What If Violence Fell And No One Reported It?
Yesterday, the Iraqi Interior Ministry reported on a dramatic decline in violence throughout the nation since the full complement of surge troops reached Iraq. Even in Baghdad, where the conflict has raged even with a heavier US presence, bombings have dropped by half and murders by 28%. In Anbar, violence fell by 82% since the end of June.
Reuters reported this yesterday afternoon:
Violence in Iraq has dropped by 70 percent since the end of June, when U.S. forces completed their build-up of 30,000 extra troops to stabilize the war-torn country, the Interior Ministry said on Monday. ...In Baghdad, considered the epicenter of the violence because of its mix of Shi'ites and Sunni Arabs, car bombs had decreased by 67 percent and roadside bombs by 40 percent, he said. There had also been a 28 percent decline in the number of bodies found dumped in the capital's streets.
In Anbar, a former insurgent hotbed where Sunni Arab tribes have joined U.S. forces against al Qaeda, there has been an 82 percent drop in violent deaths.
Reuters serves thousands of newspapers and media outlets worldwide. Their story didn't come from an anonymous source, nor was this the result of an exclusive interview with the Interior Minister in Iraq. It came from a public announcement from the ministry. Given the critical nature of the information for the war debate, one would expect that American news outlets would give this some high-profile coverage, either by reprinting the Reuters wire service copy or assigning reporters to the announcment ... right?
Wrong. Despite the announcement coming well before deadline yesterday -- the Reuters article has a 1:01 pm ET timestamp -- the major newspapers apparently didn't consider the violence drop newsworthy today. The Los Angeles Times covers the National Assembly's proposal to limit US military missions in Iraq. The New York Times reports on Kurdish terrorism in Iran. The Washington Post didn't even bother to have a report on Iraq for its morning edition today.
Some might call this all a coincidence -- that the three most influential newspapers in the US would all ignore the announcement of statistics that underscore the success of the American military in Iraq this year. Some might believe that all three had more important priorities than to note how well the new strategy and tactics adopted by General David Petraeus have worked in saving lives as well as defeating terrorists. Arguments will be made as to how these casualty declines don't really matter, even though all three newspapers have had no trouble giving large headlines to casualty increases in the past.
Unfortunately, it takes a willing suspension of disbelief to conclude anything other than an editorial bias on behalf of these newspapers against success in this war.
UPDATE: The NYT's editorial board never fails to disappoint. "The news out of Iraq just keeps getting worse." At least the news that the Gray Lady prints does ...
Posted by Ed Morrissey on October 23, 2007 9:04 AM | Comments (33) | TrackBacks (1)
Comments (33)
Posted by John Wilson | October 23, 2007 9:39 AM
My opinion is that no coverage works for us as it doesnt inflame the crazies who would take that as bait to ramp up whatever violence they can execute. Never mind they can't do anything anyway. This can be seen as not a bad thing until victory is declared decades from now.
Posted by William Teach | October 23, 2007 9:42 AM
Good news from Iraq is bad news for Liberals.
And when the big papers ignore a story, so many of the smaller ones tend to ignore it, too.
Posted by Sam Pender | October 23, 2007 9:48 AM
September 28, 2007
A Quiet Triumph May be Brewing
By Ray Robison
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/09/a_quiet_triumph_may_be_brewing.html
Nothing To Report
Posted by Scott Malensek on October 18, 2007
http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/10/18/i-dont-have-the-link/
Posted by Sam Pender | October 23, 2007 9:50 AM
It's always ALWAYS been the case that if Democrats had their way on Iraq, so too would the enemy. If America succeeds in Iraq, it will be in spite of the enemy's violent efforts and in spite of the Democrats' political efforts.
American success in Iraq > Democrats' success in Iraq
Posted by Jazz | October 23, 2007 9:53 AM
There had also been a 28 percent decline in the number of bodies found dumped in the capital's streets.
So... ummm... I guess that's... good. Well, it's definitely better than an increase in the number of bodies dumped in the streets. Yikes. I'd hate to have to take a job as a street sweeper there.
