Jerhad!com

We're Losing the War... Against Media Ignorance

If you're keeping track of the war through American media outlets, it's hard to tell the difference between CNN and Al Jazeera. The picture the media paints is that we don't have enough troops in Iraq, we're getting bogged down, Iraq is having unexpected success against our forces, the supply lines are inadequate, the coalition is losing a lot of soldiers, and we're killing a lot of innocent Iraqi civilians. Even the traitorous MSNBC journalist, Peter Arnett, is giving interviews to Iraqi television claiming that the original war plan has "failed" and is being redrawn. Not a pretty picture.

But the picture is not accurate. The media has done plenty to promote Saddam's message of civilian casualties and strong Iraqi resistance, but they are also trying to turn a progressive, boring military effort into something worth watching. Unfortunately, they have chosen to create a sense of failure around a very successful military effort, and it could have serious consequences for our troops.

The Bush administration made an error in judgment by allowing such unfettered media coverage of this military action against Iraq. They should have taken a lesson from the first Gulf War in 1991. Small skirmishes are being reported as major battles. Four or five coalition soldiers killed or wounded are reported as major casualties. A dozen civilians killed by an errant missile are held up as proof of America's callous and bloodthirsty approach to the conflict.

For those of you who have serious concerns about how this war is going, try to keep things in perspective. Try to remember that we've only been at war for about a week. President Bush mentioned on more than one occasion before the start of this conflict that the war would not be short, so it is amazing that the media party line is that Baghdad should be in coalition hands by now. Does anyone remember how long it took us to conquer Baghdad in the 1991 Gulf War? No? Well, that's because we never did make it to Baghdad during Desert Storm. And that was after forty days of bombing. So we're actually closer to taking Baghdad after one week of fighting today than we were after one month of fighting in 1991.

I honestly don't know how close we are to meeting the original objectives of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Then again, neither does anyone in the media, including the "military experts" who give their opinions. Only the top brass knows the real plan, so everything else is pure speculation and should be treated as such. Are you listening, Peter Arnett?

The only way an outsider can measure the success of this conflict right now is to put it into context with our most recent conflicts in Afghanistan, Kosovo, and Desert Storm 1991.

Does the word "quagmire" ring a bell for anyone? After a couple of weeks fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, most media outlets were questioning our success and began comparing the conflict to Vietnam. While we have now successfully crushed the Taliban and have Afghanistan under control, it took several weeks to accomplish this task. And the Taliban certainly had a small fraction of the military force possessed by Saddam Hussein. Why would we expect to defeat Iraq in a week when it took several weeks to defeat the lowly Taliban?

Defeating Slobodan Milosevic also took over two months to accomplish. We had a large coalition of forces, thousands of missiles, and superior military strength, but it was still a very difficult task that took a great deal of patience and killed up to one thousand innocent civilians. The battle over Kosovo was a complete failure using the standards we currently see in the media today.

And what about the first time we took on Iraq? We attacked for forty-plus days and obviously didn't even come close to getting the job done. In retrospect, we left far too much of Saddam's military power intact, including weapons of mass destruction. Keep in mind that we lost approximately 300 soldiers in the first Gulf War conflict without ever even reaching Baghdad. So far this time around, we have lost fewer than 50 American lives and are knocking at Saddam's door after only a week. And more than 20% of those casualties weren't even due to enemy combat.

Based on the accomplishments in Iraq so far, operation Iraqi Freedom can be considered nothing less than a raging success in its first week. Sitting fifty miles outside of Baghdad after one week of fighting can hardly be considered a failure or cause for concern. If our battle plans have failed, I hope to see many more "failures" in the near future.

If you still think things are not going well, look at the statistics outlined below. While it is still too early to judge the overall success of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the numbers certainly don't give cause for alarm or concern at this stage.

Casualties
Desert Storm 1991 - Approximately 148 killed by enemy action (300 total killed), and 467 wounded. Up to 5,000 civilian casualties.
Kosovo - No American combat casualties, but no ground troops used. 500 - 1,500 civilian casualties
Afghanistan - Approximately 45 Americans killed. 1,000 - 1,500 civilian casualties
Iraqi Freedom 2003 - Less than 50 Americans killed so far and approximately 125 wounded. Total civilian casualties uncertain, but estimated at between 100 and 400 so far. Some casualties may have actually been caused by Iraq. Also, keep in mind that these civilian casualties pale in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths caused by the current Iraqi regime.

Length of Conflict
Desert Storm 1991 - Approximately 40 days before a cease-fire agreement
Kosovo - 78 days of bombing to achieve a cease-fire, not complete control
Afghanistan - Almost three months to topple the Taliban regime
Iraqi Freedom 2003 - Less than two weeks so far, and coalition troops effectively control almost half of the country.

