Warmed Over Cold Warrior

Well, the MilBlog Conference 2006 is history now but it also made history. It was a fascinating educational event for me; the 100-150 attendees were highly enthusiastic and engaged. I hear that a great many more were participating via internet, as one would expect since many military bloggers and blog readers are deployed around the globe.

There are a number of good summaries and opinion posts available now, including this Live-Blogging post by non-military blogger La Shawn Barber. I cite her post because she was there and working all day and represents the new media innovation of a joint civilian and military blogosphere.

Bruce Kesler in Democracy Project notes: "The impact of the Internet, and how it serves our warriors, is the focus of two important posts today. Put these against the rants of OBL and friends, often absurd but always featured by the major media, and see another reason why they’re no match for our guys." He quotes from two posts by Beltway Blog and Strategy Page and follows up with a thoughtful article that asks Is the Press Covering the Iraq War On the Cheap?: "Journalists are reviled by many for alleged negativism and over-focus on bad news in Iraq. Or perhaps the problem is: Their employers are just trying to do it on the cheap. Ironically, the same media that criticizes the U.S. for sending too few troops to stabilize Iraq send too few reporters to cover much more than the dramatic bombings around Baghdad. "

That's a good question and discussed well in the article by Kesler and Joe Galloway. They have nailed the problem - reporters don't leave the security of the Green Zone in Baghdad; they hire Iraqi stringers to give them news. They suggest that improving insurance and training for reporters will make them more willing and able to risk combat reporting. Perhaps, but the existence of so many good milbloggers suggests another option - use them as stringers to report the news from the front. They are articulate and honest; to the extent they have a bias it will be openly pro-American rather than the hidden anti-American bias of many of the Iraqi stringers currently feeding "news" to reporters.

That's a novel way for the military and the media to cooperate in getting sound fair reportage. It would take some setting of reasonable ground rules so that soldiers could do their job first and report (blog) with Opsec in mind. But that's exactly what is happening now and the Milbloggers are getting read and their reports getting spread by other blogs. Like all innovations, this will take some experimentation; and it's already beginning. I mentioned the Milblog Wire before. At the conference, Military.com announced their intention to start a new service to aggregate and publish milblogger posts as news or op-eds, depending on content. Both work on the principle that they can select a good timely feed from many bloggers, making a product that draws readers and advertisers. Bloggers can get paid to the extent their efforts produce reader interest and revenue.

It will be interesting to see how these and other business models work out. But the key thing is that they are happening; the business innovators are joining the blog innovators to create a new media dynamic.

The role of milblogs and the Rumsfeld controversy are discussed in a thoughtful piece at the The Boston Globe . They present a view from the top (OSD) and from the field that I'll quote. It addresses some of the issues in my last two posts but not all. So, first from the Globe:

"There are hundreds of milblogs, and the Pentagon, which has cautiously supported some of them but also has deep concerns about the ability to control them, recently ordered a top level advisory panel to study the issue.

'' 'Googling' and 'blogging' are making their way into military operations at all levels,' Kenneth Krieg, the undersecretary of defense, wrote in a recent memo requesting that the Defense Science Board look into the matter. ''But the full implications of this revolution are as yet unknown, and we have no clear direction and defined doctrine.'"

That's pretty close to what I think and a good reason for the OSD folks to pay close attention to milblogging. It would be concerning if OSD focused more on "controlling the damage" than exploiting the opportunity. Nor should they focus only on milblogging per se rather than on how blogging in general, as well as milblogging, may provide an opportunity to utilize a very large pool of citizen volunteer expertise.

The view from the field cites the big advantage of milbloggers in keeping the public informed and resolved :

"John, the Air Force officer at op-for.com, contends that the Pentagon leadership appreciates the need for the kind of connection between the military and the public that the military blogs provide.
''The lieutenants and the captains of the Vietnam War are the generals of today," he said in an interview. ''They saw us lose not on the battlefield, but in the halls of Congress, the universities, and with the public. They understand the importance of fighting a political war when the military is engaged in a long police action and occupation like Iraq.""

