You Won't Believe Who The New York Times Is Defending
I'm not kidding when I post this. This article appeared in the New York Times today. (HT: Pajamas Media.)
An effort by the American military to discredit the terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi by showing video outtakes of him fumbling with a machine gun — suggesting that he lacks real fighting skill — was questioned yesterday by retired and active American military officers.
The video clips, released on Thursday to news organizations in Baghdad, show the terrorist leader confused about how to handle an M-249 squad automatic weapon, known as an S.A.W., which is part of the American inventory of infantry weapons.
The American military, which said it captured the videotapes in a recent raid, released selected outtakes in an effort to undermine Mr. Zarqawi's image as leader of the Council of Holy Warriors, formerly Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, and suggested that his fighting talents and experience were less than his propaganda portrays. But several veterans of wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, as well as active-duty officers, said in telephone interviews yesterday that the clips of Mr. Zarqawi's supposed martial incompetence were unconvincing.
The weapon in question is complicated to master, and American soldiers and marines undergo many days of training to achieve the most basic competence with it. Moreover, the weapon in Mr. Zarqawi's hands was an older variant, which makes its malfunctioning unsurprising. The veterans said Mr. Zarqawi, who had spent his years as a terrorist surrounded by simpler weapons of Soviet design, could hardly have been expected to know how to handle it.
"They are making a big deal out of nothing," said Mario Costagliola, who retired as an Army colonel last month after serving as the operations officer for the 42nd Infantry Division in Tikrit, Iraq.
An active-duty Special Forces colonel who served in Iraq also said that what the video showed actually had little relationship to Mr. Zarqawi's level of terrorist skill. "Looking at the video, I enjoy it; I like that he looks kind of goofy," said the Special Forces officer, who was granted anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly on military matters. "But as a military guy, I shrug my shoulders and say: 'Of course he doesn't know how to use it. It's our gun.' He doesn't look as stupid as they said he looks."
The release of the captured video reflected the dueling public relations efforts between the American-led forces fighting in Iraq and the terrorists and insurgents. It also reflected increasing interest by the military and civilian strategists in trying to ridicule Mr. Zarqawi.
"In Arab and Muslim societies, pride and shame are felt much more profoundly than they are in Western culture," said J. Michael Waller, a professor at the Institute of World Politics, a graduate school in Washington. "To find video like this that can cut him down to size and discredit him is a real way of fighting terrorism." A paper written by Professor Waller advocating the use of ridicule against the insurgents has been circulating at the Pentagon and among military commanders with experience in Iraq recently, according to several military officers.
But the retired and active officers said the public presentation of the tape did not address elements that were disturbing, rather than amusing: the weapon was probably captured from American soldiers, indicating a tactical victory for the insurgents. And Mr. Zarqawi looked clean and plump.
"I see a guy who is getting a lot of groceries and local support," said Nick Pratt, a Marine Corps veteran and professor of terrorism studies at the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies in Germany. "You cannot say he is a bad operator." He added, "People should be careful who they poke fun at."
OK, so let's take this a bit at a time. They NAME a retired colonel (not to cause dispersion on the colonel's record or service, but this move by the Times is strangely Kerry-esque), but refuse to name the spec-ops guy. This I can understand, if the man is truly a serving member of the spec-ops community. But then, why not just let a spokesman handle such questions. He can easily and aptly give the same explanation that the spec-ops guy did.
A single victory on the battlefield does not end a awar, nor does it determine its victor. To the Times,, again, the fight is already lost. "Oh my, they have one of our weapons. Everyone assume the international French stance for surrender." I'm sorry, but that's how I feel. They make it a point in the piece that it's an American weapon. Nevermind the fact that the rifle could have been bought off of someone else, or had even been amongst those terrorists for months, possibly years. No, the Times makes it a point that it was taken off of our troops. Yet, the contradiction comes in the analysis of the tape, which states that the M249 in question is an older model. Is the Times trying to tell us (on top of the trumped-up, overhyped "no armor" stories they pimped for months?) that our troops are using outdated firearms, and no up-to-date versions are being handed out?
Please. I need an aspirin.
I can't believe that the New York Times decided that this was a smart move; a good move. They're defending one of our main enemies. They're shaming us for mocking his inability to handle a firearm. (I'll admit that I have fired an M249, yet I don't do it too well. It takes practice, and no offense, but Zarqawi and our troops have far more practice than I do. On second thought, forget about Zarqawi; our troops have more training on the weapon than I do.) But it's worth mocking. If for nothing else than to send a clear message to America.
While our enemy is dangerous, and is determined to kill us, they are not demons or devils. They're not some supernatural force that can't be stopped. They're human. They make mistakes. Thay made mistake number one on 11 Septemeber. Since then, our enemy (here and abroad) has underestimated the resolve of the nation, and the fortitude of our military. The New York Times now joins their ranks. I pity them for their foolishness. But I now give them no quarter as they have chosen their side.
They believe that they should be so unbiased that they even do propoganda pieces for our enemy. Anyone who thinks that this is anything less needs to take off the rose-colored glasses, and see the world for what it is. It's not pretty, and we have people who want to kill us. If that's the case, we need as many frosty as we can muster. This war will not end anytime soon, and with "friends" like the New York Times, it will seem a lot longer.
