| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| NYT: Insurgency Is Fading Fast, Top Marine in Iraq Says |
| 2005-03-20 |
| WASHINGTON, March 18 - The top Marine officer in Iraq said Friday that the number of attacks against American troops in Sunni-dominated western Iraq and death tolls had dropped sharply over the last four months, a development that he called evidence that the insurgency was weakening in one of the most violent areas of the country. The officer, Lt. Gen. John F. Sattler, head of the First Marine Expeditionary Force, said that insurgents were averaging about 10 attacks a day, and that fewer than two of those attacks killed or wounded American forces or damaged equipment. That compared with 25 attacks a day, five of them with casualties or damage, in the weeks leading up to the pivotal battle of Falluja in November, he said. In a wide-ranging, 45-minute telephone interview from his headquarters just outside Falluja, General Sattler said temporary checkpoints set up by Marine patrols had disrupted insurgent activity. He said that several hundred hard-core jihadists and former members of Saddam Hussein’s government and security services were still operating in Anbar Province, but that the declining frequency of the attacks indicated that the rebels’ influence was waning. "They’re way down on their attempts, and even more on their effectiveness," General Sattler said. Several senior military officials have noted, however, that many insurgents fled before or during the Falluja battle to fight elsewhere in Iraq. And although there are fewer lethal attacks in western Iraq, commanders say, remotely controlled bombs used against American and Iraqi forces in other parts of the country have become more deadly. Many bombs, for instance, are artillery shells strung together and buried under roadways. Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said during a tour of Iraq and other Persian Gulf states this week that the number of attacks throughout the country had fallen to 40 to 50 a day - far fewer than in the weeks before the Jan. 30 elections but roughly the same number as a year ago. Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday that 12,000 to 20,000 hard-core insurgents were operating in Iraq. That is about the same range American intelligence officers have given since October. "We still have a lot of work to do," acknowledged General Sattler, who will wrap up a seven-month command tour on March 27 and hand off to Maj. Gen. Stephen T. Johnson of the Second Marine Expeditionary Force. Snip |
| Posted by:Mrs. Davis |
| #5 Great post,.com |
| Posted by: Matt 2005-03-20 5:17:47 PM |
| #4 Did I miss the "once positive source will be refuted by three negative generalities from un-named sources - "They're way down on their attempts, and even more on their effectiveness," General Sattler said. Which is WAY MORE THAN OFFSET BY - First: Several senior military officials have noted, however, that many insurgents fled before or during the Falluja battle to fight elsewhere in Iraq. Second: And although there are fewer lethal attacks in western Iraq, commanders say, remotely controlled bombs used against American and Iraqi forces in other parts of the country have become more deadly. Vague generality, followed by really vague generality, third: Many bombs, for instance, are artillery shells strung together and buried under roadways. How predictable! How despicable. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2005-03-20 4:17:54 PM |
| #3 Note also that the Good News article was |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-03-20 2:47:58 PM |
| #2 Written and by omission: |
| Posted by: .com 2005-03-20 2:40:16 PM |
| #1 Proposal for another "RB Law" or plural "Laws"... Rationale: An observation which may account, to some degree, for the fact that the NYT is fading fast as a credible source... When the news is positive, and credit must be given to the Bush Admin - even if indirectly, there are numerous named sources quoted. When the news is negative, and blame is being issued, three conclusions may be made without reading the article: 1) No Asshat Terrorists will ever be defined as such. Any absurd substitute (i.e. insurgents, militants, etc.) will do, just never call a spade a spade if they oppose the Bush Admin. To wit: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. 2) The blame will, regardless of who did what, ultimately be laid at President Bush's feet, personally, if at all possible, or against an Admin official deemed to be an enthusiastic Bush Doctrine supporter, if at all possible. To wit: we will institute BDS as a StyleBook requirement. 3) The number of named sources will be inversely proportional to the ferocity of the attack upon, in order of editorial importance: a) George W Bush b) The Bush Administration c) The Religious Right d) Republicans e) Conservatives f) Red or Flyover State Citizens h) Everyone "too stupid" to vote Dhimmicrap To wit: All news is to be treated as a hand grenade: 1) If "Bad" get it as close to Bush as possible. 2) If "Good" keep it as far from Bush as possible. Articles published or distributed by The New Yellow Times, Wash Roast, Boston Butt Probe, Asshole Press, Asshole French Press, Rooters, et al, may be graded into 1) Good News; recourse: spin only. 2) Bad News with blame elsewhere; recourse: spin only. 3) Bad News with fuzzy blame; recourse: seek out every semi-credible (desirable, not req'd) ex-official who will blame Bush. 4) Bad News with clear Chain of Command; W00t! BusHitler / American Hegemony cum Imperialism The category into which the story will fall is inversely proportional to the number of credible named-source quotes in the item. Corollary 1) The title and the article content need have no connection whatsoever. Corollary 2) The emphasis will be placed upon the facts least flattering to the Bush Admin; i.e. the color of the wheel will be deemed more important than the physics and advancement of humanity its invention represents. Corollary 3) Where no credible named-sources are quoted, the screech against the Bush Admin will be incoherent and deafening. Corollary 4) "Reportage" regards the US Military: a) Despite the deep and unrequited desire for massive US Military casualties, the US Military will be shown in a positive light - if no sinister motives can be extracted from the facts - and this unhappy requirement will be implicitly divorced and distanced from the Bush Admin in every manner possible. b) Any actions which can be exploited due to the beloved "fog of war" or any actual misconduct, will be ruthlessly reported in the negative, above the fold, for as long as it takes to make the US public believe "Our good sons and daughters are being wasted / abused / brainwashed / murdered (choose best fit) by the evil BusHitler NeoConRelRightHateMongers" and smeared across everyone in uniform... or until subscription numbers take a nose-dive. Moonbat Journalism 101. I reiterate a point I made some time back: Since the aforementioned entities have consciously chosen to manipulate everything within their power to the negative, and that includes editorial spin, columnists, op-ed selections, story placement and repeat rates, etc., they should be ignored - utterly - on the Good News stories and receive no credit, whatsoever, for publishing them. They deserve no association with Good News for it is reported as is only because it was beyond their power to distort it to their negative ends. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-03-20 2:34:20 PM |