Eli Lake has another scoop, this time on the surgical strike in Dubai — that is, the assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, the co-founder of Hamas’ military arm. While some in the West are in a knot over the execution of a butcher (with no collateral damage, no innocents disturbed), Israeli sources tell Lake that the operation hasn’t posed any real complications for them. He writes:
“There is a lot of hyperventilating about this in the public arena,” said the senior official, who asked not to be named because he was speaking about sensitive intelligence matters. The official said he was speaking only about the effects on intelligence links and was not confirming Israel’s involvement in the hit.
“The countries that coordinate the war on terror with allies like Israel and the United States and Europe are not as exercised about this as some of the public statements,” the official said. “There has been no effect on the operational side.”
It’s not only the Israelis who confirm that the operation had little downside for them. For example, the founder of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center is quoted as saying, “I don’t think anyone is going to come out and say, ‘That was wonderful [really? well lots of Israelis, Fatah members and others rooting for Hamas' downfall sure do]. … But on the other hand, this will not have an effect on Mossad’s relationship with other intelligence services over the long run. That is why intelligence-to-intelligence relationships exist, so they can carry on in moments like this.”
Yes, publicly the EU is fussing over the use of false passports, but that seems to be more for show. In all this, two things are clear. First, the Israelis have reminded the terrorists of the world that no place is safe from the reach of Mossad. And second, when Israel acts from strength and demonstrates its military and intelligence prowess, it incurs respect and admiration from others. Well, not from many on the American Left, but then only a weak and defenseless Israel would please them. But what really matters is that Mabhouh is dead, fewer innocents will die, and terrorists will think twice before checking into a hotel in Dubai.
The big gains that NYT story acknowledges ” are mainly in the title, and the opening paragraph. The bulk of article is full of hedges and doubt. There is the suggestion that the underlying picture is unchanged, we are looking at a a mirage that will vanish. Because the militias have not been defeated, merely paid off, for the time being. The Sunnis too have merely been bought. They are now on the US payroll but they can go into business for al Qaeda or themselves any time.
The Times isn’t taking any chances. It doesn’t want to be caught denying the obvious facts should the good news continue, yet it is not ready to surrender its prized conviction, that the war is a fiasco and that the Administration committed the worst foreign policy blunder in US history.
“I worked with John Burns. Jim Glanz is no John Burns”
(Glanz is the bureau chief, right? That was the original plan, but it’s been so long since I’ve looked at the NYT that I have no idea. In any case, while the above is just reductionist silliness for a Saturday night, it is interesting to imagine how the last few months would have been covered during Burns’ tenure)
Several of Burns’ young colleagues at the bureau seemed to share his professionalism (Semple, Tavernise), at least based on a fair amount of direct interaction. But nobody replacing Burns would have his clout, and the New York end obviously has long since abandoned any effort to actually get the story right. Many (most in a pedantic and unpersuasive fashion) love to assert that objective reporting is not possible, therefore their big problem with current “journalism” is that the (sometimes comically extreme) bias is that it is unacknowledged. Correct only in a stupid, academic, angels on pinheads sense. It’s blindingly obvious that, with minimal effort (but perhaps reserves of analytical power and a sense of professionalism lacking in the current personnel), a 95% improvement could be effected in MSM coverage of Iraq and a host of other politically heated topics.
Meanwhile, it’s unfortunate that 1) the administration continues its years-long self-imposed gag order on Iraq, and 2) the outsiders left to carry the ball – as did the administration itself back when it even deigned to explain and defend its policies, i.e. the policies of the United States of America – fail to append the appropriate safe-harbor language every time they note progress.
A modest off-the-cuff example:
“Things are much better, but they still suck and could suck worse at any point in the process, which by the way will take a long time, which is to be expected for anything of such importance undertaken against such difficulties – so for the millionth time quit measuring the progress of a newly planted vitis vinifera vineyard with an egg timer, and act like adults who have at least some understanding of history, strategy, and geopolitics.”