Publius II
I'm not kidding when I post this. This article appeared in the New York Times today. (HT: Pajamas Media.)
An effort by the American military to discredit the terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi by showing video outtakes of him fumbling with a machine gun — suggesting that he lacks real fighting skill — was questioned yesterday by retired and active American military officers.
The video clips, released on Thursday to news organizations in Baghdad, show the terrorist leader confused about how to handle an M-249 squad automatic weapon, known as an S.A.W., which is part of the American inventory of infantry weapons.
The American military, which said it captured the videotapes in a recent raid, released selected outtakes in an effort to undermine Mr. Zarqawi's image as leader of the Council of Holy Warriors, formerly Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, and suggested that his fighting talents and experience were less than his propaganda portrays. But several veterans of wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, as well as active-duty officers, said in telephone interviews yesterday that the clips of Mr. Zarqawi's supposed martial incompetence were unconvincing.
The weapon in question is complicated to master, and American soldiers and marines undergo many days of training to achieve the most basic competence with it. Moreover, the weapon in Mr. Zarqawi's hands was an older variant, which makes its malfunctioning unsurprising. The veterans said Mr. Zarqawi, who had spent his years as a terrorist surrounded by simpler weapons of Soviet design, could hardly have been expected to know how to handle it.
"They are making a big deal out of nothing," said Mario Costagliola, who retired as an Army colonel last month after serving as the operations officer for the 42nd Infantry Division in Tikrit, Iraq.
An active-duty Special Forces colonel who served in Iraq also said that what the video showed actually had little relationship to Mr. Zarqawi's level of terrorist skill. "Looking at the video, I enjoy it; I like that he looks kind of goofy," said the Special Forces officer, who was granted anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly on military matters. "But as a military guy, I shrug my shoulders and say: 'Of course he doesn't know how to use it. It's our gun.' He doesn't look as stupid as they said he looks."
The release of the captured video reflected the dueling public relations efforts between the American-led forces fighting in Iraq and the terrorists and insurgents. It also reflected increasing interest by the military and civilian strategists in trying to ridicule Mr. Zarqawi.
"In Arab and Muslim societies, pride and shame are felt much more profoundly than they are in Western culture," said J. Michael Waller, a professor at the Institute of World Politics, a graduate school in Washington. "To find video like this that can cut him down to size and discredit him is a real way of fighting terrorism." A paper written by Professor Waller advocating the use of ridicule against the insurgents has been circulating at the Pentagon and among military commanders with experience in Iraq recently, according to several military officers.
But the retired and active officers said the public presentation of the tape did not address elements that were disturbing, rather than amusing: the weapon was probably captured from American soldiers, indicating a tactical victory for the insurgents. And Mr. Zarqawi looked clean and plump.
"I see a guy who is getting a lot of groceries and local support," said Nick Pratt, a Marine Corps veteran and professor of terrorism studies at the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies in Germany. "You cannot say he is a bad operator." He added, "People should be careful who they poke fun at."
OK, so let's take this a bit at a time. They NAME a retired colonel (not to cause dispersion on the colonel's record or service, but this move by the Times is strangely Kerry-esque), but refuse to name the spec-ops guy. This I can understand, if the man is truly a serving member of the spec-ops community. But then, why not just let a spokesman handle such questions. He can easily and aptly give the same explanation that the spec-ops guy did.
A single victory on the battlefield does not end a awar, nor does it determine its victor. To the Times,, again, the fight is already lost. "Oh my, they have one of our weapons. Everyone assume the international French stance for surrender." I'm sorry, but that's how I feel. They make it a point in the piece that it's an American weapon. Nevermind the fact that the rifle could have been bought off of someone else, or had even been amongst those terrorists for months, possibly years. No, the Times makes it a point that it was taken off of our troops. Yet, the contradiction comes in the analysis of the tape, which states that the M249 in question is an older model. Is the Times trying to tell us (on top of the trumped-up, overhyped "no armor" stories they pimped for months?) that our troops are using outdated firearms, and no up-to-date versions are being handed out?
Please. I need an aspirin.
I can't believe that the New York Times decided that this was a smart move; a good move. They're defending one of our main enemies. They're shaming us for mocking his inability to handle a firearm. (I'll admit that I have fired an M249, yet I don't do it too well. It takes practice, and no offense, but Zarqawi and our troops have far more practice than I do. On second thought, forget about Zarqawi; our troops have more training on the weapon than I do.) But it's worth mocking. If for nothing else than to send a clear message to America.
While our enemy is dangerous, and is determined to kill us, they are not demons or devils. They're not some supernatural force that can't be stopped. They're human. They make mistakes. Thay made mistake number one on 11 Septemeber. Since then, our enemy (here and abroad) has underestimated the resolve of the nation, and the fortitude of our military. The New York Times now joins their ranks. I pity them for their foolishness. But I now give them no quarter as they have chosen their side.
They believe that they should be so unbiased that they even do propoganda pieces for our enemy. Anyone who thinks that this is anything less needs to take off the rose-colored glasses, and see the world for what it is. It's not pretty, and we have people who want to kill us. If that's the case, we need as many frosty as we can muster. This war will not end anytime soon, and with "friends" like the New York Times, it will seem a lot longer.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 7:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home