Like OSD, John is also concerned about the possibility of damaging leaks. But that danger must be weighed against the danger of bad or no information leading to a loss of popular resolve and against the benefit of finding and getting critical expertise quickly. That brings me to my next point.

It should be not just about OSD and Milblogs or just about conducting net-centric military actions. It should be also about harnessing civilian volunteers as a part of a national effort in a long war conducted with the use of forces and ideas. That's the key point that John makes about Vietnam. And there are a great many Americans willing to join in a national effort; just remember the enormous volunteer efforts that spring up after catastrophes from Manhatten to Katrina. It would be useful to consider a doctrine that includes that aspect of our power in an ideologic war. Not all the reserves that get called up (virtually drafted or volunteered?) need to wear uniforms or report for duty in the traditional legacy sense.

For a broad civilizational slant on the the current war on terror, consider Lee Harris's review of Oriana Fallaci's The Force of Reason : "Islam, she tells us, presents a threat to the very existence of Western civilization, of conscience, of toleration, of liberalism — .. . (she views Islam as the 'Enemy of Reason' and that it is) ... on a different kind of march, against which the West appears to have no defenses.

It is not just terrorism that Fallaci is talking about — not even the catastrophic terror of 9/11 or the Madrid bombing; what alarms her most is "the cultural war, the demographic war, the religious war waged by stealing a country from its citizens...the war waged through immigration, fertility, presumed pluriculturalism...." What enrages her most, on the other hand, is the refusal of European leaders to recognize what is at stake in this war, ... (as she) illustrates, a situation has developed in Europe where "native" Europeans are being increasingly forced to play by Muslim rules, and to accept Muslim culture."

In this sense, the Danish 'Cartoon War' is a successful battle in an ideologic war to the extent that Western Governments and citizens are forced to self- censor themselves and accord deference to Islam. Over time, this approach produces a cumulative cultural ratcheting towards Islamic dominance with Islamic opponents intimidated into silence by threats of criminal charges or even death. As Harris puts it :
Again, the paradox: What force can reason possess in a world dominated by intellectual terrorists for whom dialogue and debate mean nothing?"

If that ( or anything close to it) is the underlying threat, it seems wise to bring all aspects of our military, political, cultural and economic forces to bear. We have the resources to deal with this. If OSD engages this issue, it should start from a broad perspective.

My last post talked about some new activities on the Milblog front and the potential for bloggers to be an information age militia. It's not a very new concept; one could say it's already a work in progress. But the theme for this year's DSB Summer Study begs the question of whether it would be desirable to form a more collaborative government - blogosphere arrangement and if so how.

A good example is the ongoing translation of the (finally) released Iraqi documents on the web with blogs providing results and analyses ( see Captain's Quarters blog for some good coverage). Like the blog swarm of expertise and coverage that marked RatherGate, this is being done by an instantly formed community with pertinent interest and expertise focusing on a specific problem. The community forms up, works at its own initiative under mutually collaborative guidance, and disbands when the mission is accomplished. Sounds pretty much like the classic modus operandi for a militia.

Of course, these on-line communities or information age militia aren't formally organized and controlled; they form themselves as participants and experts discover a mutual interest and join in a collaborative solution. This is a key advantage that needs to survive any more robust cooperation or joint operations with the government. It's also been largely true that, as in the above example, the government's participation has not been very forthcoming and the leadership has come form the other side ( e.g. Stephen Hayes).

What's not being addressed is how to set up a cooperative endeavor between the blogger and government communities to address a few key national problems ammenable to blogging solution. Off hand, that might involve these kinds of activities:
* Seek help on high priority needs ( mostly Gov)
* Publicize the needs (Both) and free up data access (mostly Gov)
* Coordinate a voluntary effort (mostly Blogs)
* Do the work and keep it open (Blogs)
* Decide on results and and take action (mostly Gov).