Why We Must Invade Iraq

It appears that time has finally run out for Saddam. The lies, games and deception will be coming to an end, and probably so will his life. Many countries and their populations have expressed significant opposition to military action against Iraq. A large portion of our own population has expressed opposition. So why has it come to this?

Those who claim that war is not the answer fail to come up with an alternative answer that is realistic. If military action is unnecessary, then how should the problem of Saddam be addressed?

There are two main arguments for why Saddam Hussein is a problem. First, it is undeniable that Saddam is seeking weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. While he may not have a nuclear weapon today, the world faces a grave danger when (not if) Saddam procures a nuclear weapon.

The second reason that Saddam Hussein is a problem is due to his horrific rape, murder and torture of tens, or possibly hundreds, of thousands of his own people. The United Nations and human rights organizations have undeniable proof of "rape rooms" used by Saddam's henchman to rape the wives and even children of dissidents while they are forced to watch. Electric shock torture is administered to male genitalia. Men are fed through machines normally used to shred plastic. The list is endless, and the details are gruesome.

If war is not the answer to these problems, then let's look at the alternatives. The following analysis more or less summarizes some main issues in The Threatening Storm by Kenneth Pollack. It is undoubtedly the best book written about the Iraq crisis by the foremost expert on Iraq.

Containment
Containment is the current policy that is being employed to deal with Iraq. It involves a combination of economic sanctions, disarmament, and inspections. While this policy showed initial promise, it is currently failing miserably. The oil-for-food program set up by the United Nations to try to ensure that Saddam spends his money only on food for his people is being abused.

Iraq has also started selling oil to countries illegally and pocketing the profits. For example, it is widely known that Iraq sells approximately 100,000 barrels of oil each day to Jordan outside of the United Nations food-for-oil agreement.

Smuggling has also become a significant problem. It is estimated that Iraq brings in as much as $2 or $3 billion dollars annually from illegal smuggling with several different countries. Intelligence agencies have found evidence of smuggled goods sold to Iraq from countries that include France, Russia, China and Germany.

Containment can also only work effectively if Saddam is making an effort to comply with disarmament. It has become very clear over the last twelve years that the exact opposite has occurred. Saddam has made every effort to continue building his weapons rather than destroying them.

Finally, inspections seem to be the magic bullet for the peace crowd, including the mighty French. Unfortunately, our success with inspections has been marginal at best. Saddam Hussein appears to be the only person who believes that Iraq has destroyed its weapons of mass destruction. He has become a master of deception in playing a shell game with inspectors for twelve years. Inspectors from other countries have also been shown to lie and even help Saddam cover up his non-compliance. Inspections are only effective in confirming the destruction of weapons and are quite useless in searching out those weapons.

Containment has had limited success with Saddam, and it will only serve to delay, not stop him. This policy also does not address the torture, rape and murder that are committed against the people of Iraq. Experience shows us that containment is no longer a viable option.

Deterrence
Deterrence is a popular approach by many countries for dealing with Iraq. This policy entails removing all sanctions against Iraq and simply allowing it to operate as it wishes within its own borders. The idea is that deterrence with Saddam would work similarly to the way it worked with the former Soviet Union. Even though Saddam will eventually achieve nuclear capabilities under this scenario, he knows that nuclear weapons would be used against him and would never be foolish enough to use them.

Unfortunately, Saddam has a long history of making serious miscalculations in judgment about the consequences of his actions. While Saddam is not insane or irrational, he is delusional when it comes to estimating the response of other parties to his actions. He made serious miscalculations when attacking Iran, Kuwait, and then threatening Kuwait again in 1998. He has even seriously miscalculated the reaction of the United States with his current refusal to disarm.

The point is that Saddam will be a significant danger if he ever gets his hands on a nuclear weapon. It is almost guaranteed that he would feel that possession of such a weapon would give him leverage to invade other countries because of his threat to use nuclear force against Israel or to destroy the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. Would we be willing to sacrifice Tel-Aviv to save Kuwait again? Saddam doesn't think so.

The reason countries like France, Russia and China like the idea of deterrence is due to their close economic ties to Saddam. Removing the sanctions on Iraq will allow them to make even more money by selling military and missile technology to Saddam that were previously banned. However, the policy of deterrence would be a serious mistake that would result in grave consequences for the United States and for the Middle East. And this doesn't even take into consideration that this policy will actually make life for Iraqis even worse than it is already. The Kurds would no longer be protected by "no fly zones", which have prevented Saddam from committing genocide on his own people.

Assassination
Why can't we just assassinate Saddam and avoid a bloody war? Saddam is paranoid to an extreme and has taken every possible precaution to avoid the risk of assassination. He has foiled multiple coup attempts over the past several years that even included trusted Generals and other senior military officials.