“This is the main lever for controlling consumer prices, said Mr. Kasim, who noted that the value of the dinar had risen about 20 percent against the dollar. An oil price crash, he added, would be “a disaster.””
don’t think they will have to worry about that for a while
NEWS & OPINION ROUNDUP (22 JUNE 2008) SUNDAY NONSENSE EDITION…
Because if it weren’t for nonsense, there wouldn’t be any news…
Blogging the Qur’an: Sura 30, “The Byzantines,” and Sura 31, “Luqman”
Sunday Funny courtesy of Flopping Aces
That Mugabe is a real sum……
“Obama has an excuse — he has a major political problem if he reverses course and admits error now.”
I was hoping that by the end of this month we would witness a significant change of attitude of the American public towards Iraq. Still, it can’t be too much longer. The news is only getting better by the day. Obama’s political problem has little to do with the middle of the road American voter. It is the hard core leftists of the Democratic Party which will not cut him any slack. They would rather he lose the election than say Iraq is now a success story.
Hey, I think the new “Iraq is much improved but still fragile” meme is great. It lets people know that things really are improving there, while at the same time undercuts any argument for a sudden withdrawal of all troops. Plus, it has the added benefit of actually being true (something that seems to be an option rather than a requirement for the NYT).
David Brooks had a great piece pegging Obama as the best liar American politics has seen in a couple generations. Which may be a good thing, as he’s going to have to throw the loony Dem base under the bus sooner or later, I’m sure he’s hoping he can string it out until he’s in office.
Ace of Spades Blog had this story yesterday and pointed out that the Times printed their dreck on a Saturday, so that no one would actually read their admission that the surge is actually…<>…working.
Michael Gordon has been doing excellent reporting on Iraq for the New York Times, and I think he could eventually make John Burns proud. Unfortunately, his work does not get published nearly often enough; I have no idea how deeply it gets buried in the printed edition. I’ve always thought that the real problem is that the Time’s Editorial Board simply doesn’t read its own newspaper.
The impulse to characterize gains as window dressing concerns me less now than it used to. Articles like the one in question demonstrate that progress has become undeniable. I worry about Democrats seeing a political opportunity to “declare victory and leave” when the stunning successes of the counterinsugency are, in fact, still reversible.
The Times is simply laying the groundwork for Obama to reneg on his “bring the troops home immediately” position. He knows he can’t yank the rug out from under the Iraqis andI doubt he ever actually intended to do so.
So now that the Bush strategy has proved successful, Obama and the left wing media are planning on letting him step in at the last moment and take the credit.
You watch. The instant Obama is sworn in, the war will suddenly become a glorious national success, all due to the Messiah.
Absolutely, John. The same way the “horrible recession” under Bush I became the “Clinton economic recovery” the moment Bubba was elected – even before he was sworn in.
Much better than what? Iraq still has hundreds of civilians being killed every month (as many as in 2005, when Iraq became an unwinnable mess), the “government” is controlled by Iran and mostly spends its time slaughtering its own people; basic services are still not being provided, all the political benchmarks have not actually been implemented (even the ones conservatives yelled and screamed about when the legislature approved them).
So the Times reports, inaccurately, that Iraq is only as bad as it was in 2004 (actually, it’s as bad as it was in 2005, but 2004 was pretty bad too). That doesn’t change the fact that Iraq is still in a civil war and the only way to curb Iranian influence and actually end the Iraqi civil war is to withdraw American troops.
McCain opposed a troop withdrawal because he would rather see America defeated than admit that the war was a mistake. This is part and parcel of the defeatist conservative agenda: conservatives cheer for defeat (since a permanent occupation of Iraq is a defeat for America and a victory for Iran) while normal people notice that the surge failed, violence is only at horrific 2005 levels due to Sadr’s 2007 cease-fire, and the only way for America to avoid defeat is to withdraw from the unwinnable mess that is Iraq.
It’s hilarious that conservatives have lowered the bar so much that they can cheer for the merely horrific civil war violence levels of today’s Iraq, just because it’s no longer as bad as it was at the height of the failed surge in 2007.
If T.B. had a brain, one would be obliged to observe that his eponymous disease had affected it terminally.
What bothers me even more – and yes, I noticed it yesterday – was that they put this good news in the SATURDAY paper – it’s least-read day.
I hate to say they’re pricks…but they are.
