Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

Amir Taheri has written an article for Commentary magazine entitled "The Real Iraq". As most people know by now, Taheri is the charlatan who made up the Iranian Jewish badge story out of whole cloth. Taheri is also a so-called "expert" on Iraq; and in that capacity he was invited to the White House this week to brief President Bush on the situation in Iraq.

Amir Taheri is a favorite of the neo-cons and is an apologist for the Shah of Iran. He is an Iranian monarchist who was the editor of the Kayhan newspaper until the Shah of Iran was deposed in 1979. Ever since then he has been lying and twisting the truth to try to convince the United States or Israel to attack Iran. Taheri would like nothing better than to be able to stroll back into power in some future monarchist Iran. In the mean time he curries favor with Israel and the Bush Administration by doing their bidding in print.

Not surprisingly, Amir Taheri’s "Real Iraq" is a place were democracy is flourishing, where the birds are singing, the bees are mating, and George W. Bush’s Iraq policy is on the verge of triumph. Taheri’s thesis on Iraq can be summed up as follows: "Don’t believe everything you see, read, or hear; believe me instead because I am an expert". He claims that the troubles of Iraq are made up by the media and the American public should believe none of it:

Spending time in the United States after a tour of Iraq can be a disorienting experience these days. Within hours of arriving here, as I can attest from a recent visit, one is confronted with an image of Iraq that is unrecognizable. It is created in several overlapping ways: through television footage showing the charred remains of vehicles used in suicide attacks, surrounded by wailing women in black and grim-looking men carrying coffins; by armchair strategists and political gurus predicting further doom or pontificating about how the war should have been fought in the first place; by authors of instant-history books making their rounds to dissect the various “fundamental mistakes” committed by the Bush administration; and by reporters, cocooned in hotels in Baghdad, explaining the “carnage” and “chaos” in the streets as signs of the country’s “impending” or “undeclared” civil war. Add to all this the day’s alleged scandal or revelation—an outed CIA operative, a reportedly doctored intelligence report, a leaked pessimistic assessment—and it is no wonder the American public registers disillusion with Iraq and everyone who embroiled the U.S. in its troubles. [Emphasis added by me.]

Taheri tells us that we should not trust reports from reporters like Kimberly Dozier who report from their hotel balconies. But have no fear, Uncle Taheri is here to tell you the truth because he alone is qualified and he alone knows where to look to see the "real Iraq":

For someone like myself who has spent considerable time in Iraq—a country I first visited in 1968—current reality there is, nevertheless, very different from this conventional wisdom, and so are the prospects for Iraq’s future. It helps to know where to look, what sources to trust, and how to evaluate the present moment against the background of Iraqi and Middle Eastern history.

Taheri tells us his secret to discovering the "real Iraq" is a 5-point program that he has mastered over 40 years of lying:

Since my first encounter with Iraq almost 40 years ago, I have relied on several broad measures of social and economic health to assess the country’s condition. Through good times and bad, these signs have proved remarkably accurate—as accurate, that is, as is possible in human affairs. For some time now, all have been pointing in an unequivocally positive direction.

 Taheri’s five point program tells us the following signs point to a happy day in Iraq:

1. The number of refugees leaving Iraq is low.
2. There are a lot of Shia pilgrims.
3. The Iraqi currency, the dinar, is doing well relative to currencies from neighboring countries.
4. Business is booming in Iraq.
5. Iraqis are talking more these days. There are more newspapers, blogs, etc. than there were during Saddam’s time.

