Bill Roggio writing in The Long War Journal reports that Coalition forces killed an estimated 25 Iranian-backed Special Groups fighters.
Coalition special operations forces continue to attack the Iranian-backed Special Groups operating inside Iraq with the same ferocity as it attacks al Qaeda. Twenty-five Special Groups fighters were killed during an engagement northwest of Baqubah this morning during a raid on a Special Groups leader.
Coalition forces called in an airstrike on a building after taking “heavy fire from a group of armed men fighting from defensive positions.” Special Groups fighters attacked Coalition forces with AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades. Coalitions forces spotted what appeared to be a fighter “carrying what appeared to be an anti-aircraft weapon.” At least 25 terrorists are believed to have been killed in the airstrike. The engagement took place in a village near Khalis, a US military officer told The Long War Journal.
Multi-National Force-Iraq Press Desk reports the operation this way:
Oct. 5, 2007
Press Release A071005aCoalition forces target Special Groups member, kill 25 terrorists
BAGHDAD – Coalition forces were engaged in a heavy firefight Friday morning, killing an estimated 25 criminals during operations west of Baqubah.
Coalition forces were targeting a Special Groups commander believed to be associated with members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard – Quds Force. Intelligence indicates that he was responsible for facilitating criminal activity and is involved in the movement of various weapons from Iran to Baghdad.
Upon entering the target area, Coalition forces received heavy fire from a group of armed men fighting from defensive positions. Responding in self-defense, the ground force returned fire. Enemy fire intensified and supporting aircraft were called in an attempt to suppress the threat.
And then we have the Washington Post: U.S. Airstrike on Village in Diyala Kills at Least 25.
BAGHDAD, Oct. 5 -- U.S. military aircraft bombarded a Shiite village north of Baghdad on Friday morning as they pursued suspected militiamen, in an attack that killed at least 25 people, according to U.S. military officials.
Some Iraqi reports of the fighting in Diyala province claimed that civilians were killed in the fighting, although U.S. officials said they believed the dead were all combatants. The Associated Press, citing an Iraqi army official, reported that seven children were among those killed.
Now consider this from the U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual:
INFORMATION AND MEDIA ACTIVITIES
3-97. Information and media activities can be an insurgency's main effort, with violence used in support. Insurgents use information activities to accomplish the following:
- Undermine HN [host nation] government legitimacy.
- Undermine COIN [counterinsurgency] forces.
- Excuse insurgent transgressions of national and international laws and norms.
- Generate popular support.
To achieve these effects, insurgents broadcast their successes, counterinsurgent failures, HN government failures, and illegal or immoral actions by counterinsurgents or the HN government. Insurgent broadcasts need not be factual, they need only appeal to the populace...
The Post sees itself as a speaker of truth to power. Speaking truth to power is quite the fad these days, and the Post seems to have found its reason for existence in a role of opposition to presidential administrations. In this particular story the Post includes an unspoken warning to be wary of official press releases. The press release said there were 25 terrorists killed, but according to the Post, unidentified sources have said seven children were killed in that operation. That part does not need to be factual to be reported in the Post, and since sources are not identified I'm inclined to think it's not.
To be fair, the Post treats the report of children killed as an unconfirmed report -- rumor. 'The Associated Press, citing an Iraqi army official, reported that seven children were among those killed,' says the Post. But even as rumor it has immediate credibility among those who are inclined to be believe the worst of our soldiers, our Marines, and our President.
Of course, this is exactly what the insurgency wants. Insurgents would broadcast 'illegal or immoral actions by counterinsurgents or the HN government', whether factual or not. And that's what the Post does, although not out of any particular sympathy for the insurgents or for their cause. It's just the Post being the Post. They speak truth to power -- power in this case being the Bush Administration. Balanced journalism means to oppose the Administration, however one goes about it.
It might even mean speaking a different sort of truth, depending upon the which administration is in the cross hairs. Let's go back to January 29, 2001 when the Washington Post had a different view of things than it does today. The Clinton's had just left town and a new President had moved into the White House, and Iraq was considered an urgent threat if you can believe it. Here's what the Post had to say then.
...of all the booby traps left behind by the Clinton administration, none is more dangerous -- or more urgent -- than the situation in Iraq. Over the last year, Mr. Clinton and his team quietly avoided dealing with, or calling attention to, the almost complete unraveling of a decade's efforts to isolate the regime of Saddam Hussein and prevent it from rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction. That leaves President Bush to confront a dismaying panorama in the Persian Gulf [where] intelligence photos . . . show the reconstruction of factories long suspected of producing chemical and biological weapons.
President Bush has certainly confronted the 'dismaying panorama in the Persian Gulf' and surprise, surprise, now the Post says it's all wrong. There's a new version of the truth nowadays.
In peacetime it wouldn't matter much that the Post sees its role as opposition to whatever administration is in power, and fashions its news to fit. But today it's dismaying. On an encouraging note, Soldiers and Marines who are familiar with the concepts presented in the U.S. Army/Marines Counterinsurgency Field Manual know they are in an information war. I believe they will win it.
Comments