Sunday's gunfight in Iraq allows media to vaunt their bias
Samuel Van Eerden
February 02, 2007
On Sunday, a combined force of US, UK, and Iraqi troops won a decisive battle against more than 700 terrorists near the Shiite holy city of Najaf. Iraqi Security Forces obtained intelligence that the large group of militants known as the "Soldiers of Heaven" had gathered and were planning to raid the province of Najaf on The Day of Ashura (the holiest day on the Shiite calendar); Tuesday, January 30. The terrorist group--made up of radical Shia, Sunni, Saudi, Sudanese, and Afghani fighters--had planned to kill and (or) capture Shiite clerics, pilgrims, and imams, and take over the city of Najaf, itself.
Immediately taking the offensive, the Iraqi army confronted the Soldiers of Heaven on Sunday morning, January 28, in a date-orchard outside the city. The terrorists were disguised as pilgrims, but were heavily armed, and a violent gun-battle ensued, which lasted until Monday, during which US and UK troops arrived on the scene and assaulted the terrorists from the air as well as from the ground. With the resurgence of militia, the terrorists were eventually beaten back and crushed. 263 of their number were killed, and over 500 were captured by the Iraqi army.
The terrorists had hoped that they would not only be able to capture, kill, and pillage, but also usher in the reappearance of Muhammad al-Mahdi (the twelfth imam). The Qur'an references his coming "during the last times . . . [when the] people will be afflicted with terrible and unprecedented calamities." Furthermore, the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) recently released a document reiterating that his appearance will be fraught with violence, bloodshed, and political upheaval. So, to the Soldiers of Heaven, this was not only a battle, this was a strategic stepping stone towards the return of Muhammad al-Mahdi, himself. The terrorists said as much in a message they sent to the Iraqi army which indicated that the "imam [was] coming back."
Suffice it to say, this battle had huge implications. Besides the incredible bloodshed that would have occurred had the terrorists' initial plan worked, morale (which has already been on the decline) would have shifted mightily in the terrorists favor. But as it happened, the Iraqi-led coalition thwarted a vicious plan, and trounced the enemy in one one of the few times--since the initial sacking of Baghdad--that a sizeable amount of troops had drawn up "battle lines" against each other.
This was a HUGE victory. An amazing accomplishment. One of the few times these cowards actually decided to fight like men instead of blowing themselves up in a crowd of innocent people, and they were decimated. And yet, when you opened up the paper on Monday morning, or surfed through news headlines online, what did you read? What were the headlines that caught your eye? Most of the ones that I read said something to the effect that hundreds were killed in a battle in Iraq. VERY few headlines actually said who had sustained most of those casualties. Unfortunate, when many in this surf, click, and scan internet age barely read anything more than the headline. The two most widely read newspapers in the U.S., the NY Times and the LA Times ran their stories with headlines that stated "250 are killed in major Iraq battle" and "Hundreds die in clash near Shiite Holy City", respectively. The articles eventually revealed that the terrorists received the brunt of those losses, but of course the articles don't call them "terrorists;" everywhere you look they're just 'fighters' or 'insurgents,' or 'gunmen.' We have to put the deranged murderers who killed thousands on 9/11 and repeatedly blow themselves up in stores, restaurants, malls, and masques in the most valiant, heroic light possible, don't we?
Reading the major news articles on Monday made me absolutely sick. It's as if the media is so intent on spinning this war as a failure and a Vietnam deja vu, they absolutely refuse report anything encouraging that happens. And even in a battle where U.S. troops lose two--I repeat TWO--soldiers while killing and capturing almost the entire terrorist force (of hundreds), all our papers can talk about is the helicopter that went down. I'm not kidding you, the LA Times article spends more time mourning about the downed helicopter and theorizing how it crashed, than rejoicing over the enormous physical and morale victory. Don't get me wrong, each life is precious, and I am as grieved and upset about every single American who dies in Iraq as anyone. But it is because I value our soldiers so much that I am so outraged by our media which brazenly refuses to tell any story unless it is through the ubiquitous lens of the U.S. death toll. There is such an emphasis on the losses that the victories (when they are reported) seem rare and hollow. Colonel Oliver North remarked on a talk show that "the troops don't even know they're losing till they get back [to the U.S.]."