In the interest of humoring this moron (I really shouldn’t, it only encourages him) I will briefly discuss each one of his markers on how to measure "success" in Iraq:

1. Iraq is in the middle of sectarian warfare. Instead of Iraqis migrating out of Iraq, there is a movement of Iraqis within Iraq. Shias are moving out of Sunni neighborhood and Sunnis are moving out of Shia neighborhoods. This is a very bad sign for any society. This is what happens in societies that are being torn apart from the inside.
2. Of course there are a lot of Shia pilgrims in the Shia holy sites in the Shia areas. Many pilgrims from Iran are pouring into Iraq for pilgrimages. Even so, sectarian violence has claimed lives at Shia shrines in Najaf, Karbala and other shia holy cities. Most prominently the Al Aksari mosque in Samarra, one of Shia Islam’s holiest shrines, was destroyed in February of this year by unknown attackers. The result was an orgy of sectarian bloodshed that has continued to this day.
3. The value of the Iraqi dinar is a false measure, as it is not traded on the international currency market yet.
4. Business generally booms when there is sectarian strife. The business climate however is very risky due to the fact that you could be killed at any moment. In fact, business in Iraq is booming so much that entrepreneurs are now offering terror insurance.
5. Iraqis are no doubt talking more. There is no longer just the official Iraqi media run by Saddam Hussain. That has been replaced by many newspapers and media outlets belonging to the different warring factions. Perhaps Taheri should pay attention to what the newspapers and blogs are talking about. The daily fare in Iraq tends to be about the previous day’s death toll.

Taheri in painting his happy picture of Iraq ignores the daily carnage that is taking place there. I am not quite sure how he explains away the dead bodies that are dumped on the streets of Baghdad every night with bullet holes and drill holes in their skulls. I am not sure how he explains away the IEDs and the car bombs that claim so many Iraqi and American lives every day. I am not sure how he explains away the militias that man checkpoints in most major Iraqi cities. I am not sure how he explains away the infiltration of the Iraqi police by the Badr Brigade and the Mahdi Militia. I am not sure how he explains away the insurgent strongholds in western Iraqi towns even after repeated assaults by the US military. Iraq today is a "Republic of Fear" where killing has become commonplace. Of course that is not the "real Iraq" that Taheri has conjured up in his own head.

On an average Iraqi day, anywhere from 30 to 60 people are being killed in sectarian violence. That is 900 to 1800 dead per month. That is about 11,000 to 22,000 killed every year. By any measure that is a very deadly civil war. In the Lebanese civil war that lasted from 1975 to 1990, over 100,000 people lost their lives. At the present rate of killing in Iraq, if the war lasts 15 years there will be between 165,000 to 330,000 deaths. That rate by far eclipses the Lebanese civil war.

Amir Taheri concludes his fantasy by calling democracy "messy" (where have I heard that before?):

Is Iraq a quagmire, a disaster, a failure? Certainly not; none of the above. Of all the adjectives used by skeptics and critics to describe today’s Iraq, the only one that has a ring of truth is “messy.” Yes, the situation in Iraq today is messy. Births always are. Since when is that a reason to declare a baby unworthy of life?

Taheri is engaged in the latest right wing strategy that attempts to paint a pretty picture of Iraq. To do this they must convince the American people that what they are hearing, seeing or reading is not the truth. It’s the latest load of crap from the "trust me" brigade. It is also a favorite method of Nazi propagandists. Yes, I said "Nazi". For all the nazi analogies that are being thrown about by the right wing, they should look in the mirror and the world should call them on it.

Taheri and his brand of propaganda have a place in the dustbin of history. The fact that this charlatan is being given a hearing at the White House should worry us all. Like Ahmed Chalabi, this Iranian fraud should be exposed for his pack of lies. Unlike Ahmad Chalabi, this fool should be exposed before he does further damage to United States interests.

Daniel Pipes gave an interview yesterday to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review entitled "Pipes calls war a success". In it Pipes calls Iraq a success:

Q: How will we know when the occupation or the invasion of Iraq was a success or a failure?

A: Oh, it was a success. We got rid of Saddam Hussein. Beyond that is icing.

According to Pipes, the real lesson in Iraq is not the failure of American policy, but the ingratitude of the Iraqi people:

Q: What is the biggest lesson you have learned from the Iraq war?

