Embedded

Just finished a good read on the most recent Iraq war, "Embedded," by--drat!
brain function failure again!--anyway, the online booksellers will have the
details. It's a series of vignettes of various embedded reporters' adventures.
I know that doesn't sound like much, but it really is a rip-roaring good read,
and gives a very graphic depiction of the horror house that was Saddam's Iraq.
Goes on the shelf with "The March Up."

Incidentally, I have sat in on a few conversations with returning military
types, plus read some letters and e-mails from folks still in country, and
there certainly does seem to be a huge disconnect between what they are saying
about conditions in Iraq and what is reported on the news. Something is
screwy.


Chris Mark

Just finished a good read on the most recent Iraq war, "Embedded," by--drat!
brain function failure again!--anyway, the online booksellers will have the
details. It's a series of vignettes of various embedded reporters' adventures.
I know that doesn't sound like much, but it really is a rip-roaring good read,
and gives a very graphic depiction of the horror house that was Saddam's Iraq.
Goes on the shelf with "The March Up."

There are a couple of unflattering anecdotes about embedded
correspondents in The March Up, including one where a European?
reporter is seen looting an Iraqi store. (Marines were looting too,
but they got scorched by the sergeant major. Nobody scorched the
reporter.)

But the neatest touch in the book is when the commander of the 1st
Marine Div decides to enter East Baghdad in force, based on his
knowledge of the warm greeting his marines were getting in the city.
This intelligence he garnered by looking at the TV in his tent, which
was tuned to CNN. There was a CNN camera crew embedded in his forward
patrol.

Incidentally, I have sat in on a few conversations with returning military
types, plus read some letters and e-mails from folks still in country, and
there certainly does seem to be a huge disconnect between what they are saying
about conditions in Iraq and what is reported on the news. Something is
screwy.

Well, I don't know. Is it screwy or just standard operating procedure?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

From: Cub Driver look

conversations with returning military
types, plus read some letters and e-mails from folks still in country, and
there certainly does seem to be a huge disconnect between what they are
saying
about conditions in Iraq and what is reported on the news. Something is
screwy.

Well, I don't know. Is it screwy or just standard operating procedure?

Ah, yes, there is that, since the days of Vietnam.
One specific example I was thinking of was with our local volunteer fire
department. All nine of them were reservests or Guards and were activated for
the war. (Their loss was devastating for our community, btw, being firemen,
EMTs and citizen's patrol police force [some with military police training],
our only police for being highway patrol and county sheriff who are usually far
away and busy.) Anyway, some of these guys are back, and the letters and
e-mails of those still over there are virtually public property. They are
*furious* over the post-war reporting on Iraq, one describing the fellow who
intones the CBS radio news as "Lord Hawhaw." I find it interesting that, in
contrast to Vietnam, where most of the troops were young unmarried guys, many
too young to legally buy a drink when they came back from their tour, who could
easily be ignored by the larger society, the troops in Iraq are older, and
especially with the Reservists and Guards, well established in their home
communities, people whose opinions are respected and valued. So when they say
the real story about Iraq is not being told, people tend to listen, especially
when they back it up with their own videos and almost real-time messages from
the front.
Example: a day or two ago AOL on its opening page had a blurb, "Fierce
Fighting West of Bagdad." I was with a guy recently back. He read that,
scowled, muttered an obscenity and began clacking away on the keyboard. Very
shortly we had info from guys *who were actually west of Bagdad* telling us,
within the confines of military security, what the real deal was.
So you have a bunch of guys and gals, ranging in age from 15 to 78, some who
have been to Iraq, some who are about to go, way to hell and gone in rural USA,
who know from the horses mouth what the situation is in Iraq from direct
personal knowlege who are reading and listening to "professional" news reports
that they *know* are, to be kind, less than entirely accurate. I don't know if
there has ever been such a situation ever in history. Something big will surely
come out of this revolution in information sharing.


Chris Mark

On 03 Oct 2003 16:38:03 GMT, ost (Chris Mark) wrote:

Something big will surely
come out of this revolution in information sharing.

Let us hope so. I think, though, that the Chattering Classes are so
secure in their nests that they simply don't admit the existence of an
alternate universe--the universe inhabited by firemen, police, and
soldiers. (It seems to me that whenever I see an article about a
reservist or guardsman in Iraq, he or she turns out to be a cop or
firefighter in real life.)

