McClatchy: U.S. troops say surge is a lost cause
posted at 5:01 pm on February 3, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
It’s by Tom Lasseter, the same Baghdad beat reporter who wrote that wrist-slitter on Thursday about Sadrist infiltration of the Iraqi army. Aside from one article in WaPo a few weeks ago, I haven’t seen any surge-related reporting from any mainstream media outlet as relentlessly pessimistic as his last two have been. He’s got a knack for getting killer quotes from American soldiers about the futility of continuing the fight, too. Possibilities: (1) he’s moving within an unusually demoralized circle of troops; (2) he’s zeroing in on the most demoralized members of an otherwise typical unit; or (3) he’s fairly representing what morale is now like within a typical unit. We know which one Eric Boehlert would say it is, but we also know that Eric Boehlert doesn’t particularly care if the news he’s getting from Iraq is true or not so long as it’s sufficiently dire.
I guess what you choose to believe here depends upon whether your skepticism of Bush exceeds your skepticism of the media at this point or vice versa.
“To be honest, it’s going to be like this for a long time to come, no matter what we do,” said Hardy, 25, of Atlanta. “I think some people in America don’t want to know about all this violence, about all the killings. The people back home are shielded from it; they get it sugar-coated.”…
“What is victory supposed to look like? Every time we turn around and go in a new area there’s somebody new waiting to kill us,” said Sgt. 1st Class Herbert Gill, 29, of Pulaski, Tenn., as his Humvee rumbled down a dark Baghdad highway one evening last week. “Sunnis and Shiites have been fighting for thousands of years, and we’re not going to change that overnight.”
“Once more raids start happening, they’ll (insurgents) melt away,” said Gill, who serves with the 1st Infantry Division in east Baghdad. “And then two or three months later, when we leave and say it was a success, they’ll come back.”…
Almost every foot soldier interviewed during a week of patrols on the streets and alleys of east Baghdad said that Bush’s plan would halt the bloodshed only temporarily. The soldiers cited a variety of reasons, including incompetence or corruption among Iraqi troops, the complexities of Iraq’s sectarian violence and the lack of Iraqi public support, a cornerstone of counterinsurgency warfare…
“All of our friends who have been killed by (roadside bombs) and snipers, it’s like there’s no justice for it – it’s just another body bag filled,” [Sgt. Chance Oswalt] said. “The guys who died just trying to stay alive and get home, they’ll be forgotten. No one will remember their stories.”…
“It’s kind of relentless and pointless,” said [Spc. Elmer] Beere, 22, of State College, Pa. “It’ll be the same thing going on here, no matter what we do.”
The officers Lasseter spoke to are more optimistic, although he clearly believes they’re kidding themselves.
Update: SWLiP says Lasseter has a history of accentuating the negative.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Tom Lasseter has been the most relentlessly negative reporter on Iraq for years. An example is here.
SWLiP on February 3, 2007 at 5:06 PM
More examples of Lasseter’s unhinged negativity from the past can be found here and here.
SWLiP on February 3, 2007 at 5:10 PM
Fourth possibility: He’s making it up. Enterprising embeds should find these guys, verify their existence (no, he wouldn’t, would he?…..), and get the straight scoop.
Tom Blumer on February 3, 2007 at 5:15 PM
Please. Would he really invent the names of troops for his quotes, especially in a piece so dire? Don’t prove Boehlert’s point about alleged right-wing media paranoia.
Allahpundit on February 3, 2007 at 5:18 PM
Sunnis and Shiites have been fighting one another for thousands of years. Let them.
PRCalDude on February 3, 2007 at 5:25 PM
Lasseter is attempting to undermine the mission. Lasseter is NOT reporting what morale is typically among American troops. Lasseter is NOT reporting what views are typically held among American troops. Lasseter either knows a few demoralized soldiers, or he is making it up.
Phil Byler on February 3, 2007 at 5:27 PM
To Allahpundit: it is not right wing paranoia. I obviously considered independently the possibility of Lasseter making it up. I have a number of contacts with soldiers over there in Iraq starting with my older son (a U.S. Army Lieutenant), and what Lasseter is writing is at variance with everything I have been told and read.