There are many "mostly" items because there shouldn't be overly rigid roles. For example, the blog community may see an important need and engage with the government adjusting to help and use the products. Or the action may be simply the making the public aware of what's been done or learned. The objectives of a cooperative arrangement may include uncovering new facts or analyzing critical data; maintaining the American people's resolve by providing credible information; or influencing other nations or peoples by information exchange.

The real question is whether there is mutual advantage to such an arrangement. Is it better to let things evolve as they are or should we form up the Information Militias?

This coming Saturday is the date for the first MilBlog Conference: "The 2006 Milblog Conference will take place in Washington, D.C. on Saturday, April 22, 2006. The conference is designed to bring milbloggers together for one full day of interesting discussion on topics associated with milblogging. We will explore the history of milblogs, as well as what the future may hold for this medium which the military community is using to tell their stories."

It should be an interesting time with good panelists and over 185 participants. One participant is starting a new version of a wire service, the Milblog Wire which "functions like any other wire service, aggregating stories from the field and making them available for your readership. The difference is now it comes direct from folks the American public has a high degree of trust in, not an overseas stringer.The content providers for the Milblog Wire are serving military members, their former comrades in arms, and their friends and families."

And,of course, the original Dawn Patrol aggregating service, the Mudville Gazette ,will also be there as a key participant and panelist. As will Col. Austin Bay, Bill Roggio, and a host of others.

By coincidence, the Defense Science Board (DSB) 2006 Summer Study (pdf) is addressing Information Management for Net-Centric Operations. The study terms of reference seem broad enough to include consideration of the uses and impacts of milblogging both in theater and at home. I wonder if they will send some one to get ideas from this conference?

It would be a great opportunity to learn about and explore the benefits and possibilities for milblogging and supportive blogging to aid extended operations in a long war of ideology mixed with combat. Blogs not only provide information (much of which never gets by media filters), they also foster immediate information exchanges which can discover or concentrate expertise on specific issues in real time. Understanding and using this phenomenon should benefit military operations as well as maintain citizen will and resolve through credible current news.

Of course, the milbloggers are already doing more to keep up morale and resolve on the home front than the media; but it would be nice if the DSB learned about it and how to cooperate with the bloggers. Milbloggers seem to be the modern information age version of minutemen and miltia. There should be a lot of advantage to conducting mutually desirable "joint operations" with the regulars and this new-age militia if we can be innovative about how we collaborate.

In an earlier post, here, I had complimented Sen. Rick Santorum for his outspoken defense and characterization of the current war as being waged against "Islamic Fascists" rather then against "Terror". It's essential to know and name your "Enemy" to fight effectively. I have used the term "Islamist" to distinguish the violent, radical, fascist, jihadist faction in Islam from majority of Muslims and the broader religion of Islam. But no one has a really good, simple and broadly acceptable term for and definition of our enemy.

Jonathan Rauch suggest a good solution to that problem. I think the suggestion makes sense, has historic authenticity, and is timely. So, I'm going to quote extensively from his National Journal article, A War On Jihadism -- Not 'Terror':
"'I think defining who the enemy is is a real problem in this war,' says Mary Habeck, a military historian at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. 'If you can't define who's a real threat and who's just exercising free speech, it's a problem.' As it happens, Habeck is the author of one of three new books that, taken together, suggest the time is right to name the battle. It is a war on jihadism.

Jihadism is not a tactic, like terrorism, or a temperament, like radicalism or extremism. It is not a political pathology like Stalinism, a mental pathology like paranoia, or a social pathology like poverty. Rather, it is a religious ideology, and the religion it is associated with is Islam.

But it is by no means synonymous with Islam, which is much larger and contains many competing elements. Islam can be, and usually is, moderate; Jihadism, with a capital J, is inherently radical. If the Western and secular world's nearer-term war aim is to stymie the jihadists, its long-term aim must be to discredit Jihadism in the Muslim world.