I was particularly struck by the cover of Time magazine, in which Bush
makes a second appearance in his aircraft carrier walk-on, but this
time hadlined: NO, IT'S NOT OVER, or words to that effect. Time can
trust to the short memory of its readers, that what the man said was
something entirely different: major combat operations are over, which
they most certainly were and are. That cover could have been a paid ad
by the Dean campaign! Yet the Good People at Time would have apoplexy
if you accused them of bias.

Kinda makes me yearn for the days when Time was a right-wing
publication.

Lately I have been watching Walter Cronkite's narration of the CBS
Video Library of World War II. Repeatedly he refers to "our troops".
Can you imagine any TV anchor today using that phrase? It would be
"American forces" or more likely "the Bush administration".


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...
On 03 Oct 2003 16:38:03 GMT, ost (Chris Mark) wrote:

Something big will surely
come out of this revolution in information sharing.

Let us hope so. I think, though, that the Chattering Classes are so
secure in their nests that they simply don't admit the existence of an
alternate universe--the universe inhabited by firemen, police, and
soldiers. (It seems to me that whenever I see an article about a
reservist or guardsman in Iraq, he or she turns out to be a cop or
firefighter in real life.)

I was particularly struck by the cover of Time magazine, in which Bush
makes a second appearance in his aircraft carrier walk-on, but this
time hadlined: NO, IT'S NOT OVER, or words to that effect. Time can
trust to the short memory of its readers, that what the man said was
something entirely different: major combat operations are over, which
they most certainly were and are. That cover could have been a paid ad
by the Dean campaign! Yet the Good People at Time would have apoplexy
if you accused them of bias.

Kinda makes me yearn for the days when Time was a right-wing
publication.

Lately I have been watching Walter Cronkite's narration of the CBS
Video Library of World War II. Repeatedly he refers to "our troops".
Can you imagine any TV anchor today using that phrase? It would be
"American forces" or more likely "the Bush administration".

That might be because WW2 was a war worth fighting.

John

From: "John Mullen" no@


That might be because WW2 was a war worth fighting.

But they are still our troops. And in the case of the reservists and guards,
they are our neighbors, the guys who put out your garage fire and issue you
burn permits, who check to see if your house is okay when you're on vacation,
and work the jaws of life and extract your highschooler from his wrecked Camaro
and give him emergency medical aid as they rush him to the hospital...they are
*us.*

As far as the war being worth fighting, I was sort of reluctantly for it,
knowing that something has got to be done about the whole middle east sooner or
later, and sooner will be easier than later, and Iraq is probably as good a
place to start as any.
I did read a very good argument for not having invaded Iraq from Bernard
Henri-Levy (author of the excellent "Barbarism With A Human Face"), who
described Iraq as "yesterday's enemy" along with Libya and Cuba, while today's
real, serious enemies are in order, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. About
Pakistan he said, "the stench of the apocolypse hovers over it." His view is
that we should have moved from Afghanistan into Pakistan. Sounds like a plan,
but doubtless much, much easier said than done. And, of course, just who is
this "we"? The USA alone, or all the west and western allies such as Japan
combined? If the latter, exorcizing Pakistan might be doable; if just the US
alone or with a handful of allies...I sure wouldn't be first in line to urge my
country to do that.
And Saudi Arabia? Yemen, maybe we could do something there, but the
Saudis--what do we do there? Every body has a solution when sitting around the
backyard barbeque sipping beer, but really, what do you do...what do you do?


Chris Mark

Subject: Embedded
From: ost (Chris Mark)
Date: 10/4/03 12:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

From: "John Mullen" no@


That might be because WW2 was a war worth fighting.