The question also arises about what happens after Saddam is killed. Saddam's sons or equally evil military leaders could easily step in and pick up where he left off. Our situation with Iraq could actually become worse, not better, if certain individuals came to power after Saddam was eliminated.

So Where Does That Leave Us?
Unfortunately, that leaves us with the option of invading Iraq and forcing a regime change. While not an ideal situation, it is the most logical remedy to a situation that will only get much worse under alternative scenarios. Regardless of whether or not you believe we are justified in liberating the Iraqi people from a truly evil dictator, no one can deny that allowing Saddam to possess nuclear weapons would prove disastrous to the free world.

Continuing to delay and twiddle our thumbs, while Saddam shows no sign of compliance with disarmament, only delays the inevitable and significantly increases our risk of removing him from power when he is much stronger militarily.

Bush Declares War on Hollywood

During an emergency State of the Union address this morning, President Bush declared war on Hollywood. The move comes as no surprise, based on the relentless attack from Hollywood terrorist sleeper cells against America and capitalism over the past few weeks.

President Bush stated that "we will smoke them out of their mansions, get them running, and bring them to justice." He continued by saying "make no mistake, we will win this war on the evil Hollywood anti-Americans. Good triumphs over evil. Truth over hypocrisy."

Experts say that the President's hand was forced by the never-ending attacks of Hollywood liberals, led by Martin sheen Laden. sheen Laden's terrorist organization is known as "Ja-hosh", which means "jackass" in Arabic. His sleeper cells have been very busy lately, marching with Communist groups in America in support of Saddam Hussein, comparing Bush to Hitler, and taking out anti-American advertising in the New York Times and on CBS (America's answer to Al Jazeera).

Insiders speculate that the President will set up a Department of Hollywood Security, which will report directly to the White House. Early rumors are that Fred Thompson, former Tennessee senator and current actor on Law and Order, will be nominated to head the new department. Thompson's inside experience in dealing with these Hollywood terrorist cells makes him an obvious choice for the post.

The President made it clear in his speech that this will be a long war, because the Hollywood cowards tend to fight in the shadows and hide in their energy-consuming mansions, which are strewn throughout the country. They also own massive SUV's capable of crossing unpaved roads to reach remote resorts and ski lodges.

Due to the impending military action against Iraq, the Pentagon announced that they needed to do some scrambling to find adequate personnel to fight these evildoers. While the Boy Scouts would be an obvious choice for this task, they have been chosen instead to invade France in what is being called Operation Vineyard Storm.

Military experts speculate that the Boy Scouts could become available quickly due to the ease with which they should defeat the French (intelligence reports show that French soldiers are being given flags with easy-tear Velcro strips for the blue and red stripes, making it easier to form a white surrender flag). However, the Boy Scout occupation of France could last for several months in order to keep the peace. Pentagon officials believe that Girl Scouts could easily be used in place of Boy Scouts, and preparations are being made accordingly.

President Bush was careful not to put too much emphasis on the capture of Martin sheen Laden as a measure for the success of the War on Hollywood. While sheen Laden is the leader of Ja-hosh, victory over Hollywood will not depend on his capture or demise. Martin has many important lieutenants, and all of them will be targeted. The FBI has launched a website with the names and descriptions of the top Ja-hosh terrorists for a separate "most wanted" list in the War on Hollywood. The evildoers on this list include Martin sheen Laden, Tim bin Robbins, Janeane Guerillafalo, George Clooneytunes, Susan Saharandon, Spike Al-Lee, Mike Fatwa Farrell, Ed Assner, Danny Al-Glover, Scaryl Crow, Sean "Red" Penn, Sheikh Alec Baldwin and Barbra StreiSand of the Desert. Others may be added to the list in the near future as intelligence information is gathered.

The FBI considers all of these individuals to be ignorant and dangerous. Extreme caution should be used when approaching them, and the FBI should be contacted immediately.

During the President's speech, he also stressed that we should not automatically condemn all of those in Hollywood as terrorists. He asked for tolerance and understanding in a time of anxiety. "It is not fair to assume that all of those in Hollywood are evil anti-American terrorists," said the President. "Just as all Muslims are not terrorists, neither are all actors. Of course, a much higher percentage of actors hate America compared to Muslims, but that's not the point here. We cannot condemn the innocent," he added.

In a surprising move, the President also made it clear that those who harbor Hollywood elitist Ja-hosh members are just as guilty as the terrorists themselves. This sent shockwaves throughout the Democratic Party, since many Democrats yuck it up with Hollywood's elite on a regular basis. Their common goal of a Socialist government to dominate over America often brings them together and could expose many Democrats to possible links with Ja-hosh.

