria, Iran, Lebanon and latterly Libya are people like Douglas Feith, Scooter Libby, David Wurmser, Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams & Dick Cheney. These people are all vociferous advocates of Israel. The fact that Blair and the chief fund raisers of the Labour Party share in the same passion is no coincidence.
The BBC would not mention any of these matters though, they know who is boss and that’s not the licence fee payer.
The BBC would not mention any of these matters though, they know who is boss and that’s not the licence fee payer.
John | 20.03.08 – 7:48 pm |
So, in your opinion who is the boss?
BBC actually lies about what Bush said in his speech on the 5th anniversary of the Iraq war.
BBC: He said recent troop reinforcements had brought about “a major strategic victory in the broader war on terror”.
But Bush, in fact said: The surge has done more than turn the situation in Iraq around • it has opened the door to a major strategic victory in the broader war on terror.
http://monkeytenniscentre.blogspot.com/2008/03/bbc-accuses-bush-of-claiming-victory.html
Whilst I think that Britains involvement in the invasion of Iraq was another of Tony Blair’s Princess Di moments,his aides couldn’t wait to get him in khaki,the implications of running away are huge.
But was Blair really serious about Iraq,or was he just going through the motions?
“So, in your opinion who is the boss?”
The BBC tows the line of the government and government policy is fairly unchanging in terms of foreign policy, no matter which party people vote for. The UK is the junior partner (along with the rest of Europe) to the US and more specifically the powerful banking and industrial interests of the USA. The BBC has to nuance their output of course because to be remotely credible to the UK audience, they must reflect a certain unease with the US and the idea of Empire more generally. What we tend to get is softly softly on most contentious issues and a lack of integrity through omission.
It’s a good job we have the web to exchange alternate views from the mainstream. Enjoy it while it lasts.
” John | 20.03.08 – 8:44 pm”
i have no problems with the Americans being the “boss”.
what would you rather – the Russians? the Chinese? the Marxian kleptocrats of the unelected EU Politburo?
I believe that Blair had exactly the same thought process as me after 9/11.
What if it had been a nuke?
What would happen if a barge sailed up the Hudson and the whole of downtown Manhattan went bang?
Now let’s imagine ‘Hello, this is Al Queda here. There are a number of other nuclear devices pre-positioned in other western cities that we will detonate at times of our choosing.’
Are you going to stay in London, in Birmingham, LA, Boston?
Are you going to go to work? What’s going to happen to the value of your property? (and I don’t mean in the Daily Mail sense, I mean what’s going to happen to all the financial institutions who have lent trillions of dollars based on notional asset values). Are you going to want to carry on living in a city?
There is a very good chance that just one nuke will cause our civilisation to collapse because it will stop people wanting to live in cities.
Remember with conventional weapons, like during the blitz, you had a fairly good chance of surviving a raid if you weren’t actually in your house. And if your house was unscathed you could go back home. This isn’t the case with nukes.
So what’s required for a terrorist nuke to be detonated in a major western city and for our civilisation to collapse in tatters?
1. Desire to acquire one.
2. Ability to build or buy one.
3. Ability to deliver it to its target anonymously (so no deterrence).
4. The will to detonate it.
Now the Beeb mentality is to point at numbers 1 and 4 and blame Israel and American foreign policy. But you have to remember that 9/11 would have been planned while Clinton was in the White House, who had made more effort than most to solve the Palestine problem. It was also during Clinton’s watch that Al Queda bombed two US embassies in Africa, killing hundreds.
The only point of weakness is number 2. Now only states have the wherewithal to develop nuclear weapons so only states can be stopped.
Which states should we try and tackle?
1. Ones who look like they want to acquire a nuke
2. Ones who hate the West and have a history of using WMDs
3. Ones that we may have a chance of doing something about.
That leaves us pretty much with our axis of evil and Iraq was right up there.
It doesn’t matter if Iraq wasn’t directly involved with Al Queda or 9/11.
We simply couldn’t take the risk that left to its own devices Iraq would have acquired a nuke in due course and 13 (or whatever) flouted UN resolutions showed we simply didn’t have the will to stop them.
As it says in The Usual Suspects: If you want to be in power you don’t need money or guns or even people. You just need the will to do what the other guy won’t.
9/11 showed that a small number of people with sufficient will can cause the death of thousands. With a single nuke the echoes would kill hundreds of millions.
