The operational environment in Iraq is the most complex and challenging I have ever seen -- much more complex than it was when I left last in September 2005.....
The situation is, in short, exceedingly challenging, though as I will briefly explain, there has been progress in several areas in recent months despite the sensational attacks by al Qaeda.....
We have achieved some notable successes in the past two months, killing the security emir of eastern Anbar province, detaining a number of key network leaders, discovering how various elements of al Qaeda Iraq operate, taking apart a car bomb network that had killed 650 citizens of Baghdad, and destroying several significant car bomb factories. Nonetheless, al Qaeda Iraq remains a formidable foe with considerable resilience and a capability to produce horrific attacks, but a group whose ideology and methods have increasingly alienated many in Iraq.
This group's activities must be significantly disrupted, at the least, for the new Iraq to succeed, and it has been heartening to see Sunni Arabs in Anbar province and several other areas turning against al Qaeda and joining the Iraqi security forces to fight against it. That has been a very significant development.....
The extremist militias in Iraq also are a substantial problem and must be significantly disrupted. There can be no sustainable outcome if militia death squads are allowed to lie low during the surge (they are no longer active now - ed.) only to resurface later and resume killing and intimidation. There have been some significant successes in this arena as well..... However, while we continue to battle a number of such groups, we are seeing some others joining Sunni Arab tribes in turning against al Qaeda Iraq and helping transform Anbar province and other areas from being assessed as lost as little as six months ago to being relatively heartening.....
....progress on key laws has been slow, though there has been some progress....
----------
Now, based on this, I might suggest that the headline could be "Surge Shows Signs Of Slow and Steady Progress" or "Improvements Seen in Ramadi and Anbar Hot Spots" or "Extrajudicial Killings in Iraq down by Two-Thirds - Families Begin to Return". Even "Losses Increasing Amid Signs of Improvement". But noooooooooo....
The NY Times apparently felt"Petraeus Eyes Long Commitment in Iraq" is more appropriate. MSNBC leads with "Iraq War May Get Tougher". CBS News has "War May Get Harder". All of these reports were sourced through the Associated Press. This twisting of words apparently comes primarily from the following exchange....
There is a big difference between "harder" and "worse". "Harder" is an expectation, "worse" is an outcome. Of course the AP reporter doesn't see the distinction.
Q General, Lolita Baldor with AP. You said just now that things are likely to get -- may get worse before they get better. (At least she caught herself with the subconscious "likely" slip of the tongue). Again, Petraeus didn't say this. And later another reporter parrots their AP colleague's mistake.
And I return to the statement above.
Q General Petraeus, you said that things may get worse before they get better in this effort. Can you expand a little on what the American and Iraqi public should be potentially braced for?
If you comment, please do not tell me how the war is screwed up and Bush is a failed commander in chief. I won't deny that. I am strictly talking about how the themes of this press conference are being transmitted to the American people, relatively few of whom will bother to read or watch the entire event.
....progress on key laws has been slow, though there has been some progress....
The presence of coalition and Iraqi forces and increased operational tempo, especially in areas where until recently we had no sustained presence, have begun to produce results. Most significantly, Iraqi and coalition forces have helped to bring about a substantial reduction in the rate of sectarian murders each month from January until now in Baghdad, a reduction of about two-thirds. There have also been increases in weapons caches seized and the number of actionable tips received.
In the Ramadi area, for example, U.S. and Iraqi forces have found nearly as many caches in the first four months of this year as they found in all of last year.
Beyond this, we are seeing a revival of markets, renewed commerce, the return of some displaced families and the slow resumption of services, though I want to be very clear that there is vastly more work to be done across the board and in many areas, and I again note that we are really just getting started with the new effort.....
Our achievements have not come without sacrifice. Our increase in operational tempo, location of our forces in the populations they are securing and conduct of operations in areas where we previously had no presence...have led to an increase in our losses. Our Iraqi partners have sacrificed heavily as well, with losses generally two to three times ours or even more. Beyond this, we are seeing a revival of markets, renewed commerce, the return of some displaced families and the slow resumption of services, though I want to be very clear that there is vastly more work to be done across the board and in many areas, and I again note that we are really just getting started with the new effort.....
----------
Now, based on this, I might suggest that the headline could be "Surge Shows Signs Of Slow and Steady Progress" or "Improvements Seen in Ramadi and Anbar Hot Spots" or "Extrajudicial Killings in Iraq down by Two-Thirds - Families Begin to Return". Even "Losses Increasing Amid Signs of Improvement". But noooooooooo....
The NY Times apparently felt
Q General Petraeus, you said that things may get worse before they get better in this effort. Can you expand a little on what the American and Iraqi public should be potentially braced for?
And are higher U.S. casualties inevitable as a result of your new approach? You mentioned that your losses have gone up since you moved into the neighborhoods. Is that likely to continue? Is that something they should also be braced for?
GEN. PETRAEUS: I mentioned this because as you move into areas that you've not operated in before, as you contend with elements that were in those areas that in some cases were not challenged -- I mean, there are some element -- areas that were -- that had become, to some degree, sanctuaries for certain extremist organizations.
As that takes place, I think there is a very real possibility that there's going to be more combat action and that, therefore, there could be more casualties, and that's really all that I am implying with that. I don't want that to become the central message of this by any means.
Nevertheless, this did become the central message, even though it should be pretty obvious to any idiot that when you step up military operations against the enemy you will have more casualties. Everything mentioned at the top of this post was totally ignored.
*********
en·e·my (ĕn'ə-mē)
n., pl. -mies.
**********
I should mention that Petraeus did also say, "Because we are operating in new areas and challenging elements in those areas, this effort may get harder before it gets easier."
Nevertheless, this did become the central message, even though it should be pretty obvious to any idiot that when you step up military operations against the enemy you will have more casualties. Everything mentioned at the top of this post was totally ignored.
*********
en·e·my (ĕn'ə-mē)
n., pl. -mies.
- One who feels hatred toward, intends injury to, or opposes the interests of another; a foe.
**********
I should mention that Petraeus did also say, "Because we are operating in new areas and challenging elements in those areas, this effort may get harder before it gets easier."
There is a big difference between "harder" and "worse". "Harder" is an expectation, "worse" is an outcome. Of course the AP reporter doesn't see the distinction.
Q General, Lolita Baldor with AP. You said just now that things are likely to get -- may get worse before they get better. (At least she caught herself with the subconscious "likely" slip of the tongue). Again, Petraeus didn't say this. And later another reporter parrots their AP colleague's mistake.
And I return to the statement above.
Q General Petraeus, you said that things may get worse before they get better in this effort. Can you expand a little on what the American and Iraqi public should be potentially braced for?
If you comment, please do not tell me how the war is screwed up and Bush is a failed commander in chief. I won't deny that. I am strictly talking about how the themes of this press conference are being transmitted to the American people, relatively few of whom will bother to read or watch the entire event.
