Over at Powerline yesterday, John Hinderaker stated that Scott Horton of Harper's libeled the U.S. Army with an anonymous smear on behalf of Iraqi terrorism suspect and Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein.

It's as incredible an attempt at libel as I've ever seen. No one with any common sense could believe a word of it. That qualification, though, excludes Editor and Publisher, which yesterday republished Horton's libel admiringly, under the headline "Harper's Probes Case of Jailed AP Photog in Iraq. " Some "probe! " Editor and Publisher begins by saying that Horton is "the latest to look at the purported evidence" against Hussein, but that is false. Horton never discusses the evidence, of which he is, as far as his article discloses, entirely ignorant. Beyond that, E & P's crack "staff, " which is credited with its piece, fails to mention that Horton's column is based entirely on an anonymous and highly dubious "source, " and simply quotes Horton's hit-job with evident approval.

Of course, no one expects the left-wing E & P to do any critical thinking, let alone investigation. But it would have taken very little research for them to discover that Scott Horton was, until January, a partner in the law firm that represents Bilal Hussein--a fact that Horton did not find it necessary to disclose to his readers. There is indeed a story here, and one that relates directly to journalism--the kind of thing in which E & P might be expected to take an interest. But political loyalty trumps journalistic standards at E & P.

To sum up: Scott Horton claims to have an anonymous "source" inside the Pentagon, who relayed to him the contents of a DOD briefing on the Hussein case. I think this is plainly false. I believe that Horton has a source, but is it a source inside the Pentagon, or inside Hussein's defense team, headed by Horton's former law partner? If Horton has a "source" inside the Pentagon, who is it? Is this purported source someone with knowledge of the Hussein case, as Horton claims, or is it just another left-winger regurgitating anti-American talking points?

These questions are easily answerable. All Scott Horton has to do is identify his alleged source inside the Pentagon, and give us the details on the "briefing" that his column supposedly summarized. Unless and until this happens, it is reasonable to conclude that Horton, or his source, is lying.

If the name Scott Horton seems familiar to readers of Confederate Yankee, it should; On August 25 of this year, I called him out for a claim he made in a August 24 blog entry he wrote at Harper's called Those Thuggish Neocons, in which he claimed:

I have no idea whether Beauchamp's story was accurate. But at this point I have seen enough of the Neocon corner's war fables to immediately discount anything that emerges from it. One example: back last spring, when I was living in Baghdad, on Haifa Street, I sat in the evening reading a report by one of the core Neocon pack. He was reporting from Baghdad, and recounted a day he had spent out on a patrol with U.S. troops on Haifa Street. He described a peaceful, pleasant, upscale community. Children were out playing on the street. Men and women were out going about their daily business. Well, in fact I had been forced to spend the day "in the submarine," as they say, missing appointments I had in town. Why? This bucolic, marvelous Haifa Street that he described had erupted in gun battles the entire day. In the view of my security guards, with which I readily concurred, it was too unsafe. And yes, I could hear the gunfire and watch some of the exchanges from my position. No American patrol had passed by and there were certainly no children playing in the street. This was the point when I realized that many of these accounts were pure fabrications.

I challenged Horton to produce the "Neocon's" article he claimed to have read in a August 24 email, stating:

can't claim that Harper's is one of my normal stops, but I was very intrigued by your post today "Those Thuggish Neocons, " particularly the paragraph about the reporter who fabricated the Haifa Street report you read.

If you are familiar with my small blog at all (and I'm sure you probably aren't); I often run down false or inaccurate media claims, typically hitting the wire service reporting the hardest, though I've also captured fraud and inaccuracies in newspapers and magazines as well. And yes, I'd readily admit that I have a conservative perspective, but that does not make me so biased that I approach the world with ideological blinders, as this post burning a false pro-Iranian War argument should show.

I was hoping that you would provide me with the date of the story you related as specifically as you can recall, along with the news organization and individual reporter you said was making up this report.

This is pretty obviously unethical and possibly illegal, and I want this resolved quickly.

Horton never responded, prompting my subsequent blog entry to next day.

I repeatedly attempted to get a response from Harper's and emailed Harper's Editor Roger D. Hodge and Managing Editor Ellen Rosenbush on August 27, and again sent email to them, Horton, and Vice President of Public Relations Giulia Melucci on August 29, once more pressing for Horton to produce the report and reporter he claimed to have read during his time in Baghdad.