No single definition prevails, but here is a good one: Jihadism engages in or supports the use of force to expand the rule of Islamic law. In other words, it is violent Islamic imperialism. It stands, as one scholar put it 90 years ago, for 'the extension by force of arms of the authority of the Muslim state.'

In her new book, Knowing the Enemy: Jihadist Ideology and the War on Terror , Habeck sets out to map the ideological contours of Jihadism. The story begins, but does not end, with religion. 'Western scholars have generally failed to take religion seriously,' she writes.

'Secularists, whether liberals or socialists, grant true explanatory power to political, social, or economic factors but discount the plain sense of religious statements made by the jihadis themselves.' Pretending that Islam is incidental, she notes, is not just incorrect, it is patronizing.

Jihadists, she writes, are not merely angry about U.S. policies. They believe that America is the biggest obstacle to the global rule of an Islamic superstate. Ultimately, in the Jihadist view, 'Islam must expand to fill the entire world or else falsehood in its many guises will do so.' Violence is by no means mandated, but it is assuredly authorized.

And always has been. The point that Bush, Blair, and others understandably finesse is that the ideology of Jihadism traces its lineage to the very beginning of the religion of Islam. It has 'roots in discussions about Islamic law and theology that began soon after the death of Muhammad and that are supported by important segments of the clergy (ulama) today,' Habeck writes."

Two other new books strikingly document the connection. One is The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims. Edited by Andrew G. Bostom, it provides more than 700 pages of source material on jihadist doctrine and practice (including many fascinating translations from Arabic). A second is Islamic Imperialism: A History, by Efraim Karsh, a political scientist and historian who heads the Mediterranean studies program at King's College (part of the University of London).

A key point from these books is that there have always been two distinct threads running through the religion of Islam - one moderate and adaptable to other religions and cultures and the other rigidly 'Jihadist'. Thus , our problem becomes recognizing this tension within Islam so that we can engage and encourage cordial relations with the moderates while energetically fighting and thwarting the Jihadists. Properly naming the enemy is essential to both these objectives and to devising national strategies to accomplish them.

One could argue that the Bush Administration is doing that in practice while not clearly articulating its position for reasons of diplomatic or religious nicety. Perhaps, but the lack of a clearly defined enemy is very unhelpful in explaining why we should fight a long war. I think it would help immensly if the Administation would adopt this approach and terminology. It would open up a solid array of historical scholarship to define the problem, the enemy, and how he thinks and has acted through history. In a Nuclear Age, I don't think we can afford not to have a broad popular understanding of the essential characteristics of our enemy.

As Rauch's article puts it : "This is a struggle over Islam and who's going to control Islam," Habeck says. "If you can't talk about that, you can't talk about most of the story." Specifying that the war is against Jihadism -- as distinct from terrorism or Islam (or Islamism, which sounds like "Islam") -- would allow the United States to confront the religious element of the problem without seeming to condemn a whole religion. It would clarify for millions of moderate Muslims that the West's war aims are anti-jihadist, not militantly secular. ...... Habeck cites one other reason to call the enemy jihadists: "This is what they call themselves."

Thanks to Instapundit for the reference to Rauch's article. I think it this is a useful and timely suggestion. Read the article and try the books; I have Bostum's book and it is a lengthy, well documented product. Habeck's sounds very interesting at about 1/3rd the page count.