A: The ingratitude of the Iraqis for the extraordinary favor we gave them — to release them from the bondage of Saddam Hussein’s tyranny. They have rapidly interpreted it as something they did and that we were incidental to it. They’ve more or less written us out of the picture.

I am really sorry the Iraqi people have hurt Mr. Pipes’s feelings. Clearly, the Iraqis failed to throw the requisite amount of roses at our feet for the favor we did them.

Mr. Pipes thinks that we should lower our expectations in Iraq. According to Mr. Pipes, we should only concern ourselves with destroying societies not rebuilding them. We’ve got smart bombs we should use them. The blue collar work of rebuilding a society that we bomb to oblivion should be left to the lowly Europeans or some other bleeding heart types:

Q: Does that mean a significant change in what we are doing now, in terms of policy. Should we announce withdrawals?

A: The number of troops is not my issue. It’s the placement and role of the troops. For three years now I have been protesting the use of American troops to mediate between tribes, help rebuild electricity grids, oversee school construction, which seems to me to be a wrong use of our forces, of our money. The Iraqis should be in charge of that. We should keep the troops there, in the desert, looking after the international boundaries, making sure there are no atrocities, making sure oil and gas goes out, otherwise leaving Iraq to the Iraqis.

…

Q: Is there anything major that the Bush administration should do now to make things go smoother?

A: We did something good in getting rid of the Taliban and getting rid of Saddam Hussein. That is really the extent of our role, to get rid of the hideous totalitarian regimes.

In any event, the theory is good. It’s the implementation that has gone wrong. Mr. Pipes’s theory has withstood the test of reality:

Q: Do you generally agree with President Bush’s Middle East policy — its goals and its methods?

A: I agree with the goals much more than the methods. I just gave an example of Iraq, where I believe the goal of getting rid of Saddam Hussein and trying to have a free and prosperous Iraq are worthy goals. I criticize the implementation. The same goes with democracy. I think democracy is a great goal for the region. I criticize the implementation; I think it’s too fast, too American, too get-it-done yesterday.

Lest you start thinking that Mr. Pipes is unhappy that the implementation of his theory might have led to unintended consequences, think again. He, like Charles Krauthammer, loves a good civil war. Mr. Pipes enumerates all the good things a bloody civil war can do:

Fixing Iraq is neither the coalition’s responsibility nor its burden. The damage done by Saddam will take many years to repair. Americans, Britons, and others cannot be tasked with resolving Sunni-Shiite differences, an abiding Iraqi problem that only Iraqis themselves can address.

The eruption of civil war in Iraq would have many implications for the West. It would likely:

• Invite Syrian and Iranian participation, hastening the possibility of an American confrontation with those two states, with which tensions are already high.

• Terminate the dream of Iraq serving as a model for other Middle Eastern countries, thus delaying the push toward elections. This will have the effect of keeping Islamists from being legitimated by the popular vote, as Hamas was just a month ago.

• Reduce coalition casualties in Iraq. As noted by the Philadelphia Inquirer, "Rather than killing American soldiers, the insurgents and foreign fighters are more focused on creating civil strife that could destabilize Iraq’s political process and possibly lead to outright ethnic and religious war."

• Reduce Western casualties outside Iraq. A professor at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, Vali Nasr, notes: "Just when it looked as if Muslims across the region were putting aside their differences to unite in protest against the Danish cartoons, the attack showed that Islamic sectarianism remains the greatest challenge to peace." Put differently, when Sunni terrorists target Shiites and vice-versa, non-Muslims are less likely to be hurt.

Civil war in Iraq, in short, would be a humanitarian tragedy but not a strategic one.

It all makes sense to me now. We misunderstood Mr. Pipes when he said Iraq was going to be a cakewalk. When he said "cakewalk", he meant that defeating Saddam would be a cakewalk. The resulting chaos was not part of his thinking. In fact, the resulting chaos is not even our problem. It is all making sense to me now.

