Yon’s iconic photo; more Congressional shenanigans
It used to be that the mainstream media would seek out and publish photos like this one. Now it seems to be up to bloggers such as Michael Yon.
Actually, to be fair, the time when the MSM was publishing that sort of thing wasn’t so very long ago. One example that immediately comes to mind is the toppling of the Saddam statue at the end of the conventional Iraq War. It was covered heavily by the press, although the incident was later found to be US Marine-inspired and led.
Photographs are powerful propaganda tools for shaping public opinion, whether they represent staged, partly staged, or totally spontaneous events. Even the famous WWII Iwo Jima photo, to which the recent Yon photo has been compared, has been accused (wrongly, it seems) of having being staged. And of course there’s the ongoing controversy about the al Durah videotape and photo, which I’ve written about at great length (see the category “Paris and France2 trial” on my right sidebar; also see Richard Landes’ fine work on the subject).
What does this Yon photo represent, and why is it important? After all, it’s merely a photo of a single incident—as, of course, are all press photos. But it is also a symbol, as all press photos are, and this one illustrates the growing cooperation in Baghdad between disparate groups.
I photographed men and women, both Christians and Muslims, placing a cross atop the St. John’s Church in Baghdad. They had taken the cross from storage and a man washed it before carrying it up to the dome. A Muslim man had invited the American soldiers from “Chosen” Company 2-12 Cavalry to the church, where I videotaped as Muslims and Christians worked and rejoiced at the reopening of St John’s, an occasion all viewed as a sign of hope.
The Iraqis asked me to convey a message of thanks to the American people. “Thank you, thank you,” the people were saying. One man said, “Thank you for peace.” Another man, a Muslim, said “All the people, all the people in Iraq, Muslim and Christian, is brother.” The men and women were holding bells, and for the first time in memory freedom rang over the ravaged land between two rivers.
I’m not naive enough to think that this means that most everyone in Iraq feels that “all the people…Muslim and Christian, is brother.” It’s not even universally felt there that “all the people…Muslim and Muslim, is brother.”
But the photograph nevertheless is another sign, a graphic one, that things are changing in Iraq in a way that is positive and gaining momentum—although it goes against the meme, still so popular here, that Iraq is hopelessly mired in civil war.
Speaking of that meme and other entrenched negativity on Iraq, it seems the Democrats have not given up on the prospect of attempting to force Bush to withdraw all troops from Iraq by December of 2008. They are now proposing a rerun of a bill they passed earlier this year—vetoed by Bush—authorizing fifty million dollars for the war effort but attaching withdrawal strings to it.
This is mostly theater; they know it will be vetoed once again, if passed. But now they are also saying that after the veto they will vote no more appropriations for the war; the armed forces will have to get the money they need to continue Iraqi operations from other accounts.
It’s unsure how long this balancing act could last, but “Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, the top Republican on the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee, said he believes the Army would run out of money entirely by January if Congress does not approve some war money.”
What’s going on here? It doesn’t look like a bright move. After all, the war will go on at least for a while, and this sort of Congressional act—attempting to pull the plug on our own troops in the middle of a military campaign that seems to be having success—probably won’t sit well with the middle-of-the-roaders whom the Democrats must court in order to win a national election.
I believe that three things may be motivating the persistence of this strategy. The first is sincere antiwar/pacifist sentiment on the part of some of the more idealistic members of Congress (or is “idealistic members of Congress” an oxymoron?) The second is that the Democrat base is angry and wants more antiwar action; it sees the Congress it elected in 2006 as a big disappointment in that respect. And, with the next election coming up, that base must be placated, both for voter turnout and for those all-important campaign contributions.
The second is that the Democrats are still eager to wash their hands of all responsibility for any aftermath of this war, and to effect a pullout before January of 2009, when they expect to be taking charge. So, whether the withdrawal happens as a result of a declared policy they have forced on President Bush (much the favored path, although an unlikely one) or whether it happens as a result of a Congressional appropriations drain (riskier), there is a push for it to happen before the Democrats will have take charge of any operations in Iraq, and shoulder the responsibility there—and the blame.
The Democrats are hungry for defeat and humiliation. Victory in Iraq would be simply intolerable to them: it would invalidate everything they believe. Victory would mean that America is not the source and focus of evil in the world. Victory would mean that military force is sometimes effective. Victory would mean that the “international community” isn’t the source of all legitimacy and virtue.
Therefore victory must not be allowed. The Democrats will continue their treason as long as they draw breath.