Amir Taheri believes a vision of global dominance by an "Islamic Superpower" is The frightening truth of why Iran wants a bomb: "In Ahmadinejad's analysis, the rising Islamic 'superpower' has decisive advantages over the infidel. Islam has four times as many young men of fighting age as the West, with its ageing populations. Hundreds of millions of Muslim 'ghazis' (holy raiders) are keen to become martyrs while the infidel youths, loving life and fearing death, hate to fight. Islam also has four-fifths of the world's oil reserves, and so controls the lifeblood of the infidel. More importantly, the US, the only infidel power still capable of fighting, is hated by most other nations.
According to this analysis, spelled out in commentaries by Ahmadinejad's strategic guru, Hassan Abassi, known as the 'Dr Kissinger of Islam', President George W Bush is an aberration, an exception to a rule under which all American presidents since Truman, when faced with serious setbacks abroad, have 'run away'. Iran's current strategy, therefore, is to wait Bush out. And that, by 'divine coincidence', corresponds to the time Iran needs to develop its nuclear arsenal, thus matching the only advantage that the infidel enjoys."

In the near term, he expects Ahmadinejad to finesse the UN deadline in April and the G-8 meeting in Russia in June by making announcements of "temporary suspension" of uranium enrichment and of consideration of signing the additional protocols of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). These announcements would have no substance other than to delay or prevent international interference, while Iran builds a nuclear arsenal and a strong alliance of (or underground factions in) Mid-East nations.

In addition to Iran's existing influence in Syria and Lebanon, Tahiri notes that Ahmadinejad is trying to take-over the cash-starved Hamas government in the West Bank and Gaza and has "reactivated Iran's network of Shia organisations in Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Yemen, while resuming contact with Sunni fundamentalist groups in Turkey, Egypt, Algeria and Morocco".

I suspect Taheri is right about Ahmadinejad's belief in his religious destiny and the above analysis fits that model. If Iran could achieve effective "control" in the countries cited, it would have a solid "Caliphate" base with a nuclear umbrella under which it could pursue global goals by a combination of low-level warfare and religious conversion. The objective of Islamic global dominance is politico-religious and need not involve major military battles. A gradual decline of resolve and will is sufficient; perhaps with some well-orchestrated acts of deceptive terrorism, along the lines of Robert Ferrigno's concept for "Prayers for the Assassin".

Of course, there are some glitches in the analysis and strategy. It gambles heavily on the concepts that Americans' prefer short wars and are tiring of this war. It fails to correlate those perceptions with the fact that many Americans do not see this war as existential - yet. Should Iran's strategy succeed enough to change the American perception of existential danger, the next war is apt to be very short, very violent and catastrophic for them. And the Iranians will discover that while Russia and China may play geopolitical games with them against America now, they will not join them in an existential war against America.

In a longer term context, the demographics of religion may not be so favorable to Islamist extremists. Those "hundreds of millions" of young Muslims may not be so ready for death when they have a real option of a good economic future and personal freedom. On this Easter Sunday, we should also note that Pope Benedict is preaching a new strong message against religious perversion by extremists and there are about as many Catholics in the world as Muslims. (And a lot of Hindus and Bhudists who are unlikely to convert or submit to Islam.) An open public conversation among religions in a free and prospering climate will favor Western goals far more than Islamist ones.

Taheri thinks Ahmadinejad's strategy is to seeks a slow conflict that wears down the West; I agree that's a danger, but think the combined Western political, economic and religious forces will prove too strong. America just won a 60 year long slow Cold War and the Catholic church and other religions have survived for centuries. The greater danger is that Ahmadinejad is truly fanatic and abandons the slow war strategy for a major nuclear dice roll to create a chaotic environment from which Islam can arise and be led to victory by the 12th Imam.

That's the contingency that is truly frightening and it must be addressed decisively and soon.

We all hear that Iran seeks nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. What other purpose would motivate them? Is it possible to take President Ahmadinejad of Iran at his word when he says, , according to BREITBART.COM : "The president of Iran again lashed out at Israel on Friday and said it was 'heading toward annihilation,' just days after Tehran raised fears about its nuclear activities by saying it successfully enriched uranium for the first time.

"Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation," Ahmadinejad said at the opening of a conference in support of the Palestinians. "The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."
Ahmadinejad provoked a world outcry in October when he said Israel should be "wiped off the map."