And since the media is so intent on drawing correlations between the Iraq war and Vietnam, I'll give you one. Much like that awful war of decades ago, the American Media and the American people (not all, but some) are undermining our troops in Iraq from the stability and comfort of their own homes and city sidewalks, without thought to what their hate and ignorance is doing to our troops morale. The day before Sunday's gunfight in Najaf, Jane Fonda led thousands in a Washington peace rally (so called), where she called out a "mean . . . vengeful administration." This from the woman who, in 1972, while her country was in the midst of the brutal Vietnam war, had her picture taken with a North Vietnamese antiaircraft gun. In sickeningly dramatic fashion, she told the masses that "silence is no longer an option," and proceeded to rip into a war and administration that she claimed is "[blind] to [reality]."
It's one thing to have an opinion--as Americans were are allowed that--and to express it freely and in public. But it's quite another to mask any real progress that is being made in the war on terror with biased news reporting that slants towards the enemy! In the days following the Sunday battle, major newspapers like the LA Times ran stories about how sophisticated the Soldiers of Heaven were, commenting, almost with awe how they were "well organized . . . charismatic . . . and ready for battle." And Instead of highlighting the victory, the media sought to deface President Bush's statement that his "first reaction [to the gunfight] is that the Iraqis are beginning to show me something," by citing an anonymous Iraqi soldier. The man commented told an LA Times correspondent that "Without the bombings of the Americans we would have remained for two weeks unable to penetrate [the terrorist defenses]." I don't suggest that the media should leave out a statement like that, because it adds to the story; but why detract from the good by accentuating the bad? In their Monday morning article, the LA Times virtually glossed over the fact that we'd decimated a highly organized terrorist cell and recovered hundreds of firearms from their encampment, and instead focused on the civilians that had died in unrelated incidents around Najaf. Another newspaper, apparently deciding that 2 American deaths was too minimal to report, commented on a couple of other soldiers who died that day in a completely different area, and added those to the cumulative death toll.
It is certainly not all flowers and sunshine in war-torn Iraq. And you won't hear me saying that I'm perfectly happy with the way everything is going in this war. But you also won't hear me back-stabbing the troops like some of these celebrities, and you definitely won't see me brush aside their accomplishments just so I can circle the death toll with a huge red marker . . . over and over again.
And it's absolutely disgusting that the media continues to do is. Over and over again.
Immediately taking the offensive, the Iraqi army confronted the Soldiers of Heaven on Sunday morning, January 28, in a date-orchard outside the city. The terrorists were disguised as pilgrims, but were heavily armed, and a violent gun-battle ensued, which lasted until Monday, during which US and UK troops arrived on the scene and assaulted the terrorists from the air as well as from the ground. With the resurgence of militia, the terrorists were eventually beaten back and crushed. 263 of their number were killed, and over 500 were captured by the Iraqi army.
The terrorists had hoped that they would not only be able to capture, kill, and pillage, but also usher in the reappearance of Muhammad al-Mahdi (the twelfth imam). The Qur'an references his coming "during the last times . . . [when the] people will be afflicted with terrible and unprecedented calamities." Furthermore, the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) recently released a document reiterating that his appearance will be fraught with violence, bloodshed, and political upheaval. So, to the Soldiers of Heaven, this was not only a battle, this was a strategic stepping stone towards the return of Muhammad al-Mahdi, himself. The terrorists said as much in a message they sent to the Iraqi army which indicated that the "imam [was] coming back."
Suffice it to say, this battle had huge implications. Besides the incredible bloodshed that would have occurred had the terrorists' initial plan worked, morale (which has already been on the decline) would have shifted mightily in the terrorists favor. But as it happened, the Iraqi-led coalition thwarted a vicious plan, and trounced the enemy in one one of the few times--since the initial sacking of Baghdad--that a sizeable amount of troops had drawn up "battle lines" against each other.