The Democrats have proven that they can taken the blame and simply give it to another sucker. They did it with slavery and racism. They did it with interference in the sovereign affairs of other nations. They did it with the blood on their own hands. And they will do it with Iraq, should Iraq fall into their laps. If the liquid is too hot and it burns them, they will simply acquire millions in the lawsuit.
If the troops are not out by December 2008 and Democrat is elected President, the Democratic Party faces a Civil War of its own. (Assuming that the Democratic candidates’ claim that US troops will be in Iraq until 2013 is not rhetoric.) They will no longer be able to blame Bush or the Republicans, and if the troops are not withdrawn immediately, the the anti-war folks will focus their ire on the Democratic Party. This will certainly weaken it short term and may even cause it to fracture. The path that the Democrats have chosen to get them into a governing position may prevent them from staying there long.
Don’t panic, folks. Even if we win in Iraq, the Dems and their supporters will be on hand to tell us why we should be ashamed of it. Or if the victory takes place during a Democratic presidency – to take all the credit for coming up with the “winning formula.”
What happens when we stop buying loyalty?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1108/p01s04-wome.html?page=1
The second “second” is usually spelled “third”.
What’s wrong with buying loyalty? Democrats have been doing that for years right here.
What happens when we stop buying loyalty?
First you have to start. And as SDN brought up, the Democrats have far more experience in such socialist shenanigans than the US military. The Democrats also prefer such tactics over any other.
First you have to start. And as SDN brought up, the Democrats have far more experience in such socialist shenanigans than the US military. The Democrats also prefer such tactics over any other.
Well that’s ridiculous. The US military is of course profoundly collectivist. It’s only the personal ideologies of many in the military that are conservative.
Therefore victory must not be allowed. The Democrats will continue their treason as long as they draw breath.
Only one comment in and we’ve played the traitor card! Honestly, you guys make it hard to talk about anything but that on this blog.
Hrm, “profoundly” collectivist. You don’t say.
An interesting position to take, X.
Honestly, you guys make it hard to talk about anything but that on this blog.
it is because Bush and his leadership of his administration allowed treason to prosper. If it prospers any more, be assured that few people will speak about it anymore.
I can only guess at why you think the US military is collectivist. Is it because they follow orders of their superiors instead of staging individual protests like the Left and the DoS people? Or is it because the US military won’t betray each other, as the Left have often betrayed their allies?
As the Iraqi regime was collapsing on April 9, 2003, U.S. Marines converged on Firdos Square in central Baghdad, site of an enormous statue of Saddam Hussein. It was a Marine colonel – not joyous Iraqi civilians, as was widely assumed from the TV images – who decided to topple the statue, the Army report said. And it was a quick-thinking Army PSYOP team that made it appear to be a spontaneous Iraqi undertaking.
As if the media would ever have given any credit to the military for the media’s darling stories, Neo.
It also proves that while Marines are leading from the front and inspiring civilians, the media are sitting back and carping about who gets the laurels and the blame.
the PSYOP team used loudspeakers to encourage Iraqi civilians to assist, according to an account by a PSYOP team member.
Only Americans leading Iraqi troops from the front will ever produce any good results. Yet such acts are too unseemly to the Leftist media apparatus. You can’t have Americans appear to be owed any glory, oh no.
There is no individual glory in America, especially the American military. Or at least that is what people would like us to believe.
but the effort appeared to be Iraqi-inspired because the PSYOP team had managed to pack the vehicle with cheering Iraqi children.
Once again, organization matters in terms of rebellion, insurgency, or counter-insurgency. Which is why the Left tries to act all innocent by claiming that they had no hand in organizing the VBIEDs, IEDs, mortars, and various other glamorous and scintilating material for the cameras of the international media.
If it ever got out that violence is not random at all, that violence is specifically tailored to appeal to cameras and reporters, then you would have press inspired violence, murder, and mayhem! Can’t have that, now can we.
“Well that’s ridiculous. The US military is of course profoundly collectivist. It’s only the personal ideologies of many in the military that are conservative.”
Have you ever spent any time in the military or on a military base? Your statement is profoundly simplistic.
Simplistic it is, but possibly the first accurate thing X has said since arrival, even though he really meant it as a mindless insult. The military is indeed collectivist; the nature of their job requires it. The military is also the primary reason soldiers oppose efforts to spread collectivism into the realm of civilian social and economic structures; there is none more experienced in the woes of collectivism than the soldiers that have lived it, as a necessary evil. What they’re fighting for is not only the safety of us civilians back home, but for the capitalist and libertarian society they hope to return to, after they’ve done their service to it.
That’s why so few soldiers support “progressive” efforts to make the rest of the world as joyless and authoritarian as the military.