Warren Buffet, not known for shrill exaggeration and slavering neocon hysteria, has described the chances of a nuclear attack on the US as a ‘virtual certainty’.
I’m not sure that even he has thought through all the consequences.
archduke, I believe we should exercise as much autonomy as possible in our own interests and if we can’t do that as a nation we should at least try and do it as a region. I know a lot of Brits would like little to do with the EU, but Europe is on our doorstep, we share a lot of values and experiences with Europe and our immediate concern should be our backyard.
The US are keen to perpetuate the Cold War, but it’s a struggle we can do without as we need ties with the Russians, they can give us all we need in terms of energy including access to Central Asia & the ME. We can see in Kosovo how the US is happy to cause trouble in Europe in order to generate unnecessary (to us, not them) tension.
The US military and CIA are very aggressive and we don’t need to be hitched to that wagon, but they have their hooks in us through NATO and our security services. Europe is tied to the apron strings of the USA and the countless bases across the continent are testament to that, but for our own self interest we should try to extricate ourselves from our dependence.
Guys, this is not a debating chamber to discuss the rights and wrongs of the Iraq war.
We are here to discuss whether the BBC has been impartial and objective – or biased and selective in its reporting.
I have no views about the rights and wrongs of the war. None.
But the BBC house opinion (which should not exist) is very clear:
+ The Iraq war is very important and needs to be brought up every day.
+ The Iraq war is bad.
+ Things are getting worse in Iraq.
+ Even good news is an omen of bad news to come ( ! )
We don’t really hear very much about the surge so we end up guessing that its probably working otherwise we would hear how terrible it was.
Anyone remember the MSM all agreed on how the initial invasion was going to get bogged down around Baghdad – I can remember Rageh Omar talking about “Stalingrad and Vietnam rolled into one”. Well they were wrong. In fact there was a beeber live on screen in Baghdad saying how the Americans were stuck some 20 miles away and a US tank drove past in the background. Sheesh.
PS: top marks for formatting.
🙂
novelPhenomena, I don’t think 9/11 would not have happened without the tacit knowledge of the US security services. Every day of the week those airliners would have been shot out of the sky. I know this is an horrific thought, but GLADIO is proof of what we will do to our own people.
The number of manufactured incidents as a prelude to war are too many to mention: the USS Maine, the Gleiwitz incident & Gulf of Tonkin come to mind. On top of that there is the Reichstag fire, the Lavon Affair, Operation Northwoods, Piazza Fontana & the Russian apartment bombings.
We know what has happened in the past, so we should wake up about what is going on now.
And if you’ve got any curiosity about where your news comes from, you should read the Church Report.
Jack Hughes, if you wish to understand where the BBC’s place is in the world, you must try to understand what goes on in the world and you won’t find out on the telly!
The latest angle used by the anti-war side is to attack the cost of the invasion and occupation.
The BBC does not examine whether this is a valid criticism – it just echoes whatever they are saying. Even Hillary Clinton is quoted – even though she had a chance and voted in favour of the war.
That’s right John – but don’t spread it about, eh? We don’t want to let the uninitiated in on these priceless secrets. Keep the ‘gnosis’ amongst the cognoscenti, ay?
Jack,
Thanks! Hope it made the post more readable!!
The UK is the junior partner (along with the rest of Europe) to the US and more specifically the powerful banking and industrial interests of the USA.
John | 20.03.08 – 8:44 pm |
I’d say that world view is quite simplistic. Just because Tory and Labor behave the same on most issues doesn’t mean that there is a wizard of Oz behind the curtains.
Let me try to point to an example from biological evolution.
Dolphins and whales have evolved from terrestrial mammals, sharks are basically fish.
So, why did they both evolve fins?
Because fins are the best adaptive way of getting around in water.
The clash with radical Islam was a matter of time.
As to Saddam, no one seems to remember today the no-fly zones and constant involvement of NATO forces over Iraq during Clinton’s era. Or the corrupt Oil for Food program, that ended up financing suicide bombers.
No one also seems to remember that Clinton too bombed Iraqi targets in 97′ I believe.
The situation was unstable (and costly).
As to the motif of insidious “control of oil” colonialist tendencies of capitalist swines, so loved by the Left. Yes it is in part about oil.
Control of oil means control of $2 trillion. Even if some of it is for greed, certainly part of it is for valid strategic reasons.