Phil Byler on February 3, 2007 at 5:31 PM
What was the mission again? These warring factions are not worth one drop of American blood. Let’s wish them success in their civil war.
Valiant on February 3, 2007 at 5:34 PM
Agreed. I’d rather see them killing each other than killing us.
TheThink on February 3, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Let’s be truthful here. I have no doubt these men he quoted said those things. I also have no doubt they said other things he left out (some good, some bad). We all know that in any group you are going to get ‘negative waves’ from someone.
It is the direction the MSM is going to take from this point onward. The Dem leadership and the Rep leadership are both seeking cover from the nutroots. We have surrendered the initiative to them and the MSM and they will not stop until we quit buying their product.
Limerick on February 3, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Fourth possibility: Leading questions. This doesn’t have to involve willfull fraud on the part of the reporter either. Actually coming up with unbiased questions is actually surprisingly difficult, especially when the brought up in the course of normal conversations. Acurate pollsters will spend considerable amounts of time trying to come up with neutral questions in their questionaires, especially when covering hot topic issues.
Example: Are you pro-choice or anti-choice is not a neutral question. It betrays a perhaps unconscious sympathy for the continued legalization of abortion.
The opposite choice of words, pro-life reveals a sympathy for the restriction or elimination of legal abortion.
“Do you favor allowing abortions after the 6th month of the fertilization of the egg” vs “do you favor allowing abortions after the fetus is 6 months old” vs “do you favor allowing abortions even after the baby has been developing in the mothers womb for 6 months?”
As you can see, the above three sentences, although each factually correct, can result in different emotional responses. And this will affect the answers given.
EFG on February 3, 2007 at 5:36 PM
I do have to question this guys awareness of the situation.
B Moe on February 3, 2007 at 5:36 PM
Could you please provide some proof of this…or are you just making assertions based on what you want to believe?
JaHerer22 on February 3, 2007 at 5:39 PM
EFG on February 3, 2007 at 5:36 PM
You make some very valid points, but do you mean to say that an emotional response from a soldier, no matter if he or she has been led into that response, is less pertinant than an cerebral response? I think a soldier’s emotions matter so much in situations like this one, don’t they?
Anyway, you raise a great point.
TheThink on February 3, 2007 at 5:40 PM
Fifth: He’s speaking to the Dems in the Units…
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on February 3, 2007 at 5:42 PM
TheThink on February 3, 2007 at 5:40 PM
I can’t really specifically answer your question. I hate to cop out, but the only answer I can give is “it depends on the situation.
But in a larger sense, yes, emotions matter greatly.
We don’t fight and die for things like logical deductions and bottom line estimates and calculations.
We fight and die for ideas and values and emotions.
Corporal Jason Dunham didn’t do this out of a rational consideration. He did it out of love.
EFG on February 3, 2007 at 5:59 PM
Thank you EFG……. this makes me realize, again, why I am proud to be an American, and the difference between the good and evil in this conflict could not be any clear.
God Bless all of our troops, if they are having a good day, or bad, have lost faith or are keeping it, make it home, or are welcomed home by God……… Thank you for our Freedom.
PinkyBigglesworth on February 3, 2007 at 6:09 PM
That’s kind of how I’ve been feeling about Iraq lately. Like for past four or five months, I think. Due to world events, I really don’t have any confidence in the Iraqi people, or any Muslim people, not to act like murderous, insane barbarians any more. But I feel kind of dirty and racist for thinking like that, like I should be holding out hope for the Iraqi government to get themselves together so we can leave in victory. I also know that when it comes to Sunni/Shia relations, there’s the whole Collin Powell “you break it, you bought it” policy, but did we break it? Or was it irreperably broken before we even went into the store? As callous as saying that we should let them wipe eachother out, that’s been an option that’s kinda been dogging me for a while, despite fond memories of the Saddam statue tipping and purple fingers being waved around. Honeymoon’s over, I guess.
Savage on February 3, 2007 at 6:13 PM
As I understand it, Michelle and Bryan have a different take. The work is hard, mistakes have been made, there is a long way to go, but we must persevere.
Zorro on February 3, 2007 at 6:16 PM
Gee….I wonder how bad it would be if after all those purple fingers were held up to the cameras the press would have taken an even hand with their reporting? Guess we will never know.