It is not only simplistic, but ridicule to equate socialism with collectivism. In many aspects free societies are much more “collectivist” than socialist ones, because freedom allows society self-organization bottom-up, which is prohibited and suppressed in socialist states. So-called “collectivism” in socialist states is only propaganda token, not a reality. This is ideological cover for tyranny of all-encompassing government bureaucracy.
The military is a dictatorship. It does not follow the Leftist creed, for example, of “to each according to their need, from each according to their ability”.
Like all human organizations, it is built upon a hierarchy. It can only be applied to the standard “collectivist” if you use the lowest and most optimal sounding definition. Which is teamwork.
The paradox, is of course, explained quite clearly by Sergey. Leftists, whether they be socialist or communist, prefer collectivism because it sounds better than calling themselves tyrannies and dictatorships.
So certainly someone like X can look at the military’s dictatorship hierarchy and immediately think “collectivist”.
There is also the paradox of teamwork, something the Left likes to talk about when they talk about trusting in government, meaning Leftist corrupt bureacrats and politicians. Teamwork is maximized by having a strict hierarchy and chain of command, surrounded by a culture of benevolent, or malevolent, dictatorship, such as the US military.
The Left would like you to believe that the less law and order there is, the more freedom and cooperation you will get. Look at what they and Bhutto are doing in Pakistan, for example.
So that is the paradox, that the highest classification of teamwork only exists in an extremely ordered and obedient institution such as the US military. The left, as usual, wishes to promote their version of teamwork by undermining the natural hierarchy that humanity requires.
And that is why they prefer international order over the US military unilaterally executing enemies and invading nations. They need something to cover up their gross sabotage of regular law and order in the societies they are hosted in (much as a parasite is hosted), as well as in the countries that they target for revolution: countries such as Vietnam, Iran, Cuba, and Pakistan. So they drag this corpse of chaos and revolution along, and then paint it over the fine sounding words of “international cooperation”, “multilateral negotiations”, and “international diplomacy”. It is nothing but a cover of maggots over a wound in the flesh of a healthy organism that the Left has savaged, over and over again.
This Austin Bay article from Cannoneer is excellent background reading for this topic. Courtesy link
a democratic party victory in the next election appears imminent, with the next stage of u.s. international policy as a p.r. campaign of “aggressive diplomacy”, masking basically appeasement and avoidance of military confrontation. it’s influence is already coloring the bush administration’s ascendancy of rice over cheney, as exemplified by the charade with abbas. the result will inevitably lead to another tragedy (maybe here, maybe israel) probably greater than 9-11, and which will finally awaken some long-term common sense in the u.s. public… it will take something very tragic to return the democratic party to something resembling the party of jfk… after 9-11 there is no excuse for this kind of naivete…. too bad for the next victims…
God, you people really do love to hear yourselves talk. Did it ever occur to any of you that the Congress is doing their job? Did it ever occur that perhaps someone in the Congress actually thinks that a blank check leads only to corruption?
Do you bother to read about lack of oversight for 6 plus years, how millions of dollars sent to Iraqis has been LOST or used to fund extremists, that munitions (100,000 plus) have been lost and in the hands of extremists that kill our sons and daughters?
You can pat yourselves on the back all you want. Your support, unconditional mind you, of Buschco and all the other GOP hacks that looked the other way while our balance of powers were altered to create the biggest debt, a war with no end in sight, an economy on the brink, the dollar at it’s weakest ever, rampant corruption and cronyism, has led directly to our own way of life on the brink.
You same people would be up in arms if a Dem had done to our country what Bush has done. But, why waver? After all, he and his ilk haven’t asked anything of you. As a matter of fact, he rewarded you with tax cuts. That’s right. You bought the lie that if they give you tax cuts, don’t ask you to send your sons and daughters to fight an illegal war in another country, because we have all the manpower we need, even if we have to stop loss 70,000 of them and send them back over and over. they just asked you to look the other way for a while. And you did.
Aren’t you proud? have you left the country in the last two years and traveled abroad where our image is so tarnished that I am shocked to see the change in such a short amount of time.
I guess your standards aren’t what they used to be. Have fun playing with your ever shrinking playmates.
You same people would be up in arms if a Dem had done to our country what Bush has done.
Most conservatives and all classical liberals would love JFK tax cuts on the rich. We would be up in arms if a Dem had cut taxes like Bush has?
Get real.
You bought the lie that if they give you tax cuts, don’t ask you to send your sons and daughters to fight an illegal war in another country, because we have all the manpower we need, even if we have to stop loss 70,000 of them and send them back over and over.