Before you dismiss Mr. Pipes as some right wing chicken hawk on the lunatic fringe, you might want to consider that he does have the ear of the President of the United States. The notion that America should rampage through the world without a care for the devastation this rampage may cause the societies which face our wrath is not a fringe notion - it has significant support within the Administration. In fact, it is the primary driving force behind Mr. Bush’s stay the course policy in Iraq. If you genuinely do not care about the consequences of your actions, it is much easier to label your misadventures as successes. This, I think, in large part explains the strange and often disconnected versions of reality that come from the President and the Vice President. After all, according to Mr. Pipes:

We are engaged in a war, a profound war and long-term war, in which Afghanistan and Iraq are sideshows. The real issue is the war that radical Islam, a global phenomenon, has declared on us and that has already been underway for many years, and we’re still at the beginning of it. That’s the really major issue.

Now, if only the Iraqis understood their rightful role in this war of civilizations; if only they understood that they are cannon fodder in the cause of the greater good; if only they understood that Mr. Pipes, from his perch in front of a television screen, thinks the slaughter of innocents is good theater; then and only then, would they be more grateful to the United States for this great favor we have done them. Instead, they continue this nonsense of caring more for their own lives than the greater glory of Daniel Pipes’s small but influential little mind.

Tucker Carlson capped off a day of hate in America on his show "The Situation" on MSNBC. Carlson interviewed terrorism expert Evan Kohlmann about the release of Jill Carroll. Carlson delivered the same tactic used all day by right wing commentators since the news of Jill Carroll’s release hit the airwaves this morning: Praise, Pivot and Attack. Here’s how it works:

1. Praise her release. Carlson begins the conversation with one obligatory sentence saying he is happy that she is free.
2. Pivot. The word to watch out for here is "but". But the really clever ones use something like "I hope it’s not true that…."
3. Attack. Carlson points out how she seems to be praising her captors. Perhaps she’s been brainwashed. Perhaps she is one of them. Perhaps. Perhaps.

Kohlmann tried a few times to bring balance to the discussion, but Carlson would not be moved off message. So, the day ended very much the way it began, with innuendo, accusations and, most of all, hate.

The hate was brimming over everywhere you looked on the right. To bring some order to the orgy of hate, I decided to take a sampling of some of the subtle, and not so subtle, attacks on Jill Carroll today. As you read these, keep an eye out for "Praise, Pivot and Attack".

I’ll begin at the beginning, with the National Review’s John Podhoretz (picked up by initially by Think Progress), Podhoretz writes in The Corner:

It’s wonderful that she’s free, but after watching someone who was a hostage for three months say on television she was well-treated because she wasn’t beaten or killed — while being dressed in the garb of a modest Muslim woman rather than the non-Muslim woman she actually is — I expect there will be some Stockholm Syndrome talk in the coming days. [Emphasis added by me]

Jonah Goldberg follows up his colleague at the end of the night (dispensing with the Praise and going straight to the Pivot):

But Jill Carroll is increasingly starting to bug me. The details are still murky and it’s hard to appreciate what she’s been through. And maybe JPod’s right about Stockholm syndrome. And maybe the media’s selectively choosing what to show of her statements. But it would be nice to hear her say something remotely critical of her captors, particularly about the fact that they murdered her translator in cold blood. I’m very glad she’s alive, but I’m getting a very bad vibe. More, no doubt, to come. [Emphasis added by me]

Michelle Malkin plays traffic cop for the right today and feigns (not too convincingly) some sympathy for Jill (and cleverly disguises the Praise, Pivot and Attack by turning it on its head):

In fairness to Carroll, a lot of people would say a lot of things they didn’t mean in those circumstances. Let’s see whether she defends it now. Assuming, that is, that anyone in the media bothers to ask her. [Emphasis added by me]

Little green footballs dispenses with the niceties and goes straight for the jugular:

