March 26, 2003
NOBODY KNOWS NOTHING.
Focus: Israeli military experts assess the U.S.-led invasion (Amnon Barzilai, Haaretzdaily.com).There's not usually much point in reposting something that's been up on Instapundit, but this article on Israeli military experts makes a point that can't be overemphasized:
There has never been a war with such a high level of disinformation about what exactly is happening on the battlefield as the present conflict in Iraq, according to Israeli researchers and senior military officers. . . .The embedded correspondents give us the impression that we know each little thing that happens. But this is misleading. From NPR this morning, for example, I know about a Marine who, though a trumpeter in a Marine band when stateside, is providing perimeter security in Iraq. I know that between the sand and rain last night, the lack of visibility, and the resulting sense of being alone in enemy territory, he was miserable. This is good reporting and gives me a sense of what it's like to be a Marine in Iraq, but it tells me nothing about the war. If I know little about this particular Marine detachment, I know nothing about the many Special Forces teams in Iraq (including, reportedly, in Baghdad) and, by the way, what ever happened to the rumored division attacking from the west?
According to Shahak, Israelis are "frustrated that the Iraqi regime has still not collapsed, which would suit us. You don't hear such frustration expressed in the U.S. over the pace of the campaign. [Ha - dgc] I didn't think that it was possible to win a war like this and bring about the collapse of a regime within three days. I would counsel patience. The Americans are very determined to go all the way." . . .
Most of those interviewed agree that, paradoxically, despite the unprecedented media coverage of the war, including the many correspondents who are embedded in fighting units, nobody knows what is really happening in Iraq. Yossi Peled, former GOC Northern Command, thinks the U.S. has shown great skill in its control of the media. "You have lots of television crews in the field, yet as someone watching TV you have no overall picture."
Military historian Prof. Martin van Creveld goes further: "Everyone is lying about everything all the time, and it is difficult to say what is happening. I've stopped listening. All the pictures shown on TV are color pieces which have no significance."
"There is a lot of disinformation," he concludes. "Every word that is spoken is suspect."
Shahak says that until now the American's have managed to conceal their true battle plan. "Do you know what the Americans have planned? I don't. They also never said (what they were planning to do). How do you topple a regime in 48 hours? In a week? Seventeen days? If we don't want to make fools of ourselves, we should wait patiently. It would just be arrogant to judge from what we see on TV."
For example, right now there are reports of a large column of Republican Guard heading south from Baghdad, skirting the advancing army units, towards "Marines, who are worn from intense fighting around Nasiriyah." CentCom is denying the report, albeit somewhat ambiguously (there are no "significant movements" of troops leaving Baghdad). What could be going on here? Does the column exist? Are they marching in good order or are they fleeing? Could they be defecting? Have they already been decimated by air support? We have no idea and may never know, even though we think we've got up-to-the-minute information.
Recent military history is full of arm chair generals making fools of themselves. About one week into the first Gulf War, Dick Cheney held up a newspaper at a press conference. The headline was "War Drags On." The moaning in Afghanistan as the Taliban was crumbling is fresh in our memories. Right now, all we can do is trust the professionals to know what they're doing. We don't have nearly enough information to act upon. Patience and prayer is all we have to offer now. Posted by David Cohen at March 26, 2003 9:53 AM
Lou Dobbs was on Imus this morning and said that thanks to the coverage we'll understand what happened in this war better than we ever have any prior war. Bunk! Reporters will be just as confused about what happened as the military have always been.
Posted by: oj at March 26, 2003 10:22 AMI think we'll have a better chance to piece it all together afterward.
Posted by: Paul Jaminet at March 26, 2003 10:41 AMBeing in Poland at the moment and with only the biased BBC for radio and TV coverage in English, I appreciate this sort of story and commentary from the Brothers Judd.
Posted by: dgoodman at March 26, 2003 11:45 AMIt is hard to see the forest when you have tree-bark imprints in your forehead.
Posted by: Regards, Jeff Guinn at March 26, 2003 11:55 AMMr. Judd;
I'm with PJ on this one. While it's certainly adding to the confusion at this point, after the fact the embedding will provide a wealth of information to correlate with internal documents released after the war. I'm certain the future historians will find this a treasure trove. As for reporters being confused, I don't think there's any cure for that.
Embedding is a buzz word. Reporters lived
with units during World War II, Korea and
Vietnam. The sense of immediacy the good ones
brought was interesting -- as the success of
Tregaskis's "Guadalcanal Diary" showed.
But most of their battle summaries were more
or less wrong. As were the official histories.
A generation later, historians are still uncertain
about some pretty important events. The history
of the history of the Battle of Midway is an
instructive example.
As for the quality of the reporting, it has been
rock bottom. I have not encountered a single
competent reporter.
Yesterday, as I was leaving the office, I
noticed a crawler (I don't know whether it was
CNN or FOX) about a "huge battle" at Nawaf.
This seemed surprising, because I did not have
the impression of large Iraqi forces in that area,
but who knows, right?
Well, it turned out the "huge battle" was an
attack (or according to one analyst, more likely
an unintended encounter in a sandstorm)
by an infantry company unsupported by armor,
air or artillery.
In other words, an action that would get no
more than half a page in a regimental history.
I am working up a column about some of the
more inane reports. Like the former commandant
of the Army War College who said on Fox
that this is the first time since 1809 that the
Marines have been assigned to fight inland.
Guess he never heard about the halls of
Montezuma.
Hence my advice a couple days ago about
staying 24 hours behind the breaking news.
That was good advice.