Rumors have surfaced that intelligence agencies will use complex sting operations to flush out these Ja-hosh members. One such operation, a casting call for a bogus reality show called I'm a Celebrity---Give Me Money!, was scrapped after has-been and never-was celebrities lined up for over twenty-three blocks for a chance to audition. An inside source at the FBI was quoted as saying "we just weren't prepared for that kind of turnout. It would have taken us two months to determine if we had any Ja-hosh members in that crowd."

Media Coverage of Rep. Jim Moran Says a Lott

Most of you probably haven't heard about the recent controversy surrounding a Virginia congressman named Jim Moran (D-VA). It was probably buried in page seven or eight of your local paper, if it was carried at all. Several Jewish organizations and leaders are calling on Mr. Moran to resign after he made what they claim are clear anti-Semitic comments.

The controversy began on Monday, March 3rd, when Congressman Moran was discussing the possible war with Iraq. A woman in the audience, who identified herself as Jewish, asked the congressman why he didn't think the anti-war sentiment was as effective in the United States as it was in Europe. His response was as follows:
"If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this. The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going and I think they should."
The response from the Jewish community was immediate outrage. Groups of rabbis and other Jewish leaders began to call for Moran's resignation. He was accused of anti-Semitism, insensitivity, being misinformed, promoting the idea of Jewish control of the world, etc… They pointed out that this is just one more example in a long history of Moran's record for voting against legislation supporting Israel and his acceptance of campaign contributions from organizations with questionable connections to Palestinian terror organizations.

The attack prompted the following immediate apology from Moran:

"I made some insensitive remarks that I deeply regret. I should not have singled out the Jewish community and regret giving any impression that its members are somehow responsible for the course of action being pursued by the Administration, or are somehow behind an impending war."

The congressman later explained that he was simply trying to make a larger point by saying that any major organized religion could have a more direct impact on stopping the march to war if they organized against it. He was simply addressing the Jewish community, because the woman identified herself as Jewish. He would have said the same thing about Catholics if the woman had identified herself as Catholic.

A few key Democrats have already come out to voice their opposition to the statements made by Congressman Moran, and a few others who know Moran well have come to his aid by claiming that he is indeed not anti-Semitic. Democrats feel this was all a mistake, he apologized, so let's move on. Sound familiar?

It was not too long ago that Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) was caught in a similar situation. While the circumstances are not identical, they are close enough to merit comparison. Moran is certainly not as high profile as Lott, but he's a seven-term congressman who made a very stupid remark, causing groups to cry anti-Semitism and call for his resignation.

Here are the similarities: Lott made a stupid comment. Moran made a stupid comment. Lott was accused of being a racist. Moran was accused of being anti-Semitic. Groups called for Lott's resignation. Groups called for Moran's resignation. Lott apologized. Moran apologized. Republicans criticized Lott's comments. Democrats criticized Moran's comments. Republicans who knew Lott defended him as not being a racist. Democrats who knew Moran defended him as not being anti-Semitic.

It's still early in the game for Moran, but here's where I think the stories will take a decidedly different turn. Lott's story was played out as front-page news in major newspapers and as a leading story in television news for several weeks. I'm betting that after the end of this week you'll never read or hear about the Moran situation in the media again (assuming you ever even heard about it in the first place).

And don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that the media should be hounding Jim Moran the way it hounded Trent Lott. I don't know Trent Lott or Jim Moran personally, so I can't say with any credibility whether Lott is racist or Moran is anti-Semitic. What I do know is that what they both said, while it might have been ignorant and misinformed, does not justify a racist or anti-Semitic labeling.

The media milked the racist label for Lott for every drop, and they will give Moran a complete pass on his comments. While the media spent significant effort digging into the past of Lott and any other Republicans they could rope in as collateral damage with a racist label, no one will dig up Moran's skeletons to try and frame him as Hitler.

This recent situation will also clearly show the differences between the approach by Democrats and Republicans. Democrats declared all-out war on Trent Lott and the Republican Party when he made his statement. Everyone from Tom Daschle to Bill Clinton to Barbra Streisand tried to claim that Republicans were truly a racist group under the surface and that this was the "smoking gun" to prove it.

In contrast, you will not see Senator Bill Frist, George H.W. Bush or Arnold Schwartzenegger accusing the entire Democratic Party of being anti-Semitic under the surface or claiming anti-Semitism is the real reason they oppose war with Iraq. This would be a perfect opportunity for Republicans to frame anti-war Democrats as really being anti-Israel, not anti-war. But they won't go down that intellectually dishonest path.

Even if the Republicans did try to make an issue of the Moran situation, I'm sure the Democrats in the media would ignore it anyway.