February 11, 2007
John Burns With Hugh Hewitt
"... he’s reported from Afghanistan under the Taliban, and after their overthrow, and he’s reported from Iraq under Saddam, and after his overthrow."
HH: Mr. Burns, in reviewing the Charlie Rose interview, as well as the one you did with Bill Maher in March of 2006, I was struck by two statements. To Bill Maher, I’m paraphrasing, yes, the Americans made a whole bunch of mistakes in the occupation, but if we fail, it won’t be because of those mistakes, and to Charlie Rose, the statement that when Iraqis sit down and talk with you in calm situations, the vast majority of people still believe they are better off with Saddam, under Saddam. Nothing was possible, it was frozen. Those two statements are extraordinary. You don’t hear them very much. Can you expand on them?
A good interview, but it's astonishing to me that a reporter with the reputation and experience of the New York Times' John Burns, covering a city in which foreign correspondants are virtually non-existent, has only a passing awareness of the work of independent imbeds like Bill Roggio. Or Michael Yon.
The ambulance headed down the road, stopping in a densely populated warren of narrow streets and alleys. The ambulance stopped, and some men flushed out toward the flashing lights, apparently also completely unaware that American troops had converged on the scene. LTC Welsh’s simple plan had worked, and either the driver truly didn’t seem to realize we had followed him, or, perhaps he was just an honest ambulance driver picking up people who happened to be injured in some non-combat fashion while most people were sleeping.This was fantastically dangerous: about eight men piled out of that alley, two of whom were obviously wounded, and booked toward the ambulance. By now, the enemy knows we have their POOs. Name it, it could all be there waiting in ambush: suicide vests, grenades in pockets, knives up sleeves, RPGs, IEDs planted along the roads to blow us into little pieces.
Two lengthy pieces from quite different reporting perspectives in Iraq, both worth your time. Posted by Kate at February 11, 2007 10:08 AM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4761
Seems the ine thing that both sides in the civil war agree on is that the US intervention is viewed as an occupation and this animosity escallates the violence.
Seems to me its a lose-lose situation for US diplomacy...you can't get these sides to a bargaining table or a poll station...they seem intent to duke it out to one survivor.
Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at February 11, 2007 11:03 AMJust because it may be a "lose lose" situation for US diplomacy doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
The fact of the matter is anything the Americans do will be seen as "lose lose" simply because they are doing it.
Definitely interesting reads...thank you
Posted by: Paul Hansen at February 11, 2007 11:34 AMHugh Hewitt taunts "expert":
http://www.townhall.com/TalkRadio/Show.aspx?RadioShowID=5&ContentGuid=d7ec6786-934a-42c9-b12f-e3fd3de8780a
Includes unexpectedly humourous contribution by J Podhoretz of all people. Oh and Lileks.
Posted by: kathy Shaidle at February 11, 2007 1:17 PMI was not advocating a cut and run policy....can't fold the cards now...there are too many negative long term negative consiquences to US influence to not play the hand they were dealt...but the Iraq situation is a complicated one that escapes the simplistic partisan reasoning of the current capital hill Donkey-Pachyderm gang. I'm not sure a conventional military intervention has any value in the current conflict....seems to me that the solution may be economic to stabilize the culture...full employment, wider affluence and the peace that comes from being a well off society.
Certainly talk of expanding military commitment by risking the same civil conflict going into Iran with conventional military intervention, at a time when the Iraqi front is far from secured, is ludicrous. To decicively attain peace means to expand millitary commitment exponetially...to do this will require a draft...to ask for a draft means certain political suicide for the party. I see Bush going this way with his push for bipartisan manditory service laws.
A solution other than shoot'em, bomb 'em, nuke 'em and hope they love us after the war has to be sought for long term stability in this volitile region. After you put out a grass fire you need some enducement to get grass to grow...after VE they had the 100 billion dollar Marshal plan...after VJ they had a benevolent military governer in MacArther who had a 14 billion dollar budget and 400,000 troops for occupation/policing....in south Korea they doled out 181 billion through a large standing martial law economic recovery plan....I see no such strategic thought brought forward for the ME....like the whole thing was run as a seat-of-the-pants ad hoc policy making with a cut and run end plan like Viet Nam.
That isn't good enough for the forces serving there...they have put 100% commitment into their end of it... its time the politicians did the same at their end...if there is foot draggin in getting Iraq squared away it is because there is foot dragging in Washington.
Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at February 11, 2007 1:37 PMI think Burns was back-pedaling a bit but he summarized a complicated situation quite well. I've seen him on Charlie Rose frequently over the past few years and he isn't without a bias at all.
Of course, I'm not sure that he has the time to read the likes of Yon and Roggio, let alone give them credit for their reportage.
The best expression I've heard is letting the military in Iraq have a "home game." They feel like they are restricted by their commanders who are too surgical in devising missions.
If what Burn's says is true, the troops need to be alone to eliminate Sadr's militia and brutalize he insurgents. Who gives a damn what the Iranians think.
How the Iraq government cleans up is corruption is another matter.
Posted by: jrb at February 11, 2007 2:45 PMEh, that was great.
Check out how Hugh stops Mark Steyn from talking...
http://www.townhall.com/MediaPlayer/AudioPlayer.aspx?ContentGuid=1a405e99-2cda-44c0-bdc0-c3d65dc17208
Kate, the sad thing is that Burns is as good as it gets. And he's at the New York Times -- the NYT! -- so let's not give him too hard a time.
Posted by: John at February 11, 2007 10:49 PM