T.B. … you are apparently reporting on a different Iraq than I am serving in. I was here in 2004, 2005 and 2006, so for you so say that it is now like 2005 is, at best flat-out wrong and more likely requires a, how did Hillary put it?, a willing suspension of disbelief. I lost a good friend and 47 other members of my battalion in 2005… I’ve heard one shot fired in anger in the last five months (and that was a single mortar round). Same area. Tell me where you got your Iraq experience, and maybe you’re area is less settled than mine. I mean you HAVE served in Iraq, right? I mean to hold forth with such conviction implies that you have grounds to believe what you preach. I’m not saying that you have to have served in Iraq to have an opinion… it’s just that you sound so sure of yourself… almost gave me shivers up my spine!
I’ll agree that by the end of 2004 things were getting dicier, but I find Ramadi to be much like it was in early 2004… with the exception being that things are getting better every day instead of worse, and the people are filled with hope instead of dread. Not rainbows and butterflies, but to spout off that it is as bad now as it’s been is so stupid and uninformed as to deserve ridicule. Nice talking points… did you miss any? “Civil war, check. Failed surge, check. Iranians in control, check. War was a mistake, check.” Yawn.
There is no point in engaging each of your points. To misuse a quote by a scientist whose name I can’t remember: “not only are you not right, you’re not even wrong.” You are talking about some mythical place that has nothing to do with reality. Efforts to convince you otherwise will, I’m sure, be frustrating for all concerned. You are not a serious person. But then you probably think the NYT is a bastion of good journalism. ‘Nuff said.
to spout off that it is as bad now as it’s been is so stupid and uninformed as to deserve ridicule.
Then why are more Iraqis dying now than were dying in early 2005, when we were hearing the same “things are getting better” mantra that we are now?
Things are different in different areas, of course. In some areas, things are better than in 2005. (Like Anbar province, though this had nothing to do with the failed surge.) In others, they are worse. But the fact remains that by any actual body count, civil war violence in Iraq is as bad now as it was in 2005.
As you say, you don’t have to serve in Iraq to have an opinion… but it’s not a matter of opinion that Iraqis are dying and being wounded in numbers comparable to 2005, it’s a fact. And instead of wondering “how do we end the civil war in Iraq?” Conservatives are back to their 2005 fantasy denial-land of pretending there’s no civil war at all. It was this state of denial that caused us to prolong the civil war in the first place, and it’s deja vu today.
This war IS a fiasco. This president DID commit the biggest foreign policy blunder of US history. Various shades of military and economic submission do not change or erase the mistakes that have already occured. Obliviously deciding the ends justify the means is on its face ludicrous – and a prime reason this president fails to connect with the reality.
The good reasons for getting out of Iraq have no relation to the shell game over American perception and dubious claims framing our presence as variations of progress.
Who is kidding who?
The NYT, a publication of the DNC, is preparing the ground to declare victory in Iraq. Due to the wonderful leadership of President elect Barack Obama-rama, before he even spent a day in the White House, so he can declare that he, th Messiah, personlly won the war, in his inauguration speech.
Another factless diatribe from that hopless anti-American bigot, T.B. How unusual. His screen name is the only honest thing he ever prints. Tuberculosis is a filthy disease.
Snap out of it,
direct your criticism to the New York Times, numbnuts.
The war in Iraq is part of a very successful policy.
The expert consensus was that 9/11 would be repeated – probably
in a couple of years – and quite likely with an expanded variation.
But it hasn’t – and not because terrorists like us more.
Something, then, has been done right on our part.
What part did Iraq, in particular, play in this outcome, is hard to
evaluate. But it is a fact that the suicide bombers recruited since the start of
the Iraq war – and, what is no less important, cadres of terror organizers
and engineers – were largely engaged in Iraq. For our enemies,
Baghdad has a much higher priority than New York or Washington: because
of that preference, our armed people are able to meet them over there,
instead of our civilians meeting them over here.
Obviously, there were many blunders in the conduct of the Iraq war;
and no surprise: these are uncharted waters. Now, we see what could
have been done earlier, for faster success. Some people saw it
earlier: John McCain was certain, since the beginning –
and was proved right more recently.
But those who declare the war itself a blunder may only be
alive because of it.