Again, they refused to respond.

I did not pursue Horton's claims further at that point as I was immersed in the Scott Beauchamp story at the time, but with Beauchamp's stories now retracted by The New Republic and Powerline once again poking holes in Horton's credibility, it seems time to return to the issue once more.

Harper's should come clean on Horton's sourcing for both of these stories, and quickly. If they do not, they seem doomed to wander down the same humiliating path as Franklin Foer and The New Republic.

Update: Chris Muir weighs in:

12/30 Update: I sent another email to Harper's editors and PR person yesterday, and it seems Editor Roger Hodge and Managing Editor Ellen Rosenbush will be out of the office on holiday until they return until January 2. Here's the "meat" of it:

I ask you yet again to compel Mr. Horton to produce the specific article he claims to have read. I think it a quite reasonable request to have a magazine produce source material for a disputed claim, especially when that claim is neither an anonymous source nor classified information, but what Horton himself claims to be a public print media report.

I ask that you please complete this very simple request by Friday, January 4th, 2008, which seems a very reasonable amount of time to produce the article in question, even considering the holiday season.

We'll see how they respond.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:08 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 1172 words, total size 8 kb.

I thought I'd said all I was going to say about Roger Simon's article in The Politico yesterday afternoon in the comments at Hot Air, but as more comes out about the article, I think it is worthy of a dedicated post.

Simon (not the Roger L.Simon of Pajamas Media with whom I interviewed Fred Thompson in November) put up a post called Fred Thompson: Lazy as charged (bad link earlier, now fixed -ed).

The article was damning—brutal, even—and highlighted what appeared to be a huge gaffe in his bus tour through Waverly, Iowa:

...Thompson rode four blocks to the local fire station. Local fire stations always have captive audiences (unless there is a fire).

Inside, Thompson shook a few hands — there were only about 15 people there — and then Chief Dan McKenzie handed Thompson the chief's fire hat so Thompson could put it on.

Thompson looked at it with a sour expression on his face.

"I've got a silly hat rule," Thompson said.

In point of fact, the "silly" hat was the one Chief McKenzie wore to fires and I am guessing none of the firefighters in attendance considered it particularly silly, but Thompson was not going to put it on. He just stood there holding it and staring at it.

To save the moment, Jeri Thompson took the hat from her husbandÂ’s hands and put it on her head.

"You look cute," Thompson said to her. She did.

Within the context of the rest of the article, Simon's snide editorial reference to the firemen being a "captive audience" would almost go unnoticed.

His description of what happened next, however, used an unambiguously doctored quote. We know this because the events were captured in a video shown at CBS News (click image to watch):

Simon quoted Thompson as stating that "I've got a silly hat rule."

As the CBS video clearly showed, that was only part of Thompson's statement.

What Thompson actually said was, "I've got a silly hat rule that I'm about to violate."

Thompson then takes the Chief's helmet and starts to raise it if he is going to put it on, and then says, while laughing, "I ain't gonna do it... I ain't gonna do it."

At this point Jeri Thompson steps in and Fred puts the helmet on her. Throughout the video, you can hear those assembled laughing, including Chief Dan McKenzie, who handed Thompson the helmet to begin with. McKenzie is shown smiling widely at the end of the clip.

We don't know if the entire Politico article is grossly unfair in the way it characterized Senator Thompson's swing through Waverly, Iowa, but we do know, thanks to the CBS News video, that not only was Simon's editorializing of what occurred in the Waverly Fire Department mischaracterized, but that he doctored a quote to make his article appear all the more damning.

Simon is the Chief Political Columnist for The Politico—one that they tout as one of "Washington's most visible and experienced journalists."— and should know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that doctoring quotes is highly unethical by any journalistic standard.

In their mission statement, The Politico brags about those journalist they would empower:

Today, many of the reporters having the most impact are those whose work carries a unique signature, who add a distinct voice to the public conversation. Their work, in other words, matters more than where they work.

Reporters stand out from the crowd in a number of ways. Some regularly break news before their competitors. Some have a gift for interpretation, for connecting the dots in illuminating ways. Still others stand out through their eloquence and original storytelling.