If that's not clear - or if you don't understand his intentions towards Israel and the United States - perhaps the picture at the right will help. It comes from the October Arab conference on a World without Zionism. Note Ahmadinejad watching as the Israeli ball falls to break next to the already broken US ball. Is this image and his spoken words so hard to fathom?

This Iran regime can not be allowed to gain nuclear weapons. It may well not be easy to prevent that from happening; but it will much less painful to act now than later.

I realize that these current statements from Iran can be viewed as negotiating ploys and that our leaders and DoD may read them that way and deal with them realistically. But the real issue is how this plays with the American public and its will to fight harder and longer against a (nominally) new enemy.

The Hugh Hewitt's Blog has a long post on the pro-con arguments about striking Iran before it gets nuclear weapons. He views this as the biggest debate of all and offers to host some of it on his blog: "I will gladly reprint here e-mails from military experts with supporting or opposing views, and will also oblige those who request anonymity provided I can be assured that the writer is who he or she says they are. ..... E-mails can be directed to hugh@hughhewitt.com. "

I'll summarize the five main objections and counter points here, but you should read it all and, if you have the expertise, join in the debate. From Hewitt :

1. The United States military cannot accomplish the mission.

The first part of this objection is that we lack the intelligence to target the right targets.
The second is that the damage that the American military could inflict would be minimal.
The third is that the struck targets could be rebuilt.

All of these seem to me to be military questions, and the left's assertions about the limits of the American military seem dubious to me. ..... Civilians like Alter and me have no business declaring what the U.S. military can or cannot do, but unless the military declares that a mission is beyond its capability, there is much more evidence for the proposition that the Pentagon can accomlish missions rather than the other way around.

2: Striking Iran will cause Iran to strike against our troops in Iraq.

First, there is already an enemy in Iraq trying very hard to kill American troops. ..... (this) seems again to doubt the capacity of the American military to decisively destroy any counter-attacks from the Iranian military, which is absurd, or to suggest that Iranian cross-border meddling could be greater than it already is --another doubtful assertion.

But even admitting that Iran would try to make things worse in Iraq, that is an insufficient answer to the prospect of a nuclear Iran which, upon successful deployment of a nuclear weapon, becomes impossible to threaten over Iraq meddling. The only limit on Iranian interference now is the prospect of American retaliation. Add nukes to the Iranian military capability, and the prospect of Iranian meddling in Iraq skyrockets.

3. An attack on Iran will unleash Iranian-sponsored terrorism around the world.

This argument seems to support decisive, regime-changing military action rather than inaction, given that it presumes a capability and a willingness of the current Iranian regime to use terror around the globe and its proxy Hezbollah to conduct that terror.

Given that presumption, how can delay until Iran becomes a nuclear power benefit the West?

4. America's position in the world will crumble if we attack Iran.

the United States will suffer a great deal of intense and worldwide public criticism if an attack happens --and a great deal of private gratitude.

What all the aging cold warriors seem to refuse to want to recognize is that this is a very different threat from that posed by the never-other-than-wanting-to-stay-alive Soviet Union. Hojjatieh is not about preserving the peace or a balance of power, or any sort of cold or even lukewarm war. When I see an analysts deal with that problem and still counsel restraint, I'll pay attention.

5. There are other ways of deterring Iran's nuclear program.

The only argument against that makes any sense is that measures short of military action will deter Iran from going nuclear. This could be a persuasive argument --it is the one the president has been making, btw-- but thus far nothing has worked, and the Secuirty Council continues to dither.

If the domestic left and its allies around the globe want to avoid the use of military force in Iraq, its spokesmen should immediately put forward demands for world action of the most severe sort, and specifics have to be attached to such demands. Critics of the possible use of military force that offer no alternative and refuse to acknowledge the menace that has now reached the stage of a public announcement and staged celebrations in Iran are simply noisy distractions from the central challenge of the generation.