This was a HUGE victory. An amazing accomplishment. One of the few times these cowards actually decided to fight like men instead of blowing themselves up in a crowd of innocent people, and they were decimated. And yet, when you opened up the paper on Monday morning, or surfed through news headlines online, what did you read? What were the headlines that caught your eye? Most of the ones that I read said something to the effect that hundreds were killed in a battle in Iraq. VERY few headlines actually said who had sustained most of those casualties. Unfortunate, when many in this surf, click, and scan internet age barely read anything more than the headline. The two most widely read newspapers in the U.S., the NY Times and the LA Times ran their stories with headlines that stated "250 are killed in major Iraq battle" and "Hundreds die in clash near Shiite Holy City", respectively. The articles eventually revealed that the terrorists received the brunt of those losses, but of course the articles don't call them "terrorists;" everywhere you look they're just 'fighters' or 'insurgents,' or 'gunmen.' We have to put the deranged murderers who killed thousands on 9/11 and repeatedly blow themselves up in stores, restaurants, malls, and masques in the most valiant, heroic light possible, don't we?
Reading the major news articles on Monday made me absolutely sick. It's as if the media is so intent on spinning this war as a failure and a Vietnam deja vu, they absolutely refuse report anything encouraging that happens. And even in a battle where U.S. troops lose two--I repeat TWO--soldiers while killing and capturing almost the entire terrorist force (of hundreds), all our papers can talk about is the helicopter that went down. I'm not kidding you, the LA Times article spends more time mourning about the downed helicopter and theorizing how it crashed, than rejoicing over the enormous physical and morale victory. Don't get me wrong, each life is precious, and I am as grieved and upset about every single American who dies in Iraq as anyone. But it is because I value our soldiers so much that I am so outraged by our media which brazenly refuses to tell any story unless it is through the ubiquitous lens of the U.S. death toll. There is such an emphasis on the losses that the victories (when they are reported) seem rare and hollow. Colonel Oliver North remarked on a talk show that "the troops don't even know they're losing till they get back [to the U.S.]."
And since the media is so intent on drawing correlations between the Iraq war and Vietnam, I'll give you one. Much like that awful war of decades ago, the American Media and the American people (not all, but some) are undermining our troops in Iraq from the stability and comfort of their own homes and city sidewalks, without thought to what their hate and ignorance is doing to our troops morale. The day before Sunday's gunfight in Najaf, Jane Fonda led thousands in a Washington peace rally (so called), where she called out a "mean . . . vengeful administration." This from the woman who, in 1972, while her country was in the midst of the brutal Vietnam war, had her picture taken with a North Vietnamese antiaircraft gun. In sickeningly dramatic fashion, she told the masses that "silence is no longer an option," and proceeded to rip into a war and administration that she claimed is "[blind] to [reality]."
It's one thing to have an opinion--as Americans were are allowed that--and to express it freely and in public. But it's quite another to mask any real progress that is being made in the war on terror with biased news reporting that slants towards the enemy! In the days following the Sunday battle, major newspapers like the LA Times ran stories about how sophisticated the Soldiers of Heaven were, commenting, almost with awe how they were "well organized . . . charismatic . . . and ready for battle." And Instead of highlighting the victory, the media sought to deface President Bush's statement that his "first reaction [to the gunfight] is that the Iraqis are beginning to show me something," by citing an anonymous Iraqi soldier. The man commented told an LA Times correspondent that "Without the bombings of the Americans we would have remained for two weeks unable to penetrate [the terrorist defenses]." I don't suggest that the media should leave out a statement like that, because it adds to the story; but why detract from the good by accentuating the bad? In their Monday morning article, the LA Times virtually glossed over the fact that we'd decimated a highly organized terrorist cell and recovered hundreds of firearms from their encampment, and instead focused on the civilians that had died in unrelated incidents around Najaf. Another newspaper, apparently deciding that 2 American deaths was too minimal to report, commented on a couple of other soldiers who died that day in a completely different area, and added those to the cumulative death toll.
It is certainly not all flowers and sunshine in war-torn Iraq. And you won't hear me saying that I'm perfectly happy with the way everything is going in this war. But you also won't hear me back-stabbing the troops like some of these celebrities, and you definitely won't see me brush aside their accomplishments just so I can circle the death toll with a huge red marker . . . over and over again.
And it's absolutely disgusting that the media continues to do is. Over and over again.
Print
Email