Consider this: $2 trillion are pumped into medievally regimes yearly (Saudis, Iran, …).
A lot of that money is passed to radical causes. What do you think finances most of radical Islamists.
Where do you think the money for thousands of Wahabi mosques throughout Europe and Saudi trained Imams (a lot of them radical) is coming from.
In WW2 Alies consistently bombed Germany’s Ruhr area and other ore/oil/industrial targets, to deplete Nazis from resources.
This is exactly the same.
Until the world switches to other energy source, at least some controls over such an important resources is of strategic interest not only to your country, but to you personally.
Do you think radical Islam, Iran, Wahabism, etc. would be a problem if they were as rich as any poorly developed and uneducated country.
In the West, revenues and resources come with scientific progress. To achieve that scientific progress there had to be an evolutionary social progress.
In the oil rich countries, they can be stuck in middle ages forever, their rulers will still have resources to threaten worlds stability.
Case in point is Iran. After the revolution Mullah’s killed off a lot of their intellectual elite.
They’ve usually sent Teheran’s youth from well off families to clean mine fields during the Iran/Iraq ware. They died in tens of thousands.
Still, mullahs have tens of billions of dollars in oil and gas revenues, even though they don’t even have the refinement capability.
Iran used to be a scientifically developed society.
But not any more – due to Islamic purges. However, they have easy (oil) money. So they send people to get education in nuclear physics.
They have the money to develop nuclear capability.
Yet because of the oil money distortion they are not forced to improve their society or education.
Now, you tell me – isn’t it a responsible thing to try to control some of the oil revenues?
The Left is so good in providing excuses for Islamists and expects us to treat them as little children.
Yet when the West steps in and behaves as an adult in house the Left decries it as imperialist swines.
What makes people here think that The British are a junior partner in this war?
Yes of course the British state is poor bankrupt in fact and the British Armed forces relatively small, but thats not the point.
The worlds economic system is a British system still dominated by The City of London and the control it has of incredibly vast amounts of long held European, Papal, American, and Crown finances.
This is why Britons involvement in this War was a done deal well before TB visited Washington. Why also it would have made no difference whatsoever which political party was running the UK at the time. The only reason why we think it may have made a difference, whether TB or someone like Michael Foot was in power, is because the BBC spun it that way.
The truth is that when something like this is being planned many years in advance, someone like Michael Foot would either have been heart attacked or simply never have been allowed to get elected in the first place. Even The BBC would have been forced to do the infamous “last man to leave the UK, please turn the lights out etc” job on Foot a day before the general election.
Why is it so hard for you people to understand that things happen because they are planned to happen very carefully indeed? These plans do not always run like clockwork but they always involve the existence of a plan B and C, at least.
All you have to do to get your heads round the reality of life is to understand where exactly this is all leading and then the road map becomes more clear then the M1 on a fine day.
Understand also that the worlds establishment is and always has been a Fascist/Marxist one not a conservative, republican, and certainly or a libertarian one of any nice type whatsoever. Then suddenly its like being able to see all the stars in the universe at the same time, with your eyes shut.
Reaching enlightenment is easier then it may seem. All this takes is to understand a bit of history while obviously reading between the lines a bit. While taking with a perverbial pinch of salt every thing that spouts from all of the MSM. Then it is as clear as clear can be, that the BBC is not just bad, it is not just very bad indeed. It is like the rest of our controlled media.
Which is just about as evil as evil gets and then some, even if most that work for the BBC have no real idea quite how evil it really is.
REMEMBER THIS because one day soon I am going to give up telling you all again and again.
The British establishment invented and promoted Socialism, Fascism, Marxism and libertarianism to some extent via the works of Ayn Rand. Not just because they are to all intents and purposes they are selectively the same thing. But simply so they could divide and rule us while keeping themselves as rich as rich can be, while making us as poor and therefore under control as much as they could possibly get away with.
They only bothered with this very clever scam because established religion, which was the previous divide and rule ruling class method had run its course, with the coming of modern science.
We were only allowed to have democracy at all in the first place, because the ruling class had worked out quite how easy ‘mob-rule’ was to influence, to there advantage.
