Media mistakes RE: Basra, Iraq, and the Brits

On the home front in the United States and in Briton there is an ignorance that is spreading and growing. The public, and at times world perspective, is shaped by 15 second sound bytes. Most use some catchy headline that twists or misrepresents the true story.

But when the News gets it "Wrong", why don't we see the same vigor to correct the issue? The facts are of much more interest to me....

Basra is one of these situations.

I hope you will read Michael Yon's latest dispatch "Men of Valor" - part V

Here is a portion of his latest dispatch from the front lines of Iraq:
(there are also a lot of pictures from Basra on Michael's web site)

"......By the time I arrived on my latest trip to Basra on 26 September, the “Honor Agreement” was holding fast. So much so that in September—when the mainstream media was consistently reporting that the place was “in chaos”—the violence in Basra had actually fallen off the screen. Mortar and rocket attacks still occurred, but infrequently and with no military relevance. There was a brief attack at the Basra Airport on 8 October during which I had to lie flat for just a few minutes, and a few other minor attacks where I had to lie down, but this is in sharp contrast to the attacks earlier this year where it was common to lie flat more than a half-dozen times per day, every day......MY"

The News has consistently reported Basra as a city in chaos, with a strong al Qaeda safe haven. The News has convinced people that the al Qaeda Concurred the British troops, and that the Brits are in full retreat.

The reality is the Brits changed strategy. They focused on training the new Iraqi police and Army units. But most important is they worked with the local population, and listened to the needs and wishes of the people of Basra.

The Brits have not fled, they moved. The Brits moved because they were in a place know locally as "Basra Palace". I have read about some of the very aggressive and at times large scale attacks that would come from any direction. But instead of being a target in the center of the city they negotiated settlements with local leaders. they moved to an area that was agreed upon by local government, etc. The Brits are seen as the mediators that can settle disputes between local forces.

Michael mentioned: "Basra was a veritable Hatfield-and-McCoy situation; dysfunctionally functioning."

This is an interesting an insightful observation. Basra like any town has long unsettled disputes. I have read many stories of local disputes that resulted in attacks between old local enemies. Often I have read stories of locals that try to get coalition forces to attack a rival tribe or group of people. I have seen disputes over a goat several times. Also brides who changed their minds or had been forced into marrage. These are disputes we can not resolve. The Iraqis have been and will be the ones who settle their internal disputes.

I have a little saying I have learned from my many travels:

"People who live in cities think that people who live in the outskirts are hicks or backwards, people who live in the outskirts think people who live in cities would have to be nuts to live in such a chaotic unconnected environment. This is true for all nations."

It is something that has always fascinated me. I was lucky enough to travel A LOT every since I was a toddler. That little saying is of course a generalization. I don't think it is a true view for all people in either position. But when you get to the heart of those populations, weather it be city or outskirt, it is clear that the community revolves around leaders who do firmly believe their way of life is better.

The fact is Basra is not some outskirt city in London or New York, Basra is Basra. The best thing our military and political strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan is doin now, is to work with the people, not try and change them.

Violence is down 70% in Basra. Al Qaeda is seen as the Devil, the Brits are respected by the locals, and the News is still reporting that al Qaeda is rising?

Does anyone actually believe the Media anymore?

Let’s take a look at the problem. Our news was once first hand from reporters in the field. All the major News papers after WW2 had always had personnel year round in the Middle East. Television would get their news from the newspapers and independent sources grew as TV grew. Then the internet came along one day. Well that was when it started to change. Also large publishers which were once independent family owned entities became corporate giants. Gone was the day of the newspaper man. last I heard around early 2007 was only one major newpapper still had a full time presence in the middle east. Yet I believe it was only one reporter at times (especially in the hot summers - which is also the time when the enemy is most active). The fact is most of today’s so called "News" comes from what are referred to in the industry as "stringers".

OK I just looked up Iraqi stringers and found a article titled "Myths of Iraq"

here is a portion of the Article by By Ralph Peters

"The dangerous nature of journalism in Iraq has created a new phenomenon, the all-powerful local stringer. Unwilling to stray too far from secure facilities and their bodyguards, reporters rely heavily on Iraqi assistance in gathering news. And Iraqi stringers, some of whom have their own political agendas, long ago figured out that Americans prefer bad news to good news. The Iraqi leg-men earn blood money for unbalanced, often-hysterical claims, while the Journalism 101 rule of seeking confirmation from a second source has been discarded in the pathetic race for headlines......"

Terrorist have been waging a Propaganda War and the News is making money off it. Let's change that...

Anti Cyber Terror Training - Michael Yon - Anti Terror Activist Groups

By Ian Bach April 4, 2007

I thought I would touch a little on the need for government funding in online and other Media News sources. Michael Yon metions the need for on the ground reporting of his type (an ethical nature). He also dicusses some of the online possibly private or possibly DOD influences that have remarked on his reporting. I read his views about the organization. I feel weather or not it is a private or DOD endeavor it does show the need for further education of those fighting the battle against terror propaganda. One thing to remember is his photograph that made him famous [the photo was of a US soldier helping an Iraqi child who had been a target of a sucide bomber or IED] was used in a lot of unethical ways and also used by terror propaganda as a reason the coalation forces should leave Iraq.