But they are still our troops. And in the case of the reservists and guards,
they are our neighbors, the guys who put out your garage fire and issue you
burn permits, who check to see if your house is okay when you're on vacation,
and work the jaws of life and extract your highschooler from his wrecked
Camaro
and give him emergency medical aid as they rush him to the hospital...they
are
*us.*

As far as the war being worth fighting, I was sort of reluctantly for it,
knowing that something has got to be done about the whole middle east sooner
or
later, and sooner will be easier than later, and Iraq is probably as good a
place to start as any.
I did read a very good argument for not having invaded Iraq from Bernard
Henri-Levy (author of the excellent "Barbarism With A Human Face"), who
described Iraq as "yesterday's enemy" along with Libya and Cuba, while
today's
real, serious enemies are in order, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. About
Pakistan he said, "the stench of the apocolypse hovers over it." His view is
that we should have moved from Afghanistan into Pakistan. Sounds like a
plan,
but doubtless much, much easier said than done. And, of course, just who is
this "we"? The USA alone, or all the west and western allies such as Japan
combined? If the latter, exorcizing Pakistan might be doable; if just the US
alone or with a handful of allies...I sure wouldn't be first in line to urge
my
country to do that.
And Saudi Arabia? Yemen, maybe we could do something there, but the
Saudis--what do we do there? Every body has a solution when sitting around
the
backyard barbeque sipping beer, but really, what do you do...what do you do?


Chris Mark


I think WW II was worth fighting. in fact it had to be fought. I am not so
sure about Iraq. My doubts run quite deep.And it is the same "US" that fought
in WW II that are now fighting in Iraq. It is always "US"

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

From: artkramr@

I am not so
sure about Iraq. My doubts run quite deep.

Bernard Hernri-Levy's argument that Iraq was already checkmated and impotent
before the war, seem pretty sound. Of course it was the US and Britain who
were doing the checkmating afaik, and not anybody else, and there is the
argument that the situation was ultimately untenable, UN sanctions would be
lifted, the no-fly zones would go away, that Saddam's successor might be even
worse and have vast and dangerous ambitions. Who knows?

The main thing that concerns me now, the war being an accomplished fact,
however you felt about it, is the apparent poor and biased reporting coming out
of Iraq, reporting that does not jibe at all with the stories I hear from the
people who were and are actually there now.
Even the Brookings Institution (no member of the vast right wing conspiracy
they) has had some kind things to say about the current situation there.
Click the link:

http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20030930.htm

to go to a "what I did on my vacation" report (nothing deep) from a Brookings
senior fellow on his trip to Iraq last week. We are not in the deep do-do, the
media insists we are.



Chris Mark

Forgot this link, as well:

http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20030929.htm

which gives a more studied look at the current situation, and should please
anti-Bu****es (and cause pro-Bu****es to choke on their Wheaties) with phrases
such as "unilateralist rush to war," but is nonetheless quite positive about
the situation, while giving a good thumbnail description of the lay of the
land.


Chris Mark

Bernard Hernri-Levy's argument that Iraq was already checkmated and impotent
before the war, seem pretty sound. Of course it was the US and Britain who
were doing the checkmating afaik, and not anybody else, and there is the

I'm still scratching my head over Saddam's treatment of the weapons
inspectors. If he had simply cooperated with them, and especially if
he hadn't dumped that absurd multi-million-page compliance document on
the UN, the U.S. would have found it impossible to make the case for
invasion.

Again, Time magazine and all the rest can trust the short memories of
the public to forget all that stone-walling.

argument that the situation was ultimately untenable, UN sanctions would be
lifted, the no-fly zones would go away, that Saddam's successor might be even
worse and have vast and dangerous ambitions. Who knows?

There is still the point that we made the point: it's not safe to
knock over the World Trade Center. Further, it's not safe to do
business with Bin Laden.

Again--short memories! That Al Qaeda is for all practical purposes
impotent will be overlooked. It's like the fall of the Soviet empire
in 1990. That it fell is simply regarded as proof that it never was a
threat.

Don't worry, Art! They'll rewrite the history of WWII as well, the
minute the last vet is gone.

The main thing that concerns me now, the war being an accomplished fact,
however you felt about it, is the apparent poor and biased reporting coming out
of Iraq, reporting that does not jibe at all with the stories I hear from the
people who were and are actually there now.
Even the Brookings Institution (no member of the vast right wing conspiracy
they) has had some kind things to say about the current situation there.
Click the link:

http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20030930.htm

to go to a "what I did on my vacation" report (nothing deep) from a Brookings
senior fellow on his trip to Iraq last week. We are not in the deep do-do, the
media insists we are.

Thanks for the pointer, Chris.
all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com