« Closing Our Eyes Doesn't Make it Better | Main | "How to Win in Anbar" »

After Thomas Ricks' latest highly negative WaPo piece about the fight in Anbar, I wrote a post documenting conflicting narratives coming from reporters on the ground: "Will the Real Anbar Narrative Please Stand Up?"

Below are headlines and excerpts from articles by Michael Fumento, Strategy Page, Bill Roggio, Greyhawk from Mudville and various UK Times correspondents that seem to at least contradict Ricks' angles that A) Anbar is lost and B) Al Qaeda is gaining rather than losing popularity among the local populace. Most of these reports track the evolution of the tribal war against AQ and the wider insurgency ...

Shortly thereafter, Fumento wrote a cooincidentally titled post asking the same question: "Will the real Ramadi please stand up?"

Why such different conclusions between our articles and the Post's and whom to believe?

It helps to know that the Times writer and I both went to and reported from Ramadi. We didn't summarize classified documents or quote unnamed sources. Linzer and Ricks stayed home and reported from Washington, relying entirely on an unpublished document in addition to quoting a "senior intelligence official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity." I have recently ripped the media's "Baghdad Brigade" for pretending it can cover a country the size of California from a single Iraqi city. What does that say about those who think they can cover Al Anbar from Washington?

Yesterday, Fumento follows up and declares that "the real Ramadi has stood up:"

In a Nov. 29 blog, "Will the real Ramadi please stand up?" I observed that three articles on conditions in Ramadi and al Anbar Province had appeared within a week of each other giving entirely different points of view. Mine and one in the Times of London said we're winning the war in Ramadi; a Washington Post A1 story co-authored by "Fiasco" author Thomas Ricks claimed exactly the opposite. The difference, I said, could be explained simply. I and the Times writer reported from Ramadi. Ricks and his co-author have not only never been to Ramadi, they wrote their piece from Washington. Well now the WashPost has printed another article on the city, this time an upbeat one. What gives? You guessed it.The second one was reported from Ramadi. Case closed, thank you very much.

The newest WaPo article in question:

Ramadi, the capital of the western, overwhelming Sunni Arab province of al-Anbar, has seen some of the bloodiest street battles of the war. Sunni insurgents remain well-entrenched here and continue to move freely through parts of downtown where Americans often dare not set foot.

At least six U.S. troops were killed in fierce fighting in the province on Wednesday, the military said.

But as the White House faces calls to revisit its Iraq policy, U.S. forces in Ramadi insist their strategy here - taking ground and holding it - is proving effective.

I will note that there may be value in looking at the situation in Anbar with different perspectives: while experience with those on the ground is surely invaluable, I'd imagine that a focus on military success could possibly distort an evaluation that necessarily includes political and economic factors to co-opting a local population and winning a counterinsurgency, as well as whether the current force levels required to maintain progress are sustainable. That said, Fumento's point seems pretty solid, as not one but (at least) five journalists reporting from the scene of the Anbar fight have painted a picture that's far more hopeful than Ricks' dire presentation of the famously negative Devlin report. I'll defer to the guy who's been there.

Posted by Bill at December 11, 2006 11:55 AM | TrackBack (0)

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.indcjournal.com/cgi-bin/mt/dafrules/tapaz.cgi/2875

Comments