Politico will promote and celebrate journalists who have a unique signature. That's why we've been able to attract reporters and editors who have worked at such places as Time magazine and The New York Times, National Public Radio, Roll Call and The Hill, Bloomberg News Service, the Philadelphia Inquirer, USA Today and The Washington Post.

There is a difference, however, between voice and advocacy. That's one traditional journalism ideal we fully embrace. There is more need than ever for reporting that presents the news fairly, not through an ideological prism. One of the most distressing features of public life recently has been the demise of shared facts. Warring partisans -- many of whom take their news from sources that cater to and amplify their existing opinions -- live in separate zones of reality. In such a climate, every news story is viewed as either weapon or shield in a nonstop ideological war. Our answer to this will be journalism that insists on the primacy of facts over ideology.

Though a doctored quote and a misrepresentation of events captured on camera, Roger Simon seems to have violated that difference between voice and advocacy that The Politico claims to represent.

It remains to be seen if the senior editorial staff of The Politico will take this clear evidence of journalistic malpractice seriously.

Update: I just sent the following to The Politico via their contact form:

Roger Simon's "Fred Thompson: Lazy as charged" included a doctored quote.

Simon states:

"'I've got a silly hat rule,' Thompson said."

That is factually incorrect.

What Thompson said is "I've got a silly hat rule that I'm about to violate."

Simon left off the entire second half of the quote, which was captured, in full, in the CBS News video that captured the event.

You owe it it your readers to correct the record in Simon's story.

I would ask you further what remedy you feel is worthy for a reporter that doctors quotes.

Thank you.

I've also left voicemail for Chief Dan McKenzie at the Waverly, Iowa Fire Department, asking for his view of what occurred yesterday.

I'd be very interested in seeing what both The Politico and Chief McKenzie have to say, and hope they take the time to respond.

Update: Over at A Second Hand Conjecture, Michael W. notes that this is not the first time that Roger Simon of The Politico may have been caught using partial or non-existent quotes.

If this is indeed the case, it seems a resignation, and not a retraction, is in order from Mr. Simon.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:25 AM | Comments (46) | Add Comment
Post contains 1056 words, total size 7 kb.

Time Magazine has declared Russian strongman Vladimir Putin as their 2007 Person of the Year. It should come as little surprise. Time's award has become increasingly irrelevant over the years, and I say that as a past winner who was equally deserving of the award.

Time selected a man that lorded over a Russian security service that apparently murdered a former intelligence officer Alexander Litvinenko in London and refused to extradite his accused murderer, Andrei Lugovoi, which led to the expulsion of four Russian envoys by the British government in protest. That Putin obliquely compared the United States to Nazi Germany earleir this year also probably scored Putin points among Time's editors.

The fact that Putin's critics in the Russian media tend to wind up dead somehow escaped their glowing review—or perhaps inspired it.

17 Russian journalists have been killed since Putin came to power, 14 of which are described as contract murders. None of the 14 murders have ever been solved, including the murders of three journalists—Marina Pisareva, Konstantin Brovko, and Ivan Safronov—in 2007.

Perhaps Time selected their Person of the Year for 2007 not for political or editorial reasons, but for that most basic human desire... survival.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:20 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 209 words, total size 2 kb.

The difference between the New York Times defense of Associated Press photographer/terrorist suspect Bilal Hussein and the John Edwards love child scandal in The National Enquirer is that there is little reason to suspect that predisposed biases may play a role in the Enquirer story.

The Times coverage of Hussein's incarceration—which like the eerily similar Associated Press coverage before it, skips over the fact that Hussein attempted to hide his identity after being captured, and tries to make the normal workings of the Iraqi justice system appear biased against Hussein—is hardly objective.

But then, we didn't expect it to be.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:43 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 106 words, total size 1 kb.

On Drudge:

There is nothing presently on National Enquirer web site right now, but even if there was... would it matter?

Even if true—and I don't think that it is—Edwards is something of a non-factor as a candidate polling well behind Clinton's 42% and Obama's 26% in the RCP poll average of Democratic candidates with just 13% of the vote.

This is stupid news, and more than likely non-news... pretty much like the Edwards campaign thus far.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:05 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.

Babak Dehghanpisheh has an article posted in Newsweek today that once again shows just how careless the media is in its Iraq reporting in an article called, "The "Body Contractors.'"