Posted by Sam Pender | October 23, 2007 10:02 AM
21 Oct 2007
Iraq: Violence-related deaths drop ‘remarkably’, say authorities and UN
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/RMOI-787MNA?OpenDocument
...ok, I'm sorry, but when even the United Nations admits that violence is dramatically down, and when even Osama Bin Laden is personally and extremely publicly acknowledging Al Queda in Iraq is being decimated...
Isn't it time the left says, "Way to go American soldiers! We support the efforts you're MAKING at bringing peace in Iraq."
Yeah, right. Somehow I don't see that as a top Daily Kos thread.
Posted by Jeff from Mpls | October 23, 2007 10:05 AM
When Harry Reid (D) sighed that we had lost the war in Iraq, it was such an odd statement.
Was Reid simply in mourning that the side democrats were rooting for had lost?
Posted by richard mcenroe | October 23, 2007 10:08 AM
"There had also been a 28 percent decline in the number of bodies found dumped in the capital's streets.
So... ummm... I guess that's... good. Well, it's definitely better than an increase in the number of bodies dumped in the streets. Yikes. I'd hate to have to take a job as a street sweeper there."
Jazz -- Best not take that sanitation job in DC, then...
Posted by NoDonkey | October 23, 2007 10:16 AM
"Best not take that sanitation job in DC"
DC is a hopeless quagmire.
And I checked on the DNC web page - they aren't reporting this either.
Is this a coincidence?
Posted by David M | October 23, 2007 10:17 AM
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 10/23/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
Posted by Steve SKubinna | October 23, 2007 10:22 AM
I'm sure they'll go to print once they find the right way to frame the story.
"Violence drops in Iraq: women, children hardest hit."
Posted by Sam Pender | October 23, 2007 10:31 AM
Posted by NoDonkey | October 23, 2007 10:16 AM
"And I checked on the DNC web page - they aren't reporting this either.
Is this a coincidence?"
Democrats could so SO easily jump up and say, "SEE! We told you there should be more troops. We told you again last fall, and when the President finally did send more troops, 'our' New Direction In Iraq succeeded."
They're simply faced with a choice:
1) continue to declare defeat
2) claim victory as if it were the result of something they did, and then hope no one remembers reality
Posted by unclesmrgol | October 23, 2007 10:31 AM
Actually, the LA Times' front page article was on possible civilian casualties during an "American-led" operation against insurgents.
I don't think there's any question of bias.
Posted by Tim W | October 23, 2007 10:36 AM
The reason they are not reporting this is because this is a major defeat for the Democratic party and Al Queda. They were against the "surge" from the beginning and wanted nothing less than a humiliating withdrawl resulting in chaos and an American defeat. The NYT even went so far to say they were OK with genocide as long as U.S. troops were leaving.
My basic metric on progress in Iraq is that no news is good news.
Posted by Le Messurier | October 23, 2007 10:42 AM
Last night 10/22 there was a piece on ABC evening news about Faluja (sp?) and included an interview with a US soldier. The gist of the piece was that a year ago he couldn't walk down a street much less ride in a Humvee without being seriously attacked and that car bombs were a daily occurance. Then he said that the last car bomb was in May and he was walking the streets unafraid.
I was astounded that this was on ABC
Posted by Otter | October 23, 2007 10:50 AM
Actually, sites like Yahoo are now putting serious emphasis on Civilian causulties of US attacks, in their headlines.
They aren't going to give any ground on this. We could be taking on the terrorists one-by-one, avoiding any and ALL contact with civilians (and taking massive casualties to do so), and they'd like complain that the side of a mosque got chipped by an American bullet.
Posted by Cycloptichorn | October 23, 2007 10:58 AM
Amazing what doesn't get reported in the mass media.
Some of what does is interesting, though:
Latimes:
"Leaders in the Iraqi parliament yesterday said “that they were taking steps to examine the U.S. military presence in Iraq with an eye toward possibly restricting the force’s activities, in a continuing backlash over an American raid that Iraqi officials say killed 13 civilians.” A September poll found that 70 percent of Iraqis believe President Bush’s escalation has “worsened” their lives."
Posted by Sam Pender | October 23, 2007 11:04 AM
"... their lives."
Something's better than nothing, no?
Posted by Jeff from Mpls | October 23, 2007 11:15 AM
Cycloptichorn's head spins like possessed Linda Blair.