Sometimes it is hard to know what to publish as it can often be used by a terrorist wishing to coax public opinion to their will. Its is good to know there is people watching what is said and how, but without proper training most of these online anti-terror networks fail in some respect. They should also learn that reporting on positive changes is as inportant if not more than just taking down terror propaganda and information used by terrorists. I searched for a few weeks to find a reliable well informed and well constructed etity to train myself in online counterterrorism. But found very little that focused in this specific area. There are some good FBI and DoHS groups that train citizens on the ground to spot persons who apprear to be checking out potential targets within the US, but I found nothing on training to fight online terror propaganda until more recelty (yet much of the info and sites/groups focus only o n shutting down bad sites and not creating good web sites). Which in the least is scary. If you have read any of my links on terrorists tactics and couterterrorism you will see that propaganda/Media is a large part of the terror machine. It has been used by Al Qaeda and other terror groups more and more lately and some of it has become very sublime in many cases. Recently while I was looking for terrorists web propaganda to shut down, I found a few sites that at first looked to be respectable and for a good cause (we all remember the charitable organizations that were actualy terror fronts to help support Bin Laden and other terrorists - I hope we remember these?). But investigate further and you find terrorist qoutes and bad pictures and other text that is radical or extremist in nature. The next few years, I beleive we will see governments around the world pay more and clearer attention and funding to fight online terrorists. Online terrorists activities include bankscams, ID theft, hacking of government web sites, and terrorists posting of video and text meant to twists the publics knowledge/perception. - Ian Bach

Michael Yons latest Dispatch focuses on the need for our military to assist reporters in Iraq.

"Who suffers? Firstly, we are losing the war in part because we are losing public support for it. We are losing public support for it in part because there are so few reports that demonstrate enough progress being made and enough reasons to continue to fight until Iraqis are able to go it alone. Secondly, the soldiers suffer because their stories are not being told. Fox News, which reaches millions, just turned down an embed simply because they don’t want their cameras and computers stolen, and they need to actually work when they aren’t guarding their gear. Unlike yours truly, Fox News has deadlines to meet."

Here is a section of an Newsweek Article regarding hacking on both sides of the cyberwar:

Virtual Jihad

Radical Islamic Web sites are encouraging their supporters to wage holy war online. Their exhortations underscore U.S. vulnerability to cyberterror

WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball

Newsweek

Updated: 9:40 a.m. PT Feb 10, 2005

"Almost every [Islamic extremist] Web site has a section on how to do jihad over the Internet," says Rita Katz, the head of the SITE Institute, a group that closely monitors Islamic Web sites. The postings, say Katz, advise would-be holy warriors: "If you can't do Jihad physically, do it on the Internet."

Here is some info on global terrorism and Al Qaeda influences in Saudi Arabia, as reported By Mahan Abedin:

(Click here for full Text)

"Dr. Saad al-Faqih heads the Saudi opposition group, Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia (MIRA), and is a widely acknowledged expert on al-Qaeda. Terrorism Monitor Editor Mahan Abedin conducted this interview December 12, 2005 in London."

"Mahan Abedin: What is the latest information on terrorism in Saudi Arabia?"

"Saad al-Faqih: The latest general trend is that the jihadis have abandoned their previous tactics of targeting Westerners and the security forces. The jihadis are now focusing all their attention on the royal family. Two factors have driven this change. Firstly, the jihadis had previously avoided targeting the royals for fear of offending Muslim sensibilities. But now they believe that the prevailing opinion in Saudi Arabia-and probably in the wider Muslim world-is that the royal family is infidel and deserves harsh treatment. Secondly, the jihadis have finally overcome their fear of a secular takeover in the event of the sudden downfall of the House of Saud. Somebody told me that in the late 1990s bin Laden used to say that if the House of Saud is removed, the country will fall into the hands of secular forces. But now al-Qaeda believes that the regime is behaving far worse than a would-be secular system, because it is gradually destroying Islam under the banner of a false Islam. Al-Qaeda has reached the conclusion that the sudden collapse of the regime will either invite foreign interference or chaos. Both scenarios are now favored by the jihadis, who have learned great lessons in the Iraq theater over the past 33 months. In fact the jihadis would welcome an American invasion, knowing full well that it will provide a massive recruitment opportunity for them and hence they will be the ultimate winners, as they think they are proving to be in Iraq."

"MA: How has the political transition (i.e. death of King Fahd) affected the struggle between the regime and al-Qaeda?"

"SF: The transition has little to do with al-Qaeda; in fact al-Qaeda is not in the least bit interested in these developments. The only way al-Qaeda would become interested is if a very serious and open dispute between the leading royals broke out. But this has not happened, not yet anyways. Moreover, there is no division in the regime when it comes to al-Qaeda; all the top figures of the regime, namely Abdullah, Sultan and Nayef, are determined to eradicate al-Qaeda. They are also in favor of maintaining the regime’s dependence on America. "

"MA: But presumably al-Qaeda is monitoring developments inside the regime very closely and the decision on the timing of any assassination attempt against a leading figure would surely be determined by .........."