Bush wasn’t in charge of the policies that shrank the US military down, Laura. You’re simply displacing your anger on a convenient target, like BUsh, who won’t hit back.
Laura forgot to take her morning meditation it seems. Usually she does her opposition with far more reason. I suppose Congress has become a reliable source to back, given the hostility towards BUsh. There has to be something that lets people delude themselves into thinking that they are working as part of an “American” team.
http://cannoneerno4.wordpress.com/2007/11/12/sappers-miners-and-underminers/
Certainly there are problems with Bush, but those problems are not what most people think they are. After all, it is not as if they themselves up what was wrong with Bush. People had already come up with what was wrong with Bush and convinced others of the fact. This is not original thought or analysis such as what Neo-Neocon does.
it is not as if they themselves [thought] up what was wrong with Bush.
Oh please, such crap as a response really. And, the thing is, you all believe it. Bush has had HOW MANY YEARS to build the military?
Get over yourselves, all of you.
You haven’t done a single thing, sacrificed nothing while we are at war, except to pat Bushco on the back. Good luck with that same dribble.
Angry? Hell yes.
Bush has had HOW MANY YEARS to build the military?
That depends upon how many years you think it takes to train officers to lead platoons and companies, along with the NCOs to lead the same.
Grunts and privates are easy to get. Coincidentally, Congress is in charge of military expenditure/size oversight. I wish Bush could wave an arm, like Emperor Augustus, and the Senate would do his bidding. But wishes are fishes.
Grunts and privates are easy to get. Coincidentally, Congress is in charge of military expenditure/size oversight. I wish Bush could wave an arm, like Emperor Augustus, and the Senate would do his bidding. But wishes are fishes.
Y, my lectures on the value of the Constitution are obviously not sticking very well with you.
“Laura’s world”:
laura’s angry….. in her convoluted world gw is the enemy, and the measure of legitimacy is the international left-wing and muslim popularity meter… glossing over sadaam’s history as one of the foremost mass murderers and scorched earth despots in the last three decades, along with a well established history of wmd ambition, and murky, but obvious complicity and involvement in muslim terrorism, deadly enemy of america, israel, even muslims countries around him, a classic “hitler” whose ambitions are only checked by a force like america… then all the other dangers about, iran exemplified by the little nut job with the slimy smile and declarations of genocidal intent against not just israel, but america too; china with it’s unnecessary arms buildup aiming towards a coming invasion of taiwan, after swallowing tibet with the ethnic cleansing, mass murder, and subjugation of the tibetan people, and as the force that mainly props up the regime in north korea, with it’s own implications in wmd proliferation, genocide, and well documented threats to south korea, japan, and the u.s.; then russia under putin, it’s direction is not hard to see, without blinders on….
in “laura’s world” the democrat’s will negotiate our enemies to death and establish peace on earth thru more and greater national government agencies and social programs, all financed with ever higher taxes, which is otherwise called socialism; like hillary said, she has so many great ideas we can’t afford them all; but we know the real history of socialism and it’s “contributions” to this world in comparison to free enterprise capitalism in combination with fair unfettered liberty… laura’s angry, and she’s not going to take it any more, typical current day democrats, dishonest, incompetent blowhards (at the top), propped up by oblivious, shallow left-wing fools at the grass roots level… no reason to worry with leaders like carter, kucinich, teddy, the clintons and the ultimate global warmer blowhard all by himself gore… have a nice day laura!
p.s. forgot to directly address laura’s rant:
“You haven’t done a single thing, sacrificed nothing while we are at war, except to pat Bushco on the back….. Get over yourselves, all of you.”
nothing to get over laura, look in the mirror, it’s the old double standard… you make sweeping accusations of people you really know nothing at all about for expressing solidarity and respect of the troops, their mission, and leaders in the same spirit as ww2… in your world, military or any other participation or sacrifice is entirely optional when you wish to disagree, criticize and undermine the ultimately noble and important struggle of which the iraq war is one important part…. at the very least we have every bit as much right to our opinions as you do….
last comment, promise…
sacrifices? that’s crypto for “bush’s tax cuts” isn’t it laura? for a little reality check out this on today’s townhall.com:
Congressional and Leftist Lies
By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Laura is different from X in her belief in Leftist ideology, given that Laura comes from the paleo-con faction of the Republican party. Or rather, former Republican party. So she is more like Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan, and such than MoveOn and Nancy Pelosi.
Doesn’t mean they can’t be allies, of course. Just like Syrian Baathist-Sunnis allied with Islamic Revolutionary Shia Iran.