The article itself is interesting, in that it notes that both violence is down and that those killing Iraqis are taking greater care to hide the bodies of those they kill. As a result of the recent trend of hiding bodies, mutahid al juthath—body contractors—charges clients between $300-$500 to hunt down missing relatives whether they are alive, or as the title of the article implies, dead.

The problem with Dehghanpisheh's reporting, however, is that he cites as examples of on-going massacres at least one event that simply never took place.

He writes:

In the past two months, more than half a dozen mass graves have been found in Iraq, at least half of them in Baghdad. At one site discovered in late November, in a yard in Baghdad's Saydiya neighborhood, bodies and their severed heads were buried in two separate holes, according to a source at the Ministry of Interior who isn't authorized to speak on the record. An additional 16 bodies were found buried in a ditch north of Baghdad last Thursday.

The 16 bodies "found buried in a ditch north of Baghdad last Thursday" never existed, according to American forces in the area that state:

This appears to false reporting. We currently have no information to confirm this. Neither the Brigade on the ground, or out teams that work with the IA or IPs can confirm this.

It is too much to ask reporters to ask anonymous sources for proof of their claims?

When it comes to reporting the dead in Iraq, apparently so.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:30 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.

A USA Today article earlier this week noted the increasing confirmed or suspected suicides among members of the armed forces, but provided questionable figure for civilian suicides for comparison. The military suicide rate was pushed to USA Today by Senator Patty Murray, (D-WA). Murray was just one of 21 Democrats to vote against the resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq.

According to the USA Today article:

A record number of soldiers — 109 — have killed themselves this year, according to Army statistics showing confirmed or suspected suicides.

The deaths occur as soldiers serve longer combat deployments and the Army spends $100 million on support programs.

...

Those numbers show 77 confirmed suicides Army-wide this year through Nov. 27 and 32 other deaths pending final determination as suicides.

The Army updated those statistics Wednesday, confirming 85 suicides, including 27 in Iraq and four in Afghanistan.

The highest number of Army suicides recorded since 1990 was 102 in 1992 — a period when the service was 20% larger than today.

A total of 109 suicides this year would equal a rate of 18.4 per 100,000, the highest since the Army started counting in 1980. The civilian suicide rate was 11 per 100,000 in 2004, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The discrepancy between military and civilian suicide rates—18.4/100,000 for the military, and 11/100,000 for civilians—is certainly shocking.

But it isn't necessarily accurate in an oranges-to-oranges comparison.

For example, an Associated Press account published today states that the civilian suicide rate for one segment of the population, middle-aged Americans 45-54, has risen dramatically, and that it isn't as far from the military rate as the USA Today article states.

The rate rose by about 20 percent between 1999 and 2004 for U.S. residents ages 45 through 54 — far outpacing increases among younger adults, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported.

In 2004, there were 16.6 completed suicides per 100,000 people in that age group. That's the highest it's been since the CDC started tracking such rates, around 1980. The previous high was 16.5, in 1982.

Experts said they don't know why the suicide rates are rising so dramatically in that age group, but believe it is an unrecognized tragedy.

The general public and government prevention programs tend to focus on suicide among teenagers, and many suicide researchers concentrate on the elderly, said Mark Kaplan, a suicide researcher at Portland State University.

"The middle-aged are often overlooked. These statistics should serve as a wake-up call," Kaplan said.

For a like comparison to be made, one can—and perhaps should— try to compare the military suicide rate against the most demographically-comparable civilian group, and not the entire U.S. population.

When this is done, the CDC figures show that the 2004 age-adjusted suicide rate for civilian men—which would most closely correlate to the mostly male military population—is at 15.2 per 100,000, just 1.4/100,000 different than the military figure. This isn't an oranges-to-oranges comparison with military deaths, but at least we're closer to talking citrus in both instances.

The highest overall suicide rate among the groups studied was among males 65 or older, at 28.9 per 100,000.

For men, getting old seems to be a far greater risk factor for suicide than going to war, but then, I'm not a statistician.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:10 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 554 words, total size 4 kb.

There is one current story in Iraq that has attracted the full attention of the Associated Press, and that is the case of Bilal Hussein, an AP photographer and terrorism suspect. The AP report on Hussein's hearing yesterday leaves out the fact that Hussein was arrested with a known al Qaeda terrorist... one of but many troubling aspects of the news organization's decision to forego objective news reporting in favor of self-serving advocacy in a clear and pervasive conflict of interest.

