Michael Yon is a journalist in the tradition of Ernie Pyle and Walter Winchill. In the thick of things and on the front lines, as well as a veteran Green Beret himself, Mr. Yon presents no-holds barred, tell-it-like-it is accounts of what life is really like as a soldier in Iraq, as well as the progress they're making.
As an aside, he does something no self-respecting traditional MSM journalist has the cajones to do: He tells both sides of the story!
While progress in Anbar is robust enough to make mainstream news reports, down in southern Iraq, the enemy is resurging. They are well-resourced, resilient and intelligent, and capable of landing hard punches. They recently “shot down” a C-130 with IEDs planted by the landing strip. The enemy may be good, but American and British forces are much better. On my previous two missions with the British Army, 2 Rifles and the next day the Duke of Lancaster Regiment, they killed roughly 40 enemy, and the Brits did so without sustaining a scratch. On the next mission with British forces, the enemy would successfully engage us, taking two British soldiers.
Of course, MSM organs, such as the LA Times tell
one side of the story:
Although the violence pales in comparison to Baghdad, seven British soldiers have been killed in Basra in April, three by gunfire and four when a roadside bomb tore through their Warrior fighting vehicle.
The deaths pushed Britain's monthly toll in Iraq to 11, the highest since 27 of its troops were killed in March 2003 during the invasion, according to the website icasualties.org, which tracks U.S. and British military casualties in Iraq.
The increase in violence comes as Britain begins to disengage from southern Iraq, leaving Shiite political parties and their militias to battle over the spoils. At stake is control of political patronage in Iraq's second-largest city and of the billions of dollars in oil that flow through the country's only seaport.
Contrast that to what Yon, who is there in the thick of it, has to say:
As the British increase their forces in Afghanistan, they are drawing down in Iraq. Although the drawdown in Iraq is based on pragmatism, the enemy apparently is attempting to create the perception of a military rout. So while the British reduce their forces in southern Iraq, they are coming under heavier fire and the enemy makes claims of driving “the occupiers” out.
In reality, the Brits were about to transfer authority over the Maysan Province to the Iraqi government. Thus, the day’s purpose, although seemingly more ceremonial in nature, was to counterpunch in the perception war, by focusing on the progress being made by the Iraqi Security Forces in the region. Some of the biggest battles in Iraq today are being fought not with bombs and bullets, but with cameras and keyboards. For whatever reasons – and there are many – today, when western media is most needed here, it’s nearly gone.
Unfortunately for Mr. Yon, for British and American troops, and for the Iraqis, it is a "battle of perception."
Briitish and American commanders readily say that those who were previously seen as liberators are now increasingly perceived as occupiers. Some of the shift in perception follows merely from being here so long that our moves are increasingly likely to be interpreted negatively. Though I have seen British and American soldiers treating Iraqis with respect and kindness – often putting their own lives at risk to reduce danger to Iraqis – the simple act of moving from point A to B often creates frictions, even when we are moving by means of the smallest possible footprint, in this instance by flying.
Smaller helicopters often fly very low using maneuverability as cover. Larger aircraft usually fly a little higher, and rely more on countermeasures to foil missiles. Countermeasures can be seen activating from helicopters over Baghdad every single day. This is no secret: Millions of Iraqis must see the flares popping out of aircraft to foil surface to air missiles. Yet, the countermeasures often seem to pop for no apparent reason. No missile is tracking us. Pilots say that the sensors still can be foiled by a glint off the water, or a refinery gas fire, for instance.
Near misses like this are one of the faces of that ugly part of war that our American and British commanders keep talking about. These are moments when, with no ill-intentions whatsoever, we go from being liberators to occupiers. I’ve been with American forces when we accidentally killed the wrong people. I’ve also seen American commanders, and now British, go to nearly ridiculous measures to avoid innocent loss of life. But sometimes, despite their heroic efforts, it still happens.
And not helping things is the constant barrage by members of the lamestream media, who continuously refuse to report both sides of the story; instead cherrypicking anything to fit their "we lost the war" template, and in the process discarding any information to the contrary.
We need more Ernie Pyles today.
We need more Michael Yons.