All it basically takes it to bribe or place 20 top people in the media, military, educational and scientific institutions all of which the ruling class owned and financed anyway. For example Oxford and Cambridge universities. Along with the leaders of 2 or 3 political parties and bingo. Almost total control while the common people suspect nothing that really changes anything. Not that anything would or could change even if they did, because the establishment control all sides of the political discourse.
Left and right and middle are in reality all parts of the same imperialist dictatorial socialist Marxist fascist New World Order EAGLE flying ever higher, over all of us.
If I was you lot I would not be asking if anything I have written is true or not because please trust me, it is TRUISM beyond any doubt.
What you should be asking is. What the bugger if anything can you do about it?
Does it matter anyway? Because it clearly seems you cant do bugger all about it, and certainly never could in the past.
Or should you just shrug and say “sod the world its all extremly very heavy shit man, and is clearly not worth saving anyway, even if it was possible?” like I do all the time.
Try reading very carefully what I have written for a change. You discard it as mad conspiracy theory at your own peril.
BTW
There is somethings you could do, but I cant be bothered to tell you what they are. As no one seems to have the bottle to do it, or the intelligence to even understand why it may work.
DV, on a positive note, the tide of the “Brain Dead Liberalism” might be turning (at least in the US):
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120597148974950305.html?mod=todays_columnists
My goodness this topic has brought out some wacky thinking.
It’s all too predictable, though. Israel and the CIA are responsible for everything, according to John, and Corlan still thinks that a mistake is the same thing as a lie. Corlan also looks at the benefit of liberating Iraq and staying the course to fix it only in terms of some sort of immediate benefits felt on the street, and the number of British soldiers that can be home with their families.
John thinks that the US is always ready to shoot hijacked planes out of the sky, and it was only because of CIA intervention that this wasn’t done on 9/11. Yet John seems to be unaware that this was never an option for commercial airliners until that point, and that such a thing was reserved only for planes encroaching on air space. John also seems to believe that there wouldn’t be a massive outcry if the military shot down a commercial airliner for any reason.
I will assume that John’s mysterious banking and industry lobbies which really control the US government can be translated as “Jews”, as he has already mentioned Israel as the reason Sadaam was taken out.
Which brings us to John’s statement that Sadaam was toast the moment he sent a SCUD into Israel. John is obviously unaware that Israel was told by the elder Bush to sit back and take it, and to sit on their hands while Sadaam launched missile after missile at them. Yes, John believes that Israelis are happy to sit back an die only to slowly plan revenge proxy many years later. Sure, that’s exactly how Israel always handles things.
John also believes that if something happened once in the past, all future incidents must be identical. Ergo, since there was once a setup, all future actions are setups.
I swear it seems like this thread has turned into a typical BBC HYS.
Jack Hughes: Perhaps this is not the place to debate the Iraq war. However, the views of the poster are important in relating their opinion of the bias of the BBC is it not?
I opposed the war in Iraq, but do so from a right wing point of view (I guess) but even though I and the BBC agree on being anti Iraq war as Alex has pointed out he has the same BBC double standards.
The BBC report on “Moozlum” treatment of women post the invasion, yet this treatment is common in Islam, but the BBC don’t report on this sort of thing in other “Moozlum” Countries. Why not?
Women are treated like SHIT in Islam full stop. So why does the BBC feel the need only to report this treatment of women under Islam in Iraq? How about Iran or Pakistan or any number of African Countries where this “evil” has spread?
Even England has allowed this vile Religion to practice this stupidity and the leftie liberals like Alex here support it. Even the twat that runs the Church of England supports it (Sharia law)
Yet the BBC supported his views!!!! I don’t get it.
David Preiser, my inclusion of Israel as a factor in the reasons for war (or at least something worth a mention in a fortnight of 10 ‘days to war’ programmes) is that Israel is key to US strategy in the ME and that there is an obvious overlap in those who advise Netenyahu with Bush administration personnel. Have a look at the authors of the ‘Clean Break’ report, read what they say and then look at what they did when they attained office in the US. I’m not claiming that Israel are running the show or that it’s ‘the Jews’ in charge. What I am saying is that Israel forms part of US strategy, it’s importance as an ally is illustrated in the $3bn they give in aid each year.
Notice also that I said that the scuds landed on Saudi Arabia too. You fail to acknowledge this because it doesn’t fit into your ant-semetic conspiracy theories. The US & KSA have had a mutual defence pact since the 1950’s & both countries have done very nicely out of each other, the Bush family coming out smiling. The US are very happy to turn a blind eye to human rights abuses in KSA & they took out Saddam every bit as much in the interests of the House of Saud as they did Israel.