The Associated Press, as an involved party in this case, should recuse themselves from reporting on Hussein's trial.

According to The Associated Press Statement of News Values and Principles:

In the 21st century, that news is transmitted in more ways than ever before – in print, on the air and on the Web, with words, images, graphics, sounds and video. But always and in all media, we insist on the highest standards of integrity and ethical behavior when we gather and deliver the news.

That means we abhor inaccuracies, carelessness, bias or distortions. It means we will not knowingly introduce false information into material intended for publication or broadcast; nor will we alter photo or image content. Quotations must be accurate, and precise.

It means we always strive to identify all the sources of our information, shielding them with anonymity only when they insist upon it and when they provide vital information – not opinion or speculation; when there is no other way to obtain that information; and when we know the source is knowledgeable and reliable.

It means we don't plagiarize.

It means we avoid behavior or activities that create a conflict of interest and compromise our ability to report the news fairly and accurately, uninfluenced by any person or action.

It means we don't misidentify or misrepresent ourselves to get a story. When we seek an interview, we identify ourselves as AP journalists.

It means we donÂ’t pay newsmakers for interviews, to take their photographs or to film or record them.

It means we must be fair. Whenever we portray someone in a negative light, we must make a real effort to obtain a response from that person. When mistakes are made, they must be corrected – fully, quickly and ungrudgingly.

And ultimately, it means it is the responsibility of every one of us to ensure that these standards are upheld. Any time a question is raised about any aspect of our work, it should be taken seriously.

AP editor Kim Gamel cannot claim to be avoiding bias and a conflict of interest when interviewing AP spokesman Paul Colford about the trial of AP employee Bilal Hussein.

In what alternate universe is it acceptable for a journalist to interview a senior staffer in the same news organization about a fellow employee?

Gamel cannot claim to be objective and retain the ability to "report the news fairly and accurately, uninfluenced by any person or action" when Gamel is reporting upon the Associated Press.

Whether or not Bilal Hussein is guilty of terrorism-related charges is a matter for the Iraqi criminal justice system to decide.

That the Associated Press is in violation of their own stated values and principles is readily apparent.

Just don't expect them to admit it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:02 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 548 words, total size 4 kb.

Dan Riehl points to this gem from a Huffington Post interview with Helen Thomas:

HP:Do you think technology is changing [journalism]? That a good reporter will always find a venue because there are so many media outlets now?

Thomas: No, but I do think it is kind of sad when everybody who owns a laptop thinks they're a journalist and doesn't understand the ethics. We do have to have some sense of what's right and wrong in this job. Of how far we can go. We don't make accusations without absolute proof. We're not prosecutors. We don't assume.

HP: So if there's this amateur league of journalists out there, trying to do what you do...

Thomas: It's dangerous.

To a certain extent, I agree with Thomas that blogging is dangerous... for journalists. The gatekeeper isn't dead, but he is ailing.

Blogging software now makes it easy for subject matter experts and enthusiasts to provide the insights and critical review that most journalists simply don't have the background to report thoroughly, or accurately.

I'd hasten to add that this isn't always the fault of journalists. Many if not most journalists are generalists, who may be assigned to whatever the "hot" story of the day may be, across a wide range of topics. We've less tolerance for the siloed journalists who cover a specific beat and refuse to become subject matter experts in the area that they are assigned.

But no matter where journalists come from, must are always still primarily journalists, with a communications/journalism background, and they simply cannot compile the depth or breadth of knowledge that someone who has the academic and practical professional experience that many bloggers have developed.

It is for these reasons that science blogs, milblogs, tech blogs and law blogs almost always have better commentary than the journalists merely assigned to cover the same areas, even though these bloggers will rarely break as many new news stories. Where bloggers typically excel is with providing content and corrections to news stories that journalist simply don't have the expertise to give.

Now, it is a fair criticism that with tens of millions of blogs that many, if not most of them, are junk. It is a fair assessment that most blogs merely exist to echo opinions, but provide very little in the way of news in their content. But it is equally true that in blogging the cream rises to the top. What we increasing find in journalism, however, is that what floats to the top assuredly isn't cream.