The question is did the Pulitzer Prize for Photography go to an Iraqi stringer for AP who is a terrorist or a terrorist collaborator? The blogosphere is all over this story, but I haven't seen it in the MSM yet. The best place to start is with Michelle Malkin , who asks "Where is Bilal Hussein--and who is he working for?"

She continues: "A year ago, I blogged about a controversial, Pulitzer Prize-winning photo taken by an unidentified Associated Press stringer in Iraq. More background from the blogosphere here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Do take the time to re-read them all. The context is important.

One member of the Pulitzer-winning AP team was AP stringer Bilal Hussein. Hussein's photos have raised serious, persistent questions about his relationship with terrorists in Iraq and whether his photos were/are staged in collusion with the enemy. I've learned of an intriguing news development that strengthens those lingering suspicions.

This afternoon, in response to a tip from an anonymous military source in Iraq, I contacted both the AP reporter embedded with the Marines in Ramadi, Todd Pitman, as well as AP's media relations office headquartered in New York concerning Hussein's whereabouts. No word from Pitman. But at 6:20pm EDT, I received the following e-mail response from AP:

We are looking into reports that Mr. Hussein was detained by the U.S. military in Iraq but have no further details at this time.

Jack Stokes
The Associated Press
Corporate Communications

According to my tipster, Hussein was captured earlier today by American forces in a building in Ramadi, Iraq, with a cache of weapons.

I am still awaiting a response from the DOD's Combined Press Information Center and a Public Affairs Officer in Ramadi."

Her post goes into a lot more detail with the pictures to make her points. Read it all. And then ask yourself whether the MSM would be so quiet if this story were about a pro-America reporter being involved with propagandizing for the US Army?

In this National Review Online article, On Iraq, Michael Ledeen exhorts the Pentagon to do a better job of countering Iraqi insurgents' use of disinformation operations to sway US and World opinion. He also takes on the US Media, including their Baghdad components, for being too gullible (at a minimun) and willing to go along with the anti-American theme. He use this example to make his case :

"On March 26, an Iraqi special-forces unit attacked a building on the outskirts of northeast Baghdad, where they had tracked a group of terrorists. They had good reason to do so, because three members of the unit had been kidnapped by the terrorists, and were savagely tortured and killed. Their fingers and toes were cut off, their joints were penetrated with an electric drill, and they were eviscerated while still alive. It later turned out that the terrorists were members of Moqtadah al-Sadr's militia.
The attack was a rousing success. Sixteen terrorists were killed, and another 16 or so were captured. A hostage was freed, and a considerable weapons cache — along with the inevitable materials to manufacture IEDs — was uncovered. ......

It wasn't good enough. In less than an hour, 20 bodies were laid out in a mosque nearly two miles away, and American and Iraqi journalists were invited to see the "scene" of the "massacre." A classic disinformation campaign was under way, which, at least for a while, was a more potent blow in the war than the special-forces' operation. Initial press reports (and even comments from the usually careful and restrained Iraqi blogger Zayed) spoke of an American raid against a mosque, not an Iraqi assault against a terrorist haven, and the usual claims of random killings of civilians went out on wires and airways."

Read the whole thing to see how the Media is exploited by the enemy and fails to provide the real big story of yet another disinformation exercise, contenting itself at best with an inconspicuous correction. Ledeen concludes with this:

"By now, the press corps has the same eyewitness account as I do, and they know as well as I do that the source is excellent. They should tell the true story and alert their readers that, in this war, information is manipulated by our enemies and initial reports are often misleading.

Alas, as things currently stand, the only reporters who stay with a story long enough to get it right are the top bloggers, and the only citizens who have enough patience and attentiveness to wait before drawing conclusions are the readers of the blogs."