The BBC would never do anything to properly discuss these issues though, mustn’t scare the horses old boy.
…where the BBC is very free with the word “atrocity” I think we can call a truce now on the semantics. Presumably we can all now agree, including the BBC, that people who set off bombs in stations and market places etc are not “terrorists” or “militants” but “atrocitists.” Doesn’t slip off the tongue but we’ll get used to it.
Lee Moore | 20.03.08 – 11:50 am,
Interesting to see today’s BBC using the A-word to describe a terrorist act of 15 years ago. Generally they seem to feel it is too strong a word for the sensitive public and that people might riot or something if they hear it.
Atrocitists is a good idea but the problem is some busy little “editor” at the BBC will soon get hold of it and change it to tragedists to describe those who turn themselves into human bombs in crowded markets.
I see no-one has mentioned John Simpson’s report from Fallujah on the 10 O’clock news saying how well things are going there thanks to the US Marines.
It included clips of at least four – maybe six – Iraqis saying how much better everything is since the change in tactics that went with the surge (foot patrols, proper security etc).
Also plenty of shots of happy, smiling Fallujans attending weddings, operating businesses and of US Marines mingling with the crowds in the market square.
No mention here – I guess – because Simpson’s report went 100% against the prevailing narrative here that the BBC is downplaying the ‘good news’ and is anti-war and anti-American.
JR:
Didn’t see the Simpson report, but I agree with you that if it really was as you say then it marks an astonishing volte face from the prevailing BBC diet
John Reith: That would be the report introduced with: “Five years on the Iraqi President says his country is still plagued by violence, terrorism and corruption.”
And Simpson begins: “It’s just a short hop by helicopter from Bagdad to Fallujah, but it’s still the only safe way to make the journey.”
Fair enough – it puts the achievement in perspective, and he says the violence has died right down. His explanation, that it’s really about the Americans employing the UK’s softer approach of living in the towns, helping with problems, and doing foot patrols, I’ll leave others to examine. I have to say, though, I was under the impression it hadn’t been a riotous success in Basra, and I hadn’t previously understood the surge mainly in those terms.
And he did, it’s true, interview a few Iraqi’s who were pleased with the improvements. He preceded it with this: “In case they were saying only what they thought the Americans wanted to hear, we asked to interview people independently.”
It turns out they weren’t, so why include it?
The conclusion of all this: “A change in tactics doesn’t constitute a victory, but it has brought the Americans breathing space while they make up their minds whether to withdraw fast or stay much longer.”
Again, not entirely unbalanced, and it’s good that he’s dropped the “rearguard” action description. One point, though: I thought the Americans had currently resolved to stay while the Iraqis still wanted them there.
In any case, given the focus of the report was meant to be the improvements in Fallujah, it certainly wasn’t the most rosy conclusion he could have chosen.
Simpson’s interview afterwards started by noting “President Bush seems to have been hoping for the best and not really preparing for anything else.” He then summed up the problem: there’s no new President for 8 months, and in the meantime troops can only hope to make things a little better. That’s really the absolute best that can be hoped for?
You would argue all this just shows it was a balanced report, and it was better than much else Simpson has done. But it certainly couldn’t be taken as evidence of the BBC playing up good news from Iraq, nor be seriously be considered a counterweight to Simpson’s many other extremely unbalanced reports. As for the BBC being anti-war and anti-American, the fact remains is I would be willing to bet my right arm that I know both what Simpson thinks of the Iraq war and how he rates Bush as a President.
Perhaps that’s why no one here mentioned it.
JR, I should imagine there are plenty of people who are just so bored by the BBC line on Iraq that they no longer pay attention to your coverage. Certainly, John Simpson hoving into view anywhere – and particularly Iraq – would at this stage simply persuade me I had more important things to do than watch: say, the washing up, or catching up on some mindless govt-related paperwork.
I’d be interested to know what happened to your ratings during the last few days Iraq rant-fest. (And before you ask, I’m assuming it was a rant-fest, since, obviously, I’ve been washing up/paying taxes etc.)
Does this mean that I’m bored with Iraq per se, or that I don’t think the subject is important? Not really, it’s just that I can no longer imagine that the BBC would have anything interesting, challenging or insightful to say about it. It’s like listening to UKIP banging on about the EU.