Bloggers have removed the mystique of the profession of journalism. It isn't rocket science.

It never was.

Though taught on the undergraduate and graduate level, some of the best journalists lack a college degree. Good reporting is craft or a trade reliant on a thirst for knowledge, dilligence, insight, ethics, and an ability to communicate—personality traits that no journalism school in the country can provide. The best a journalism program can do is polish the skills and technique of someone who already has these traits, but specific pedigrees are irrelevant when it comes the long-term quality of the work. A degree from Columbia may get your foot in the newsroom, but it won't keep you there. The quality of your work determines your future... or should.

I can think of a half dozen bloggers covering politics that have done more original reporting than Helen Thomas over the past few years and certainly deserve a seat in the White House Press Corps more than Thomas, who only seem to exist now as an irritant for the White House Press office, and as an amusement for her peers.

In the end perhaps it is her own current irrelevance that makes Thomas regard bloggers as dangerous, as a new breed of information providers devours the old.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:01 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 640 words, total size 4 kb.

This time, W. Thomas Smith, Jr., a former Marine writing at NRO blog The Tank.

On Friday, Smith admitted that he:

• turned two AK-pattern rifles he witnessed in a tent city into "200-plus heavily armed Hezbollah militiamen," and then;
• turned a tip from an informant and men he saw at intersections with radios into "between 4,000 and 5,000 HezB gunmen deployed to the Christian areas of Beirut in an unsettling 'show of force,' positioning themselves at road intersections and other key points throughout the city."

Shortly after Smith posted his comments, NRO editor Kathryn Jean Lopez posted a comment of her own, stating in part:

Bottom line: NRO strives to bring you reliable analysis and reporting — whether in presenting articles, essays, or blog posts. Smith did commendable work in Lebanon earlier this year, as he does from S.C. where he is based, as he has done from Iraq, where he has been twice. But rereading some of the posts (see "The Tank" for more detail) and after doing a thorough investigation of some of the points made in some of those posts, I've come to the conclusion that NRO should have provided readers with more context and caveats in some posts from Lebanon this fall. And so I apologize to you, our readers.

It is good that Lopez and Smith admitted to these falsehoods without prompting, but I do not think that adding "context and caveats" to Smith's comments would have been enough to justify them.

At the very least, Smith has earned a suspension from NRO, but considering the magnitude of his fabrications, termination seems warranted.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:20 PM | Comments (33) | Add Comment
Post contains 270 words, total size 2 kb.

Hala Jaber's American-backed killer militias strut across Iraq has been challenged by an American soldier on the ground.

1LT Brendan Griswold, 1-5 CAV in Ameriyah writes:

I do not know how long Ms. Hala Jaber's trip to Ameriya lasted or where exactly she visited inside the city, but the events that she describes in her recent article ("American-backed killer militias strut across Iraq," November 25), totally contradict the progress I have personally witnessed in the past 13 months here in Ameriya.

I have spent the last 13 months as a Platoon Leader in the 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, stationed in western Baghdad and responsible for securing the population of Ameriya—a Sunni dominant and once-upscale portion of the Iraqi capital. My time here has allowed me to become close to many of the citizens inside Ameriya who live in my various areas of responsibility. Having been fortunate enough to remain in one area throughout my deployment, the relationships I have formed with many of the local citizens have allowed me to become very aware of what exactly they have been through, as well as the opportunity to celebrate with them—literally—the peace that has returned to this once violent area.

When 1-5 CAV first arrived in Ameriya in 2006, innocent Iraqis lying dead on the street were a daily reminder of the sectarian violence that was engulfing Baghdad. Attacks against American and Iraqi Army patrols were a daily occurrence—as the deaths of 14 of my comrades can attest to. The markets were often deserted, locals refused to talk to American or Iraqi forces in public; the people were terrified.

In the Spring and Summer of 2007, a determined force of al Qaeda in Iraq fighters entered Ameriya and began to terrorize the population. The process was slow, but eventually it became clear that al Qaeda was enforcing their extremist ideologies on the population. Ultimately, they publicly declared Ameriya as their capital. Government buildings were being blown-up. Women were being murdered. We were in a daily fight for each city-block in our area, and there seemed little end in sight to the daily conflict. Ameriya, as one of my experienced Soldiers proclaimed at the time, had quickly become "the next Falluja." We did not, however, approach the situation in Ameriya as American forces had done with cities like Falluja.