Well, what about those blogs? At the time of the above event, as the NYT and WaPo were reporting on it, Bill Roggio began the first of three posts on his Fourth Rail blog. In U.S. vs. the Mahdi Army, we read:

U.S. forces appear to have struck at Muqtada al-Sadr's Shiite Madhi Army at a "husseiniya" (a Shi’ite house of worship) in Baghdad. Belmont Club rounds up reports from Zayed at Healing Iraq and the BBC. The Washington Post also reports on the event but states Iraqi forces were involved in the battle. U.S. military has yet to confirm the incident. The news accounts indicate anywhere from 18 to 21 Madhi militiamen were killed during the raid. No word on any U.S or Iraqi Army casualties. In a seemingly unrelated incident, Sadr's home in Najaf was the target of a mortar attack.

The impending fight against the Shiite militias, and particularly Sadr's Mahdi Army, has been telegraphed for some time. On March 18, Strategy Page predicted the ensuing conflict.

Note three points about this blog excerpt : first, a "husseiniya" is a building but may not be a "mosque"; second, there is extensive linking to other media and blogs so you can form a knowledgeable opinion; third, it puts the attack in the context of a larger picture and links to Strategy Page for more on that aspect.

His second posts, here , comes a few hours later and headlines that Multinational Forces - Iraq reports Iraqi Special Forces led the fight against the Madhi militia in Baghdad and provides more current details on the raid and the Iraq involvement. His third post, Powerplay , comes out early on the 27th (all three within a day's time). It updates the situation and analyzes it in the context of the broader military strategy and the internal Iraqi political maneuverings.

The bottom line ? If you want to get the Real rest of the news, read a few good blogs.

It can be hard to find out what else is happening in Iraq besides bombings. So it's very helpful to hear from someone who has a good source of news and compiles it. If you'ld like to hear the rest of the news regularly, check the Monday editions of National Review Online for Bill Crawford on Iraq.

The April 3 edition starts : "Welcome to another round-up of good news in Iraq. Two positive trends have remained strong. First, Iraqi forces continue to takeover more battlespace from the U.S., and they continue to show that they are capable of securing their own country. Second, Iraqi citizens continue to provide tips against terrorists and insurgents. Also noteworthy is that the number of attacks is decreasing, and the number of casualties with it. Finally, this week's edition features several stories about heroes — soldiers who went above and beyond in their service to our country and were recognized for it."

It continues with a solid roundup of news and facts and stats, and some fine stories of real successes and heroism by our military. This edition tells the story of Sgt. Paul Smith who received the first Congressional Medal of Honor awarded for service in Iraq. Read the whole thing.

You don't have to wait till the Monday edition of NRO to hear the rest of the news (that Legacy Media doesn't report) from Iraq. You can link to Bill Crawford's blog, All Things Conservative , where you can find news items like this:
" Eight mass graves containing around 1 000 bodies have been found near Iraq's northern oil hub of Kirkuk, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) announced on Thursday.

'Most of the victims were Kurds, as well as some Christians and Turcoman, who lived in these two majority Kurdish villages,' the PUK said in a statement.

Also included among the victims were Shi'ites killed during the 1991 repression of an uprising by former dictator Saddam Hussein, it said.

What is interesting here is that I haven't seen this news on any American news sites. This might change, but for now you have to go to the foreign press to find it. "

and this :
"In other news from Iraq that the mainstream media will probably also ignore, bombings are down 84% this year:

According to a study by the Brookings Institution, as of last May, the monthly rate of suicide car attacks stood at 136.

By December, however, that number had fallen to just 30 per month. In February - the last month for which statistics are available - car bombings were down to just 22 per month.

Please, someone explain this to me. First, I want to be fair here, so I will just say that perhaps the MSM will report on these two stories, but if they don't I want to give my readers the opportunity to explain why they shouldn't. Why does ABC News report(rightly so) on a few bodies found here and there in Baghdad, but doesn't report that new mass graves have been found or that bombings in Iraq are down significantly. Seriously, someone explain it to me.

I can't explain it; but I'm glad to find and pass on the rest of the news.