Don’t you suspect somewhere deep in your heart that what I’m writing is true? Didn’t your spirits sink somewhat when you heard about the plans for this rant-fest? And if you can bring yourself to admit it, doesn’t it strike you that that’s persuasive evidence that the BBC long ago succumbed to the ease and convenience of a party-line on all things Iraqi?
Then just think of the journalistic opportunities wasted. In the end, that’s perhaps the biggest shame of the BBC’s coverage – that after all this, the average licence-payer still knows little more about Iraq, it’s history, people, geograpy, culture, strategic position, hopes and dreams now than they did when Saddam was slapping them around. Because in the end, the BBC’s coverage hasn’t been about Iraq, it’s been about the US and Britain and . . . let’s admit it . . . about the BBC.
Also plenty of shots of happy, smiling Fallujans attending weddings, operating businesses and of US Marines mingling with the crowds in the market square.
No mention here – I guess – because Simpson’s report went 100% against the prevailing narrative here that the BBC is downplaying the ‘good news’ and is anti-war and anti-American.
John Reith | 21.03.08 – 8:31 am |
I saw the item, JR and you’re dead right about all the happy, cheerful Iraqi’s.
The only problem with your assertion is that it was quite obvious to any objective viewer that old Aunty Simpson was gnashing his teeth in the background and trying to feed in the qualifying pessimism like the Grouch Who Stole Christmas!
Still, after the fall of command economics, ths disaster of “one man one vote in Africa, the sad results of universal welfare dependency together with the collapse of the NHS and comprehensive education over the last few decades – we’ve all got used to enjoying the spectacle of the ancient luminaries of the left clambering down ruefully from their high moral ground.
Long may it continue.
So, this is news?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7307961.stm
No room even for scare quotes around ‘inspirational’. I suppose he really must be inspirational, then.
John | 21.03.08 – 2:00 am |
Notice also that I said that the scuds landed on Saudi Arabia too. You fail to acknowledge this because it doesn’t fit into your ant-semetic conspiracy theories. The US & KSA have had a mutual defence pact since the 1950’s & both countries have done very nicely out of each other, the Bush family coming out smiling. The US are very happy to turn a blind eye to human rights abuses in KSA & they took out Saddam every bit as much in the interests of the House of Saud as they did Israel.
Okay, fair point. But now this brings up at least one added benefit of the invasion of Iraq: it has finally been revealed to dopes in Washington just how duplicitous the Saudis have really been. In any case, it’s starting to sound like taking out Sadaam benefited a lot of people.
The question that needs to be put to the critics of the war is, so what was your alternative?
Since the end of GW1 coalition forces had been sitting in the desert keeping Saddam from crossing his borders & ensuring he didn’t annihilate his own people. All under the auspices of the UN. Were they supposed to remain there for ever? Military aviation is dangerous & costly. So’s keeping a ground force in a ready to fight posture. Every year the death toll due to accidents etc mount. Aircraft crash. Troops die in training exercises. The very equipment degrades despite costly maintenance & has to be replaced. The attrition rate is not as high as in battle but it’s still considerable.
Do the anti-war mob believe that the situation could be maintained ad infinitum? What would their strategy have been for a total withdrawal of coalition forces from the area?
Jack Hughes : Anyone remember the MSM all agreed on how the initial invasion was going to get bogged down around Baghdad – I can remember Rageh Omar talking about “Stalingrad and Vietnam rolled into one”. Well they were wrong. In fact there was a beeber live on screen in Baghdad saying how the Americans were stuck some 20 miles away and a US tank drove past in the background. Sheesh.
I do remember. I remember the BBC being knee deep in pundits saying that it would be too hot for the Americans to fight, and remember the humiliating British retreat from Kut in the 1920s, and so on. And on. And even during the war, there were Fisky type people on all the time explaining how it was all going wrong. Strangely, however, Wor Jezzer had completely forgotten this the other night :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/page/item/b009hnvh.shtml
at minute 22:28 of the 19 March 2008 Newsnight edition, Jeremy Paxman said :
“The war itself was, as everybody predicted, relatively easily won. The difficulty arose afterwards….”
Winston Smith is obviously hard at work in the BBC archives.
’I see no-one has mentioned John Simpson’s report from Fallujah on the 10 O’clock news saying how well things are going there thanks to the US Marines………..No mention here – I guess – because Simpson’s report went 100% against the prevailing narrative here that the BBC is downplaying the ‘good news’ and is anti-war and anti-American.’
John Reith | 21.03.08 – 8:31 am |
Pass the smelling salts quick. I find myself in partial agreement with jr.
I saw last it night on BBC World.
Both the wife and I stared at each other and at the TV in turn.
What a volte-face, what a damascean conversion.
Faced with overwhelming evidence the pompous old prat had no alternative.
Apparently Brits believe the BBC discussion was “unfair” because it was three against one. Let’s roll the video on the “one,” Richard Perle. Quote from Perle:
And the cost [Iraq War] has been high—far higher than I believe was necessary. That cost was driven by colossal mismanagement, chronic indecision about strategy, tactics and even goals, confusion about whom to trust among Iraqis and allies alike, a failure to deal effectively with Iranian and Syrian involvement in the conflict, and a shocking level of incompetence within the Bush Administration….
With “supporters” like that the other three “enemies” were actually unnecessary. Here’s the “colossal mismanagement” in perspective, death rates for some notable military actions:
Iraq War (5 years)– 3,990
Batan Death March (one week)– 10,000
Battle of Guadalcanal (186 days)– 7,099
Battle of Guam (20 Days)– 3,000
Operation Market Garden (9 days)– 3,664
Battle of the Bulge (41 days)– 19,276
Battle of Iwo Jima (39 days)– 6,821
Battle of Pusan Perimeter (61 days-Korea)– 6,706
I suggest the commenters here take a few moments and look up the term “fog of war.”
After that then contemplate the following: mass murderer, war-monger, and WMD developer and user Saddam gone, elections organized and held, representative government formed and operating, free speech and assembly realized, infrastructure repaired and improved, economy – including oil industry – growing, and security (personal and institutional) better than pre-Saddam, and AQ’s military and ideological strength reeling. All of this accomplished where? – in the cultural and historical center of the Middle East, FGS.
Of course the actions taken during the last five years can be debated, but “colossal mismanagement.” Compared to what? Please, give me a break.
Well said boqueronman.
boqueronman:
Here’s the “colossal mismanagement” in perspective
Well said. And revelatory to quote the death rates from Iraq at 3990, the number of US fallen.
I know that the estimate of civilian dead published by the Lancet is controversial, but bravo for reducing that total to zero. And another big thank-you from us Brits for ignoring our war dead, too.
A final moment of praise for reducing the definition of competence needed by those launching a five-year-long war to self-preservation alone. Henceforth we shall see incompetence only in terms of the aggressor’s own casualties (and not even its Allies’)
A Purple Heart for you. Or would you prefer some E?
.
Hillhunt | 24.03.08 – 10:41 am |
A final moment of praise for reducing the definition of competence needed by those launching a five-year-long war to self-preservation alone. Henceforth we shall see incompetence only in terms of the aggressor’s own casualties (and not even its Allies’)
I call BS on this. You’re completely ignoring boqueronman’s definition of what was accomplished – successfully. The amount of casualties incurred is one of the metrics, not the definition of that success.
But this is the smoke screen that all you anti-this war types use, isn’t it?
David, you have allowed yourself to be distracted by Hillhunt, boqueronman’s analysis clearly destroys Hillhunts observation, so just ignore Hillhunt unless he comes back with something more valid.
Direct military threat against against this nation and its interests is different (such as Hitler or Napoleon), but I am tired of this bogus ‘if Saddam why not others’ argument, it is easy to answer.
If one of these three questions is no there should have been no military action, if all three then yes.
Internal appalling abuses of own people
External wars launched
Threat to export violence and terror to UK
Kim North Korea
YES NO YES
Therefore military action NO
Mugabe Zimbabwe
YES NO NO
Therefore military action NO
Saddam Iraq
YES YES YES
Therefore military action YES
Interestingly on this basis we should not have warred upon Serbia, but the BBC and the likes of Alex/Hillhunt rushed to support it.
And no, it definitely does not excuse the scandalous false reasoning we used for the Iraq war even though it was the correct thing to do, the lies about the reasons for the war were unacceptable.
“the likes of Alex/Hillhunt rushed to support it.”
I did? Must’ve been drunk at the time as I really don’t remember doing anything of the sort.