Limerick on February 3, 2007 at 6:19 PM
Yeah… All I know for sure is, the concept of taqiyya scares the Hell out of me.
Savage on February 3, 2007 at 6:31 PM
Good point and don’t forget kitman. The Koran that Keith Ellison took his oath on states it is OK to lie and tell half-truths to the unbelievers. From CAIR, the Saudi princes, and the leader of Iraq, we are getting played as fools with the blessings of Allah.
Valiant on February 3, 2007 at 6:55 PM
I hope the troops really don’t believe we have forgotten them. I, for one, will never forget. Never.
Glynn on February 3, 2007 at 6:55 PM
Crap, talk to any group of soldiers long enough, and they WILL say something negative… its human nature. Cherry pick those comments, and you have the articles.
It was like that soldier last year, who had lost a leg and was interviewed… it was then edited to make him sound antiwar… when he was not, and came out and said so publicly.
Its a soldiers, or sailors, or marines RIGHT to gripe… heck I used to cuss about Officers almost every day… let alone the President, the food, missing the family, and especially after being shot at by BOTH sides… the “natives”….
Still didn’t mean I didn’t want to complete the mission… and kick ass…
Romeo13 on February 3, 2007 at 6:56 PM
I watch every anti-war documentary that I can get my hands on. Besides the guys that think we are wasting our time, there are those who steal whatever they can find laying around (body armor, uniforms, etc) and send it back to their homeys in the hood.
My benchmark has always been re-enlistment rates. People don’t put their lives on the line for wrong-headed ideas.
csdeven on February 3, 2007 at 6:58 PM
The troops have done everything that was asked of them and have mightily succeeded in their military objectives. God bless them and God help those eunichs in Washington who have tied their hands in a political mess.
Valiant on February 3, 2007 at 7:01 PM
Back in 2004, during the Mahdi uprising, Lasseter wrote:
It’s not that he makes up facts. It’s that he puts the darkest possible spin on everything.
SWLiP on February 3, 2007 at 7:25 PM
I think a combination of both Romeo and EFG’s ideas is possibly to blame: ask leading questions to get the sound of what you want and then take it completely out of context. Most servicemen (or at least the ones I know) are fairly honest folks; if you ask them a question, they’ll tell you straight up what the situation is (unless it includes possible exploits of theirs. If that is the case, add at least a 10% BS factor. “This one time, in Iraq…”). To me, most of what the soldiers were saying sounds like frustration at not being able to finish the job they started, whether because of lack of support by the local populace/American people/politicians or because they were moved out of an area before the job could be completed. However, viewed through an antiwar prism, these remarks about not being able to do enough become remarks of hopelessness. There is a huge difference between frustration at being kept from completing a job I know I can finish if left alone and frustration because the job is, in fact, impossible. IMHO, these are cries more to be let off the leash and for the American public to wake/grow up than cries to throw in the towel.
Militant Bibliophile on February 3, 2007 at 7:51 PM
The reporter has zeroed into a couple of sources that he feels will make negative comments, and it certainly doesn’t represent majority opinion.
Want proof? The fact that you never see any polls about how the military in Iraq feels about President Bush, the mission, or the War on Terror demonstrates that it is overwhemingly positive and conservative.
Liberals don’t join the military.
januarius on February 3, 2007 at 8:03 PM
Zorro,
Sounds like a war, as opposed to a picnic. They never promised us a rose garden.
Pablo on February 3, 2007 at 8:10 PM
Oh boy, if this isn’t a full frontal telegraph of the guy’s motives, I don’t know what is:
He even drops the gratuitous Chomsky reference for good measure. The title of the EandP piece speaks volumes: “Knight Ridder’s Tom Lasseter Offers Voice of Truth in Iraq.” They might as well put “to Power” in there to complete the circle-jerk.
spmat on February 3, 2007 at 8:58 PM
I think McClatchy is an agenda-driven news organization. I’m generally not one to toot my own horn on other blogs, but I dissected one of their pieces earlier today regarding the administration’s position on Iraq. They basically set up a strawman on the administration’s position on Iraq, and seemed to be asking the admin to defend a position it hasn’t taken.
