Yesterday I posted this diary (pimping ain't easy) musing about the right's critique of media reporting. The post from the right that got me thinking used a recent report from the NYTimes about a patrol in Baghdad as it's starting point.
The basic idea is that reporting on combat in Baghdad gives the idea that Baghdad is a scene of combat intensity akin to Stalingrad in 42 or Berlin in 45 or (to modernize) Grozny in 99, when, in fact, most patrols are uneventful and combat is actually sporadic. Of course, this is mostly the nature of war down through the ages: long periods of tedium and boredom interspersed with moments of terror.
Like those described in the this story from the NYTimes from yesterday reported by Damien Cave.
The story is pretty intense and well written and terrible. It describes one squad's experience on Haifa Street, scene of many days of intense combat in Baghdad recently involving US and Iraqi troops and Sunni and Shiite insurgents. The story itself is worth reading, but I want to make one simple point.
This paragraph is the key to my point in this diary:
Sergeant B sat down on a chair outside the two apartments and used the radio to find out if they would be heading back to base or moving forward. He was told to stay put until after an airstrike on a building 500 yards away.
How often do you read, see, or hear from the corporate media about airstrikes in Baghdad? More than a year ago now, Seymour Hersch reported on the pace of air operations, describing it as much more intense than is clear from media and DoD reports. I don't want to give the impression that I am being naive here...But think about the implications of air strikes in Baghdad. It is a clear and concise statement about the situation.
Baghdad is so secure that US troops call in air strikes in support of ground operations.