Posted by Leo at May 22, 2007 06:07 PM
Track
del.icio.us
digg it
IM
Facebook
Comments
C'mon, Leo, we need more Brian Williams, and Katie Couric, and Dan Rather's, don'cha think?
**sarcasm off**
Dr. Rerun, you're--not your--the stupidest person on the face of the earth...
Posted by: keefer at May 22, 2007 06:55 PM
Michael Yon is one of the best! I've been reading his blog for years because he does indeed tell the whole story. He is also brave enough to venture outside the green zone to get the whole story, unlike most journalists who get their taglines from the AP and then fill in the blanks ... as they see it.
Posted by: kimberly4bush at May 22, 2007 09:06 PM
This is what upsets me so much; why cant the main-stream media actually concentrate on progress we make, terroritory we are able to take and secure, yada, yada!? Enemies killed etc, etc? This astounds me. No one expects a war to go exactly as planned. Why isnt this common sense? To report the war in favor of the enemey, and make little reference to what we're accomplishing, is to me, Un-American. Call it freedom of the press, call it free speech, whatever. I'm very unhappy with the face of this nation.
Posted by: Zachster at May 22, 2007 10:27 PM
The Military Channel has a great show called Alpha Company. It's by an embedded documantarian and follows a company of RECON Marines through their adventures in Marineland south of Fallujah. It is one of the best shows on television.
The constant bleeping is how you can tell their real Marines and not Hollywood fakes - Inside joke there. (Hey mom, pass me th f'ing salt.) USMCBear will get it.
Posted by: Kahn at May 22, 2007 10:44 PM
"As the British increase their forces in Afghanistan, they are drawing down in Iraq. "
But, they got a new prime minister, who's promised the people that he'd begin withdrawing his troops soon.
Also, the answer to your question is:
"Journalists", as you'd define them, are all playing lapdog to Rupert Murdoch. And they're on reich wing talk radio. If you wanna go find them.
Also, you say that the LA times spins Iraq's news. Well, lemme do some analysis here...
"Although the violence pales in comparison to Baghdad, seven British soldiers have been killed in Basra in April, three by gunfire and four when a roadside bomb tore through their Warrior fighting vehicle."
Well, the violence in Baghdad is obviously MUCH worse than in Basra, so I don't see the spin there. And if seven British soldiers have been killed there, then how is reporting on that "spinning" the story? And how is reporting on how they died doing that as well?
"The deaths pushed Britain's monthly toll in Iraq to 11, the highest since 27 of its troops were killed in March 2003 during the invasion, according to the website icasualties.org, which tracks U.S. and British military casualties in Iraq."
First phrase (about Britain's death toll) is a fact, which can't really be spun...and reporting on the source INCREASES journalistic accountability...and I don't see how that can be spun either.
"The increase in violence comes as Britain begins to disengage from southern Iraq, leaving Shiite political parties and their militias to battle over the spoils. At stake is control of political patronage in Iraq's second-largest city and of the billions of dollars in oil that flow through the country's only seaport."
Again, first phrase (about Britain withdrawing) is a fact. Second phrase (about Shi'a political parties) is a sensible conclusion drawn from the facts and from experience.... Point it out to me. Second sentence is composed entirely of facts. Yes, what is at stake is Iraq's second-largest city...yes, billions of dollars flow through there (though in the form of oil)...and yes, I'm pretty sure it is Iraq's only seaport. Sorry but I just don't see the spin here either.
And the other article you give...I did a google search, and it gave the source as....drumroll here...the FOX network. So I don't think that you were trying to say that that article was spun...although it does say: a)we're now seen as occupiers, and b)the Iraqis are beginning to see every action we make that might be a hostile action, or an accident, and interpreting it as hostility. If they're doing this, then it explains a)why the violence does not relent, and b)that if they're thinking these things, then it's obviously gonna take a LONG TIME AND A LOTTA EFFORT to change their views. Not to mention that the insurgency and others will be arguing against us, and that the people kinda WANT to hold onto their views. It's easier if they have a scapegoat.
And both of these facts, coming from the most conservative news network in the world, say plainly that victory in Iraq is either impossible, or a very, very, very distant conclusion, that we will reach only through thousands more lives lost...