Then, in late May, several dozen or so local citizens came forward and announced that they were going to fight the al Qaeda elements in Ameriya. My battalion, along with these local volunteers, established a base of operations at one of the local mosques and we began to target al Qaeda in the surrounding muhullahs. I remember spending long days and late nights at the mosque, working with these local citizens—most of whom had lived in Ameriya all of their lives—gathering intelligence from them, planning operations, and then moving out together and trying to capture al Qaeda fighters. One week's worth of operations with these local citizens yielded more results (multiple caches, detainees, etc.) for my platoon then the previous 7 months combined. Put quite simply, we began to see progress.

Since May, 1-5 CAV and the 2/1/6 Iraqi Army have worked with these local volunteers and helped to transform them from a few dozen local volunteers to what is now a legitimate contracted security force called the "Forsan al Rafidayn,"—"Knights of the Two Rivers," in English—or "FAR" as we Yankees call them. They are currently placed in various locations throughout Ameriya and are responsible for conducting policing operations and gathering intelligence. I have not witnessed any FAR members wearing masks in months. They are very effective, as Ameriya has not had an IED attack since August 7th and no type of effective small arms attack in an even longer time. Shi'ites who fled more than a year ago are returning in large numbers—often, with the FAR's help.

Ms. Jaber's assertion that some of the FAR had "been aligned with al Qaeda" is correct, however, to make this statement while further implying they have "created a virtual enclave" in Ameriya is to suggest that the members of the FAR continue to practice and advance al Qaeda's insurgent and ethno-sectarian agenda. The truth is that, like in every successful counter-insurgency, the citizens of Ameriya, and yes even some of the terrorists, decided they had enough of the violence and that it was time to work with, instead of against, Coalition Forces. While many people, including myself and most of my Soldiers, were at first apprehensive about working with these forces, we eventually realized that what occurred is what we had hoped for the entire time—the people grew tired of the violence and wanted to help the security forces rid the area of the enemy.

In her article, Ms. Jaber describes a visit to a local school with members of the FAR, where they "slapped" and "kicked" local students for having "un-Islamic ringtones" on their cell phones. I do not know which school Ms. Jaber went to (and I doubt she could recall the name of the school, or the name of the FAR member who committed the alleged offense), but from the experiences I have had conducting hundreds of patrols with the FAR, I can tell you that the likelihood of this happening is small, and, if it did, then it was the exception and certainly not the rule.

The FAR are not perfect, but neither is any security organization. When a complaint is received against a member of the FAR, a U.S. Army officer, as well as a member of the FAR, both conduct independent investigations. My Battalion Commander possesses the authority to terminate any member of the FAR who violates their signed-contract that bars them from participating in criminal acts. To date, several FAR members have been fired as a result of their misconduct, the majority of which have been done so not by U.S. officers, but by the members of the FAR themselves. They are policing their own ranks more each day.

Furthermore, Ms. Jaber’s "tag-a-long" imbedded journey through the streets of Ameriya—that lasted a very short time—was obviously predicated on a pessimistic agenda regarding the overall situation in Iraq. While she did in fact run into a young non-commissioned officer of the battalion eating a falafel on the main street in Ameriya—an event that simply could not have occurred six months ago—she also met the Battalion's Executive Officer, who at the time was escorting several other journalists on a dismounted patrol through Ameriya. Ms. Jaber was asked at that time if she wished to meet the leaders of 1-5 CAV, 2/1/6 IA, or the FAR in order to gain an understanding of how these security officials view the situation in Ameriya. Replying in the negative, she opted instead for an escort around Ameriya by several young members of the FAR, who, while committed to protecting the local population, are young, energetic, and eager to display their bravado to all who will pay attention. Ms. Jaber has been contacted by 1-5 CAV since her visit to Ameriya and continues to decline an opportunity to hear a different side of the story of Ameriya.

I invite Ms. Jaber to return to Ameriya. If she does, I will personally introduce her to some of my Iraqi friends who lived through the sectarian violence, the invasion of al Qaeda, and what will hopefully become, as the locals have begun to call it, "the re-birth of Ameriya."

Which account you find more credible, of course, may depend on your own biases.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:43 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1264 words, total size 8 kb.