Give us some green vomit, Cyclo old boy!
Posted by Cycloptichorn | October 23, 2007 11:23 AM
Jeff,
You misunderstand me - any reduction in violence is a Good Thing.
I just don't mistake the reduction in violence for long-term achievement of goals in Iraq. And if you listen to our military leaders, they don't really mistake that either.
Posted by Nate | October 23, 2007 11:50 AM
Pretty selective quoting there Cyclops, with no link of course.
From what I assume to be the same article, I can do that too...
"The U.S. military maintained that it killed 49 “criminals” in the raid Sunday on Sadr City, a mostly Shiite Muslim neighborhood in the Iraqi capital, and was unaware of any civilian casualties.
and...
“We think the issue is about establishing and developing Iraqi security forces capable of confronting the challenges,” said Salim Abdullah Jabouri, a member of parliament and spokesman for the Iraqi Accordance Front, the body’s main Sunni bloc. “It’s not right to speak about not having the presence of the U.S. forces, taking into consideration the chaos and security instability.”
As for the "September poll", that's not in the article, but as the point of Ed's post is that the MSM is purposefully avoiding any good news out of Iraq I'd likely doubt its validity.
Your point seems to be "So What? Despite all the good news the Iraqi's still want us out."
I can only assume you are trying to deflect from the topic at hand, namely positive developments being deliberately under-reported by our liberal media.
Posted by Ron Beasley | October 23, 2007 12:04 PM
One would expect a dramatic decrease in violence in Baghdad since the ethnic cleansing is largely complete. The Sunnis who used to live in Baghdad are either already dead or living in Syria. There are very few left to kill.
Posted by rvastar | October 23, 2007 12:19 PM
I just don't mistake the reduction in violence for long-term achievement of goals in Iraq.
Neither does anyone else here. But it's most certainly a pre-requisite to those long-term goals being achieved. But I guess your pulling-my-own-teeth-with-a-fishing-hook-is-better-than-admitting-this admission that there actually is a reduction in violence is better than can be expected from about 99.9% of your political kin. So congratulations, Cyc...you actually have a shred of intellectual honesty!
To all our non-leftists residents, how about a friendly game of "Shift That Goalpost, Lefty!"
What are your predictions for the next goalpost shift from the left?...after the political process also shows more and more results over the next 6-9 months? My money's on complaints about the country's infrastructure. Something along the lines of...
"Well sure, the political process is showing some promise...but that's in spite of American efforts, not because of it. And that's not the point anyway. Anyone capable of nuanced thinking understands that the real problem is the country's devastated infrastructure.
50.1% of Iraqis report that they've been inconvenienced in one way or another since 2003. Don't believe me? Here's a quote!
'I was walking along the street, praying to Allah that I would not be inconvenienced today," stated Hasim, Iraqi victim of American oppression/imperialism/neglect/racism/capitalism/bigotry/intolerance/arrogance/lack of nuance. "I turned a corner, and just as I did, I fell victim to the more horrific reflection of sunshine off of the windshield of a parked car. I felt as though my eyeballs would be singed from their sockets! Why has George Bush allowed this to happen?'
"Why" indeed, Hasim. Way to go, Chimpy McBushitler!"
Any other predictions?
Posted by Cycloptichorn | October 23, 2007 12:24 PM
It takes a lot of guts for a war supporter to accuse others of 'shifting goalposts,' considering that the goalposts set by the Bush admin have been pushed back about 50 times since 2003.
Posted by Duchess Of Austin | October 23, 2007 12:38 PM
Excuse me?
How is "stay the course" shifting the goalposts?
Posted by Truth Squad | October 23, 2007 1:00 PM
"One would expect a dramatic decrease in violence in Baghdad since the ethnic cleansing is largely complete. The Sunnis who used to live in Baghdad are either already dead or living in Syria. There are very few left to kill."
Nonsense. there are still more than a million Sunnis in Baghdad.
Posted by Nate | October 23, 2007 2:16 PM
Cycloptichorn says,
"...the goalposts set by the Bush admin have been pushed back about 50 times since 2003."
Bah. The strategies have shifted, many mistakes have been made, but the goal has remained the same. In the 2004 State of the Union Bush stated it clearly.
