Wretchard the Cat of the Belmont Club is always worth a daily read. His concluding commentary yesterday on “In Plain View” (linked below) should be required reading for modern journalistic aspirants the world over. But sadly, most are not able to "mind the gap" – or else fail to understand it’s full significance.
“W” writes, “…….. three of the decisive weapons of victory in Iraq will have been the 190 military transition teams (MTT) which raised the new Iraqi Army, the Transitional Administrative Law which made a new coalition government possible, and the US Armed Forces itself, which held up the shield behind which the training and political components could take shape. It now seems fairly clear that many of the 'far better' strategies which were suggested (by others) in 2004 and 2005 in place of CENTCOM's (plans) may not have been as good as they were made out to be.”
And then concludes, “If the public has (n)ever heard of the MTTs, the political transition process or the River War it will not be the result of their concealment. These three decisive weapons were lying in plain view from the end (of) 2004 onwards though their significance had not been noted -- their existence hardly even acknowledged -- by the Press even until now. Ironically, this may have contributed to (their) overall success. The enemy in reading the leading newspapers of the West remained ignorant of the doom descending upon their heads, confirmed in their eventual victory even as catastrophe overwhelmed them. Thank you MSM.”
One needs to read the entire Washington Post wastes time and energy criticizing the military for either not being clairvoyant enough three years ago, or for learning from their mistakes now– its just not clear which perceived “failing” their writer has discovered. The AP (by way of Portland’s channel 6) thinks it aids the public weal to report not all locals near Samarra welcome the presence of Operation Swarmer troops. Go figure!. The BBC goes to great length (and lots of words) to worry about ‘deception’ from the U.S. military because their own editors don’t understand military terms. Only ABC gets part of the picture, and even that portion is more closely tied to eventual U.S. troop withdrawal plans than an ultimate success or victory strategy for Iraq.
And of course the “pajama media” keeps being disparaged by the MSM. Could it be that the 'hoof beats of history' have already passed by today's media and are now growing ever weaker? And that the press still can’t figure out why they are less and less relevant?
Nah! Couldn’t happen!