Note that even after her release, Carroll maintained that she had been treated well by her captors—so it would appear that this journalist for the Christian Science Monitor made these anti-American comments voluntarily. [Emphasis added by me]

Debbie Schlussel puts the hate machine on overdrive. There was absolutely no need to pivot here since the title of her post was "So, Anti-American Jill was freed…". Here’s some of the bile from the first two paragraphs in the post (and it’s all downhill from here):

Why are so many people who claim to be patriotic Americans so overjoyed that Jill Carroll was freed, yet hardly a peep when American contractors and others were freed?

Here’s a clue for the obviously dimwitted. Why was Jill Carroll freed? Maybe it had something to do with the fact that she HATES AMERICA and our Mid-East policy. And, oh yeah, she HATES ISRAEL, too.

 The above was a small sample of the hate that emanated from the right today. It was a shameful display of ignorance and prejudice. Today was not our finest day.

Why would the right make such a concerted effort to attack a woman who was just released from three months in captivity? What are they so afraid of that they could not help tripping over each other trying to insult, accuse, insinuate, and attack her?

Well, I think its quite simple. They are afraid of the truth. They are afraid of yet another voice that might tell America that the reality in Iraq is not the reality manufactured by the Administration. So, they are trying to inoculate themselves preemptively from what they fear Jill Carroll might say. Having lost the war in Iraq, they are fighting tooth and nail to maintain a toehold on their manufactured Iraqi fairy tale. And every reporter, be it Jill Carroll, Michael Ware, Lara Logan, Nic Robertson, Chris Allbritton or others on the ground in Iraq, who deliver what they see to the American public will be attacked mercilessly by these people. Their cause is a losing one and so they are getting more desperate in their attacks.

But, in the end, the story on March 30, 2006 was that Jill Carroll was freed. And as I finish this post I look out my window and see that it is already morning in America.

Here is the State Department’s Country Report on Human Rights Practices for Iraq, published March 8, 2006. It speaks for itself.

Yesterday on CNN, according to script, Hugh Hewitt was out chastising the media for misleading the public about the war in Iraq. He was up against Nic Robertson of CNN and Michael Ware of TIME magazine. You can read CNN’s complete transcript here. Here’s the exchange:

HUGH HEWITT, CONSERVATIVE RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Anderson, I think the coverage of the Iraq invasion right from the start, all of the way through to the present day, has been abysmal in the mainstream media.

I think that it goes back even further than that. In April of 2003, Eason Jordan, executive with this network, admitted that CNN had for years covered up atrocities that Saddam had committed because they were afraid for their reporters.

That history of bad coverage in Iraq began in the invasion when it was declared a quagmire on the third day because of the sandstorm and through all the three elections of last year.

A lot of new media that goes to Iraq, whether it’s Michael Totten, whether it is Michael Yon, Bill Rosio (ph), whether it’s Victor Davis Hanson or Laura Ingraham or especially Robert Kaplan, whose book "Imperial Grunts," is a must reading on this, report back enormous progress being made in the country. The sort of report that we simply never get because good reporters like the two I’m sharing this time with, do have to cover what Candy Crowley called, "The Boom." But just covering "The Boom," does not represent what is going on in that war. 

COOPER: Nic Robertson, what do you think?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, I do think that we’re able to get to some of the good stories, if you will, power plants being built, water plants being refurbished — covered those last week.

If you look at our coverage, Wednesday, the new parliament being formed, by everybody’s assessment, political step forward. Good news by most people’s assessment, yes.

We would have been derelict in our duty if we didn’t report that there’s still a lot of — a long way to go before they actually form a government. That is a big issue.

The day after Operation Swarmer, touted as being a great shining example of how the new Iraqi army were performing. Covered that big time. I think we do get to the so-called good stories. But also there are the so-called bad stories that are a very important part of what’s happening to this country. And we wouldn’t be doing our job and we would be failing our audiences if we didn’t — if we didn’t bring to them the stories that are relevant to how this is going to play out in the future.