"As long as the Middle East remains a place of tyranny and despair and anger, it will continue to produce men and movements that threaten the safety of America and our friends. So America is pursuing a forward strategy of freedom in the greater Middle East."
[snip]
"America is a nation with a mission, and that mission comes from our most basic beliefs. We have no desire to dominate, no ambitions of empire. Our aim is a democratic peace -- a peace founded upon the dignity and rights of every man and woman. America acts in this cause with friends and allies at our side, yet we understand our special calling: This great republic will lead the cause of freedom."
However ambitious or foolish you may find it, this was and is the goal. Now, despite all attempts by the left to undermine the effort, progress toward the goal is evident in Iraq. It surprises no one that you and the MSM keep trying to change the subject.
Posted by Tom W. | October 23, 2007 2:56 PM
"It takes a lot of guts for a war supporter to accuse others of 'shifting goalposts,' considering that the goalposts set by the Bush admin have been pushed back about 50 times since 2003."
*********************************
A shameless, despicable, flat-out lie.
The goal has always been the same: a stable, democratic Iraq, able to defend itself against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Since leftists can never win on the merits of their arguments, they always--ALWAYS--have to lie, just as they lied about Bush lying us into a war, about Petraeus, about S-CHIP, about General Shinseki being fired, about the federal response to Hurricane Katrina...
The list is endless. I can't imagine being so reflexively and universally dishonest. Try and picture the kind of parents these people are.
God help us when their children grow up and take over.
Posted by rvastar | October 23, 2007 3:04 PM
How is "stay the course" shifting the goalposts?
So much wisdom in such a short sentence! Cycl's head must be swimming, frantically Googling "Iraq Bush strategy change".
Well done, Duchess :)
God help us when their children grow up and take over.
I wouldn't worry about that too much, Tom...think about it.
Posted by docjim505 | October 23, 2007 3:41 PM
Le Messurier: Last night 10/22 there was a piece on ABC evening news about Faluja (sp?) and included an interview with a US soldier. The gist of the piece was that a year ago he couldn't walk down a street much less ride in a Humvee without being seriously attacked and that car bombs were a daily occurance. Then he said that the last car bomb was in May and he was walking the streets unafraid.
I recall reading something like this once... about a former US Army officer named John Paul Vann, writing about a war in a country called Vietnam. Surely we remember that war, right? (It's not like the libs don't talk about it whenever they get a chance.)
Vann wrote that, by 1971 - 1972, he and other Americans were able to travel alone in parts of the Mekong Delta where, only a few years before, they would have had to travel in heavily armed convoys escorted by helicopter gunships. The change in strategy brought about by GEN Abrams, Ambassador Bunker, and the CIA's Colby, had wrought tremendous progress on the ground in Vietnam. The VC had been decimated during Tet in '68, and the NVA were being clobbered a pushed back into the hinterlands (where they often starved for want of supplies). We were winning the war in South Vietnam.*
Then the democrats pulled the rug out. They arranged for US troops to be pulled out and, a couple of years later, knifed Saigon in the back by withholding the funds and support they'd promised. The end result was the conquest of South Vietnam by the communists and approximately 3 million Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians murdered in communist death camps.
This is the Golden Age of the modern democrat party. Don't think they won't do it again if they get a chance. We appear to be winning in Iraq, but NoDonkey hit it on the head a year or more ago:
As long as the democrats have influence, the terrorists have hope.
---------------
(*) I refer the interested reader to Lewis Sorley, A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and the Final Tragedy of America's Last Years in Vietnam. New York: Harcourt, 1999.
Posted by exhelodrvr | October 23, 2007 9:07 PM
RB,
"One would expect a dramatic decrease in violence in Baghdad since the ethnic cleansing is largely complete."
Actually, wouldn't you expect a more gradual tapering off? Of course, it is purely coincidence that the decrease came as the US tactics changed, and the additional troops came in.
Posted by justgoto | October 24, 2007 5:50 AM
"Violence drops in Iraq: women, children hardest hit."
Actually, cemetery workers are hardest hit.
;)
Posted by justgoto | October 24, 2007 5:53 AM
Oops, the cemetery workers link didn't take.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1912212/posts