Some Perspective

by **Kevind53** Sat Jun 16, 2012 11:14 pm

I found this though not not current nor dinar related very informative:

Much Ado About Nothing, How The Western Press Got The Story Of The U.S. Troop Withdrawal From Iraq Wrong Again

17/10/2011 19:10

by Joel Wing*

When
it comes to reporting on whether the United States will ultimately
withdraw its forces from Iraq on December 31, 2011, the western media is
forming a bad habit of getting the story wrong. At the beginning of
October, the press ran headlines that Iraq’s political parties had met,
and agreed to allow U.S. trainers to stay into 2012. This overlooked the
fact that this decision had already been made in August, and the real
point of the conference was to work out the differences between the
lists that remained from the March 2010 parliamentary elections. The
Associated Press just made another bad report, when it claimed that the
White House had given up on keeping combat troops in Iraq. Again, this
ignored the previous discussions between the two sides that had agreed
to only keep trainers within Iraq. This inconsistent coverage is giving
the Western public a distorted view of what’s going on within the
country.

On October 15, the Associated Press claimed that the
White House had given up on its hope to keep troops in Iraq past 2011.
It said that the U.S. had been pushing for several thousand soldiers to
stay past the withdrawal deadline, but that Baghdad’s refusal to offer
them immunity had sunk those plans. The article then went on to say that
talks about allowing trainers to stay was still on going. Overall, this
was a non-story. The administration had already given up on the idea of
keeping thousands of its forces in Iraq. Fox News noted that back in
September. That was in response to the Iraqis, who had only agreed upon a
small training force the month before. That led American officials to
refute the Associated Press the next day. All the discussions between
Washington and Baghdad are currently focused upon the immunity issue,
with the latter providing some possible loopholes for the Americans to
use to get around it. Those include keeping trainers under NATO, which
already has a small assistance force in the country, or placing them
under the Office of Security Cooperation that works under the State
Department. The Iraqis are unwilling to provide legal protection to the
U.S. troops because of past abuses like Abu Ghraib and the Blackwater
incident when private security forces killed several civilians, but they
are apparently looking for compromises that the U.S. can live with. All
the Iraqi parties, with the exception of the Sadrists have said that
Iraq’s security forces still need assistance with intelligence, air
defense, border control, logistics, and the new advanced equipment they
are purchasing such as jet fighters, tanks, and artillery. At the same
time, they want whatever force that stays to be on their own terms, and
not be dictated to them by the Americans.

The problem with all
these reports is that they are giving confusing messages about what is
going on in Iraq. The Associated Press story was included in a wide
variety of media sources, and gave the impression that all U.S. forces
would be out by the end of the year. This is unlikely to happen, as both
Washington and Baghdad want trainers to stay. When the new year starts,
and soldiers are still in Iraq, some in the States will ask what
happened. Not only that, but the Iraqi perspective on the matter is
rarely noted. Besides the Iraqis insistence on not giving the U.S.
immunity, their needs are hardly reported. The fact that Iraq’s military
is almost completely incapable of defending the country from foreign
threats is the driving force behind their desire to keep some trainers
past 2011. Current Iraqi plans, don’t have the security forces ready for
that task until 2020, and even that might be too optimistic. In a
region with yearly shelling and air strikes by Turkey and Iran,
insurgents infiltrating from Syria, and Iran providing lethal support to
Special Groups, a strong and competent military are a necessity to
deter these countries from continuing their interference in a weak Iraq.
Reporters need to do a better job exploring Baghdad’s perspective, and
reporting on Iraq in general.

*With an MA in
International Relations, Joel Wing has been researching and writing
about Iraq since 2002. His acclaimed blog, Musings on Iraq, is currently
listed by the New York Times and the World Politics Review. In
addition, Mr. Wing’s work has been cited by the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, the Guardian and the Washington Independent.
http://www.aknews.com/en/aknews/7/267653/

Moral of the story, take everything you read and hear with a large grain of salt.

by **Terbo56** Sun Jun 17, 2012 9:21 am

Yes-Can you say 'EDSEL'? That would be a 'BIG' grain of salt- affraid

Some Perspective

Some Perspective

Re: Some Perspective