I look back to the summer and fall of 2003 when we were covering stories about an insurgency. The military spokesman here at that time, was saying no, no, there isn’t an insurgency. This is bad news. It proved we were proven correct.

COOPER: Michael Ware, you’ve spent probably more time with insurgents and insurgent groups than anyone I know. What do you think? Do you cover "The Boom" too much?

MICHAEL WARE, "TIME MAGAZINE": Well, I think it’s a matter, Anderson, of trying to reflect the reality on the ground. That all of these critics who are saying that we’re not telling the good news stories, I’d like to know just how many of them have spent any time here on the ground. Or any of these people who are reporting the good news from within the belly of the U.S. military, how much time have they spent on the Iraqi street? I mean, what do you think ordinary Iraqis are talking about? Do you think they’re talking about the unfurling of the flag of democracy or that they’re grateful that the Americans have unveiled a new electricity plant, when they have not had electricity in their house for four days. When they have to queue (ph) at a gas station for two days. When the marketplace is blowing up with car bombs. When their cousins are showing up dead in the morning as a result of sectarian death squads through the night. What do you think is the refining experience for an Iraqi family?

COOPER: Hugh Hewitt, what about that?

HEWITT: Well, I asked Michael Yon about that today. I tried to contact Mr. Ware in Baghdad from my radio show. We spent three hours on this. And Michael Yon simply disagrees with Mr. Ware. He’s also spent a lot of time in the war zone, often with the military, sometimes without. Michael Totten’s done the same, so as Robert Kaplan. So I think there are many, many people with on the ground experience, who simply reject what Mr. Ware is saying.

COOPER: Hugh, can I..

HEWITT: Important thing I think, though…

COOPER: OK.

HEWITT: … is that it’s not what’s going on today alone. It’s about the context. Because five years ago, you would not have the story of kidnapped people and torture that Eason Jordan referred to.

Five years ago we did not know what the quality of life for the Iraqis was. But it was a dismal, totalitarian regime, from which escape is not possible. And So while "The Boom" matters and while those conditions are certainly desperate in many parts of the country, and Baghdad is a dangerous place, compared to what, Mr. Ware? Compared to Baghdad under Saddam? Are you arguing that Iraqis are worse off today than they were four years ago?

COOPER: Michael Ware, do you want to respond?

WARE: Yes, well, I think if you asked a lot of Iraqis, I think you’d be surprised by what the answer is. A lot of them say, what, this is democracy? The judge (ph) is, you call this liberation? And, OK, let’s look at the context, as you suggest. Let’s look at the even bigger picture? What is the bigger picture? Who is winning from this war? Who is benefiting right now?

Well, the main winners so far are al Qaeda, which is stronger than it was before the invasion. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was a nobody. Now he’s the superstar of international Jihad. And Iran, Iran essentially has a proxy government in place, a very, very friendly government. Its sphere of influence has expanded and any U.S. diplomat or seeing a military intelligence commander here, will tell you that. So that’s the big picture. Where is that being reported? 

COOPER: Nic Robertson, let me ask you, how easy is it for you to move around? I mean, in — in Baghdad. You know, obviously probably it’s easier than outside the country, but how often are you out with the military reporting stories out on patrol with U.S. soldiers?

ROBERTSON: I would just backtrack a little bit, Anderson. If I go back to my days here under Saddam Hussein, when we would sit around waiting days to go out anywhere because we wouldn’t be given permission — it’s that — if I go to right after the war when we could literally go anywhere at any time and talk to anyone and drive all over the country, that was the best time.

Now our situation now, it’s very difficult because it is not safe for us to go out and walk the streets. We can’t do that. We need to go out with security or essentially disguise ourselves to blend in with the population. We can’t drive around the country because that’s a dangerous thing to do.

