Three Years in Iraq, and Counting. . .

Part I

Here's a very good piece from MSNBC comparing "then and now".

From lifeless to menacing

When I first arrived in Baghdad before the war, Iraq seemed lifeless. Baghdad felt like a city without oxygen, where those with big dreams couldn’t breathe or imagine a better life. Now, the country is very changed — in some ways for the better (as you'll see in the chart below) — but it has become equally menacing, terrifying and sinister.

Be sure to click through the chart.

• Political freedom
• Safety
• Health care
• Education
• Economy
• Basic services
• Prospects for the future

Each of those opens up its own before and after window.

And be sure to check out the blog at the end of the article.


Part II

Last week, "Operation Swarmer" went into action.

It was billed by the US military as "the largest air assault operation" since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003, with attack and assault aircraft providing "aerial weapons support" for 1,500 US and Iraqi commandos moving in to clear "a suspected insurgent operating area north-east of Samarra."

The international news agencies immediately rang the urgent bells on the story.

Around the world, programmes were interrupted as screens flashed the news, which dominated the global media agenda for the next 12 hours or more.

On the New York Stock Exchange, oil prices jumped $1.41 (£0.80) a barrel "with a massive US-led air assault in Iraq intensifying jitters about global supplies of crude", as one agency reported it.

Wow! The "largest air assault operation" since the beginning of the war. And we all remember what that was like, the thousands of tons of ordinace dropped on and fired at Iraqi targets. Obviously the U.S. is grabbing the bull by the horns. But wait. . .

By the middle of Day Two in the ongoing operation, it was clear from both US and Iraqi military sources that the advance had met no resistance.

There were no clashes with insurgents. No casualties were reported.

In what was clearly a combing operation using cordon-and-search tactics in a patch of remote desert terrain with scattered farms and homesteads, military spokesmen said the advancing forces uncovered six caches containing arms, explosives and other insurgent material.

They detained 48 people, of whom 17 were freed without delay. Officials said they did not believe they had captured any significant insurgent leaders.

So what's going on? The biggest "air assault" since the war began, or just another "combing mission"? The answer: yes. Turns out air assault can just mean anything using helicopters -- no bombs required.

Some people think that the Pentagon played "Operation Swarmer" as a public relations stunt.

“Operation Swarmer” is really a media show. It was designed to show off the new Iraqi Army — although there was no enemy for them to fight. Every American official I’ve heard has emphasized the role of the Iraqi forces just days before the third anniversary of the start of the war. That said, one Iraqi role the military will start highlighting in the next few days, I imagine, is that of Iraqi intelligence. It was intel from the Iraqi military intelligence and interior ministry that the U.S. says prompted this Potemkin operation. And it will be the Iraqi intel that provides the cover for American military commanders to throw up their hands and say, “well, we thought bad guys were there.”

It’s hard to blame the military, however. Stations like Fox and CNN have really taken this and ran with it, with fancy graphics and theme music, thanks to a relatively slow news day. The generals here also are under tremendous pressure to show off some functioning Iraqi troops before the third anniversary, and I won’t fault them for going into a region loaded for bear. After all, the Iraqi intelligence might have been right.

Others think that the media needs to be manipulated, because they're not doing their job.

The reporting on Operation Swarmer is a microcosm of the sub-par reporting on the Iraq war. Events are immediately placed into a political context. Commentary is often mixed in with reporting. There is little understanding of operational intent or how the military even works. Operations are viewed as individual events, and not placed in a greater context. Failure and faulty assumptions are the baseline for coverage and analysis. Success is arbitrarily determined by a reporter or editor's biases. The actions of the U.S. and Iraqi military are viewed with suspicion and even contempt.

If you don't believe me, just read the "objective" reports from Time's Brian Bennett and Christopher Allbritton. Would they have preferred a bloody battle? Should the military sought their advice in advance to determine the size and composition of the assault force? (March 18/ "Swarmer" and Media Coverage)

(Full Disclosure: Thanks to TV Newser for these leads. I got most of this from their site.)