Of course, FOX does nothing to mention the conclusion that the facts point to, but whatever...
ThELefTYFoOL
Posted by: the_lefty_fool at May 23, 2007 06:01 PM
Order Matt and Mark's book on Amazon or Barnes and Noble
C'mon, Leo, we need more Brian Williams, and Katie Couric, and Dan Rather's, don'cha think?
**sarcasm off**
Dr. Rerun, you're--not your--the stupidest person on the face of the earth...
Michael Yon is one of the best! I've been reading his blog for years because he does indeed tell the whole story. He is also brave enough to venture outside the green zone to get the whole story, unlike most journalists who get their taglines from the AP and then fill in the blanks ... as they see it.
This is what upsets me so much; why cant the main-stream media actually concentrate on progress we make, terroritory we are able to take and secure, yada, yada!? Enemies killed etc, etc? This astounds me. No one expects a war to go exactly as planned. Why isnt this common sense? To report the war in favor of the enemey, and make little reference to what we're accomplishing, is to me, Un-American. Call it freedom of the press, call it free speech, whatever. I'm very unhappy with the face of this nation.
The Military Channel has a great show called Alpha Company. It's by an embedded documantarian and follows a company of RECON Marines through their adventures in Marineland south of Fallujah. It is one of the best shows on television.
The constant bleeping is how you can tell their real Marines and not Hollywood fakes - Inside joke there. (Hey mom, pass me th f'ing salt.) USMCBear will get it.
"As the British increase their forces in Afghanistan, they are drawing down in Iraq. "
But, they got a new prime minister, who's promised the people that he'd begin withdrawing his troops soon.
Also, the answer to your question is:
"Journalists", as you'd define them, are all playing lapdog to Rupert Murdoch. And they're on reich wing talk radio. If you wanna go find them.
Also, you say that the LA times spins Iraq's news. Well, lemme do some analysis here...
"Although the violence pales in comparison to Baghdad, seven British soldiers have been killed in Basra in April, three by gunfire and four when a roadside bomb tore through their Warrior fighting vehicle."
Well, the violence in Baghdad is obviously MUCH worse than in Basra, so I don't see the spin there. And if seven British soldiers have been killed there, then how is reporting on that "spinning" the story? And how is reporting on how they died doing that as well?
"The deaths pushed Britain's monthly toll in Iraq to 11, the highest since 27 of its troops were killed in March 2003 during the invasion, according to the website icasualties.org, which tracks U.S. and British military casualties in Iraq."
First phrase (about Britain's death toll) is a fact, which can't really be spun...and reporting on the source INCREASES journalistic accountability...and I don't see how that can be spun either.
"The increase in violence comes as Britain begins to disengage from southern Iraq, leaving Shiite political parties and their militias to battle over the spoils. At stake is control of political patronage in Iraq's second-largest city and of the billions of dollars in oil that flow through the country's only seaport."
Again, first phrase (about Britain withdrawing) is a fact. Second phrase (about Shi'a political parties) is a sensible conclusion drawn from the facts and from experience.... Point it out to me. Second sentence is composed entirely of facts. Yes, what is at stake is Iraq's second-largest city...yes, billions of dollars flow through there (though in the form of oil)...and yes, I'm pretty sure it is Iraq's only seaport. Sorry but I just don't see the spin here either.
And the other article you give...I did a google search, and it gave the source as....drumroll here...the FOX network. So I don't think that you were trying to say that that article was spun...although it does say: a)we're now seen as occupiers, and b)the Iraqis are beginning to see every action we make that might be a hostile action, or an accident, and interpreting it as hostility. If they're doing this, then it explains a)why the violence does not relent, and b)that if they're thinking these things, then it's obviously gonna take a LONG TIME AND A LOTTA EFFORT to change their views. Not to mention that the insurgency and others will be arguing against us, and that the people kinda WANT to hold onto their views. It's easier if they have a scapegoat.
And both of these facts, coming from the most conservative news network in the world, say plainly that victory in Iraq is either impossible, or a very, very, very distant conclusion, that we will reach only through thousands more lives lost...
Of course, FOX does nothing to mention the conclusion that the facts point to, but whatever...
ThELefTYFoOL