SisterToldjah on February 3, 2007 at 9:53 PM
Lasseter is a liar. Like all the MSM reporters reporting from their hotel bar in the Green Zone, he’s also a coward.
There is nothing more to be said.
georgej on February 3, 2007 at 11:27 PM
Hmmmmm, note to self: read ENTIRE article next time before commenting. I may have given someone too much benefit of the doubt.
Militant Bibliophile on February 3, 2007 at 11:29 PM
As I commented on Thursday’s Lasseter story:
But let me be more specific today:
Several reporters were embedded in Miqdadiyah in early October 2005. Compare Lasseter to the NYT, the Christian Science Monitor, and Stars and Stripes.
One of these stories is not like the others. But it provides an example of the lengths to which Lasseter goes.
Another would be his years-long prediction of civil war. What’s funny is that while he did suggest the Sunni-Shia conflict, he more often suggested Kurds were the ones preparing for civil war. Oops.
Lasseter is of a class with Chris Hedges and Peter Arnett, and such should be taken into consideration when reading his reports.
Karl on February 4, 2007 at 1:51 AM
In October 2005, several reporters were embedded in Muqdadiyah. Compare Lasseter to the New York Times.
Karl on February 4, 2007 at 2:01 AM
And to the Christian Science Monitor and Stars and Stripes. One of these things is not like the others.
Karl on February 4, 2007 at 2:02 AM
Lasseter also spent most of 2005 suggesting civil war was just around the corner… but he usually thought the Kurds were going to start it.
Lasseter is in a class with Chris Hedges and Peter Arnett. Caveat Emptor.
Karl on February 4, 2007 at 2:02 AM
Duly noting Shiites, not Kurds, Lasseter’s ongoing negativity seems to have been rather insightful. Indeed, the facts on the ground in Iraq themselves have been accentuating the negative for a long time. :(
commissar on February 4, 2007 at 6:50 AM
Hmm. Wonder if there were enlisted guys grumbling when we hit the beaches of Normandy? Isn’t that’s why we have officers. Any halfwit can see through this article – written by a halfwit.
warriorlawyer on February 4, 2007 at 7:37 AM
To JaHerer22: what are you doing at 5:39 PM asking my sources when I already had done so at 5:31 PM? Was it just a drive by attack by you. I stand by what I wrote. The only thing that I will add at this point is that you apparently don’t have a clue.
Phil Byler on February 4, 2007 at 7:54 AM
Unfortunately there are times when the opposition is right but for the wrong reason. First of all you can’t wio a war based on unrealistic deadlines. Imagine in 1942 the US Navy announcing they’re quitting the Pacific war unless progress is made in the next few months.
Then there is the matter of rules of engagement and collateral damage–both buzzwords meaning US Soldiers are not allowed to fight back on even terms against murderous, psychopathic fanatics.
Finally we are up against an enemy who reads the ‘NY Times’ and knows full well that all they have to do is outwait any granted time extension.
Under these conditions it is hard to see how the enemy could lose.
MaiDee on February 4, 2007 at 11:08 AM
Well there’s this website called Hot Air and some of the bloggers there went to Iraq and talked to the troops and interviewed Iraqis. You should check it out, it’s at http://www.hotair.com. You might be pleasantly suprised!
aengus on February 4, 2007 at 11:16 AM
Perfect – you hit it right on the head!
Perhaps we could send the half-wits in DC to Iraq to fight the insurgents under their own rules – then see how fast they change them upon their return.
Just a thought – except for a couple, they’ll never even put on a uniform, let alone go off to a foreign land to fight for the US.
It’s far too easy to sell out to the highest bidder and sponge off the people while sending others to fight.
Emmett J. on February 4, 2007 at 6:18 PM
commisar writes:
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Afterpredicting civil war for two years, you’re getting sectarian violence… and then largely because of the Samarra mosque bombing Lasseter had no way of foreseeing. His ongoing representation of US troops wallowing in despair is a hideous joke — even Arkin knows that.
The site allows a mere two links per-post, so here are Lasseter’s “Kurds gearing up for civil war” stories from April and December 2005.
Karl on February 4, 2007 at 8:23 PM
Comment pages: