The Performance of the US Marines
I have a friend of mine that was a US Marine during the first Gulf war. I wonder how proud he would be about this excerpt from The Belmont Club:

"Lost in the frenetic headlines of the last week was an unnoticed military revolution. Never in history have 1,200 men stormed a city of 230,000 in urban combat without extensively using heavy weapons before the US Marines did in Fallujah. This is nothing short of amazing because the 90% of the combat power of an infantry unit is embodied in their heavy weapons. And they were stopped only by a truce, not by enemy resistance. When the Marine casualties from the Ramadi ambush, not part of the Fallujah battle are subtracted, the Marine losses have been spectacularly low by historical standards. They are actually lower than the IDF losses in the smaller Jenin engagement (which used armored bulldozers to clear lanes) and several orders of magnitude beneath the Russian casualties in Grozny, despite the lavish use of armor, artillery and air by the Russians. US forces were never tested in extensive urban combat during Iraqi Freedom. MOUT is no longer theory. It is practice. Nor is the American success confined to Fallujah. Kut is being retaken without significant losses. "
(The Belmont Club "Good News, Bad News")

All I can say is wow!

I recommend The Belmont Club. I is a great source of military information, analysis, and forecasts. It has been fairly accurate in its predictions regarding Fallujah and the methods the US would follow to control the situation. Read it and form your own opinions

- posted by Samuel @ 1:46 PM

 
Iraq and the Media
With all the trouble going on in Iraq over the last week I have been really displeased with the reporting by the big media. I was not a big fan of the war. I did think with Saddam gone and the stabilizing force that the Coalition would provide that the Iraqi people could wake up from their long sleep under fascism. I want afraid that the country would tear apart before they came to their senses. It didn't happen, however the Media would have you believe otherwise. It seems that for the last year or more the mainstream media has been telling us how and why we are going to fail. I haven't heard any real alternatives to the current process (other than more troops) from either the Democratic Party (to which I belong), the Republican Party (which seem to in general parrot the Bush Administrations talking points), the world communities (unless you count cutting and running) or the mainstream media. It seems that everywhere I look there is genuine glee that US Marines are dying and that Iraqi stability is suffering. It's as if they have waited so long to say "I told you so" and enjoy that the US gets its comeuppance.

Why?

It's the duty of the media to dig into the issues. It’s their reason for existing to inform the public of the current state of affairs in the world. I just don't think that means an opinion/editorial masquerading as a non-editorial page information piece. What gives? I want to know. I need to know. Give me as much raw information as you can and let me sort it out. It seems that long ago newspapers traded relaying the facts for telling a story. Look at how much noise is included in news articles in your local paper. I have been so dissatisfied with the lack of information in my local papers that I no longer even read their website for headlines. This problem seems to also manifest itself in the main newspapers worldwide. I hunt for new information, but all I find are the same cookie cutter stories with essentially the same spin and lack of facts. If you don't believe me read the next article reporting medial or science news from several different papers and you will be amazed at the disparity between the headlines and the story subject matter. I assume this is done because most Americans have little time to do more than headline scan. What other reason could there be for a whole cable news channel (CNN-Headline News) if this were not true.

I am truly disappointed, mostly because I need to rely on someone to tell me the rest of the story that the current administration won't. I do not trust the Bush Administration. I hate to say that, however the response to criticism (regardless of validity) strikes me as arrogant and childish. The lack of fiscal discipline, the seemingly odd priorities of the Administration (Ashcroft's War on Porn), and the inability to admit that they do not know everything and that sometimes stuff goes wrong does not make me like them anymore than before the election. I am not even so sure of the much touted honesty and "straight talking" that became such a campaign issue. It all seems like a mask made to resemble the good features of the John McCain campaign. I saw John McCain speak, and I felt I could trust him. Not so with George Bush and those that orbit him in the administration. I am saddened to see the Republican Party leaders towing the party line and not providing a counterbalance to the administrations excesses. I am even more saddened at the disarray evident in the Democratic Party. Where are the speeches? Where are the alternatives? Where are the ideas, desires, and beliefs that the party once held?

So... if I can't trust the media, the Bush Administration, or the Republicans, and I get no information from the Democrats where am I to get that information I need to form an opinion. I guess I have to rely on the blogosphere and those magazines that admit their biases up front, and the few journalistic enterprises that remain true to their purpose.

Thomas Jefferson believed that a democracy could only flourish if its populous was informed and educated. I wonder what he would say about things now.

UPDATE: It seems that Matthew Yglesias has noticed the same thing about the Media. And he blames the headline news cable channels too.
- posted by Samuel @ 1:12 PM