If we want to get to other areas of the country, we need to embed, we need to fly with the military. Often times these days I find that very, very accommodating when we arrive, that they will give us much better access than they were ever given to doing a couple of years ago.

They certainly understand the need of our job to talk to Iraqis, and they facilitate that. But it’s not the same. And it doesn’t bring the same results as being able to go around the country freely. It is a much, much tougher environment to work in. You are far more constrained than in any other story I’ve worked on. And that does have an impact on what we produce.

I believe we still perform a very valuable job, having said all of that — Anderson.

COOPER: Hugh Hewitt, we’re almost out of time, but I want to give you the final word. And I just want to ask you, do you believe that it is an intentional misleading by reporters on the ground — not all reporters, but I guess, mainstream reporters on the ground, that they are anti-Bush and therefore intentionally only looking negative? Or do you believe that some of the negativism is just by the fact that it is more difficult to move around, you can’t just go into Iraqi family’s house because of the security situation? Do you make a distinction between it?

HEWITT: Anderson, it’s complicated because there are some fine reporters working there, and Jill Carroll’s in custody tonight. People pray for her, her safe release. And there are people who risk their lives every day to get a story, and I’ve been told by Michael Yon, for example, Michael Ware is a very, very fine reporter who goes in harm’s way to get the story. That having been said, a great deal of American mainstream media is invested in the idea that this is a disaster, that it will bring down Bush, that it was a mistake at the beginning, and disaster for the Middle East. They are pushing that agenda, quite obviously, over and over again, to the exclusion of important stories like the book by Georges Sada, Saddam’s general, like the Philippine — the documents released today, covered in "The Weekly Standard," about the Kuwaiti hostages denied by Iraq having even been there, but now revealed today to have been used as human shields by the matazahadr (ph) sons of Saddam.

There’s quite a lot not being covered because to cover it and to cover it extensively, will not only support the Bush administration decision to go to war here, but make it appear as though one of the wisest he has made. And indeed, investment in the failure of this operation is what is bringing increased contempt for the American media across the land except on the noisy left. And the noisy left doesn’t win elections. [Emphasis added by me]

So, who would you believe? Hugh Hewitt and all the wonderful untold stories (they are hidden in the same place the WMDs are); or, Michael Ware? All you have to do is listen to Michael Ware speak - you can almost feel through him the horrors he sees there.

Reporter 1, Propagandist 0

It is tried and tested that if you don’t like the message, you shoot the messenger. So it is that the Administration has embarked on a full-scale war on the media because everyone knows that if only the media said that Iraq was a bed of roses, the Iraqi people would be eating their bread with milk and honey the very next day. With that in mind, the surrogates have fanned out with ruthless efficiency. I have to admit that I admire their discipline. It is wonderfully orchestrated. First Donald Rumsfeld launched the first salvo on Sunday, then the Vice President and the President with a quick one two punch. Then they spread out on to the cable shows and sang the same tune. Nothing bad has ever happened in Iraq, just talk to the right Iraqis. Report the good news: the school openings, the bridge building, the candy distribution, and on and on. Talk to the Interior Minister about how the men in black are keeping the peace. Talk to the Vice President about the roses that the Iraqis are throwing at our troops. Just start talking to the right people and you will see the true Iraq, not the Iraq that you have conjured up with your IEDs and your death squads and your beheadings.

Here’s a sobering thought, courtesy George Orwell:

If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say of this or that event, it never happened — that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death?

Why is the Administration attacking the media on the 3rd anniversary of the invasion? The conventional wisdom is that it will rally the base. I think it certainly will do that. But I also think it is also an indication that the Administration knows that the war in Iraq is lost. They are now in political damage control mode. I would expect that any decisions regarding the strategy in Iraq will primarily be decided by domestic political considerations. The war in Iraq now is about political survival at home. It is a tragedy that the people of Iraq are only props for political theater half a world away.