Have you noticed lately that mainstream media are giving less attention to the war in Iraq, especially concerning our troops progress?
CNSNews recently reported that, "There were only two front page New York Times stories that mentioned "Iraq" in the headline in October 2008 – there were 11 in October 2006 and 17 in October 2004. … The Washington Post ran four front-page stories that had headlines using the word "Iraq" in October 2008 – in October 2006 there were 17 stories, and 27 stories in October 2004." (Was it coincidental timing that, when George Bush was up for re-election in 2004, there were record numbers of [negative] war stories?)
One can partially point the finger at the economy or election coverage as reasons for the reduction of Iraq war articles. But I believe those issues were used more as justifications for the liberal media's intentional neglect to report U.S. Middle East military progress. Who doesn't recognize that we live in a time in which there's little if no publishing space for positive military stories about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars?
Case in point: In July the London Times ran a column that commended American and Iraqi forces in making significant progress in Mosul and reaching the "final purge" of al-Qaida in Iraq. Investor's Business Daily echoed the same sentiment and story, but sharply criticized American mainstream media for completely overlooking that military success and coverage. The media indictment become so widespread on the Internet that it left the global audience wondering if such an oversight wasn't also an urban legend.
Truth Or Fiction, an urban legend debunking website like Snopes, affirmed this glaring media Mosul omission by saying, "At the time of our investigation, U.S. media reports of this were hard to find but we did manage to find a report of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's announcement on the Fox News site. For the most part, it appears the mainstream media missed this one."
TRENDING: America's most dangerous demographic
Of course no mainstream media is going to admit to news oversight. So what's the truth about progress in Mosul and al-Qaida eradication in Iraq? Did American media intentionally fail to report victorious progress in Mosul? Or was there actually none to report? Is English reporting overly optimistic about the war? Is the London Times guilty of conveying hyperbole in tabloid style?
When I did my own research, I discovered the London Times was correct in its assessment of American media bias toward progress in war. In fact, I had to go outside of mainstream media sources to acquire any information about any progress in Mosul, which was much greater and more controlled than the chaotic battlefield being conveyed by most American media. Here's what senior U.S. military officers in Mosul have testified to.
Mosul is pivotal to Iraq's success, not only because it is the third largest city in the country with more than two million people, but because it is in relative proximity to the borders of Iran, Turkey and Syria. For centuries is has served as a transit depot for smugglers, trade, contraband and insurgents. That is why Lt. Col. Robert Molinari, executive officer of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment in Mosul, recently reported, "Al-Qaida looks to Mosul as a gateway to Iraq. … It is not as such the last stand of al-Qaida. It's a last stand to maintain their lines of communication, thus their viability to conduct operations in Iraq."
During the surge in 2007 and early 2008 the U.S. forces intensified efforts in Mosul by pushing out into small neighborhood bases – a strategy that proved successful in routing insurgents in other large cities in the country. In particular, the 3rd Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment was appointed to root out this last stronghold of al-Qaida operatives.
In February 2008, Col. Michael A. Bills, commander of 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, predicted that U.S. and Iraqi troops would be in full control of the city by the end of July.
By March 2008, Brig. Gen. Tony Thomas, No. 2 in charge of coalition forces in northern Iraq was already reporting, "So again, we can go anywhere we want to in Mosul, some areas, and we're now forcing the enemy, boxing them in, if you will, into areas, that they otherwise had free play in the city. So we've seized the initiative, and we're slowly but surely eliminating their toehold in the city."
By mid-June of 2008 this city of two million people had 14 Iraqi army battalions, 10,000 Iraqi police and 4,000 coalition force soldiers. And they were utilizing the "sons of Iraq" (paid volunteers by the U.S.) to better control neighborhoods. And it was working.
Despite July 2008 seeing increases in insurgent activity, Lt. Col. Molinari reported that it was really "nothing out of the norm." Brig. Gen. Abdullah Abdul, a senior Iraqi commander, added, "We've limited their movements with check-points. They are doing small attacks and trying big ones, but they're mostly not succeeding." American and Iraqi forces were clearly getting the upper hand, demonstrated then through the record dip in the number of U.S. casualties to their lowest numbers since the start of the war – 11 deaths in the entire country.
There has also been decline in overall attacks in Mosul and Ninewa, from 50 a day at the start of the year to the present amount of 10 a day – like in 2006. Open street fighting is a rarity. That is why, despite recent uprisings, Maj. Ra'ad Jalal, an Iraqi officer, said, "The security situation in Mosul is improving. It's safe here now, I'd be happy to come here even without all of this protection."
Unfortunately, instead of reporting any of this progress being made in Mosul, mainstream American media chose to completely ignore it, favoring the repeated jabs by Democrat presidential nominees and congressmen about the unfounded grounds of the war.
Compare the preceding positive Mosul news with the news recently highlighted by mainstream printed media. Lead statements say it all: "…thousands of Christians fled this northern Iraqi city in terror," "Iraq: bombs kill more than 30 in Baghdad, Mosul", "Car bomb explodes in Mosul, killing 2," "Battle for Iraq's 3rd city hangs in the balance" and "2 Americans Killed in Attack on Their Patrol in Iraq." CNN cited Mosul as "still a hotbed of insurgent activity." And the Associated Press says that Mosul is "now Iraq's deadliest city."
No one, least of all me, is implying all is well in Mosul. The city continues to endure 75 percent unemployment rates, due largely to the lack of Iraqi restructuring funds being released to the region of Nineveh, of which Mosul is the capital. Economic hardships have prompted some to turn to insurgency to support their families. Moreover, the American commander in northern Iraq, Maj. Gen. Mark Hertling, reported in October at the Pentagon, "There is still a desire by al-Qaida and other extremist groups to hold on to key areas. We have seen that most of all in Mosul." Still, Maj. Gen. Hertling recently took a three-mile walk through western Mosul – such a trot through such volatile neighborhoods by a division commander would have been unheard of even a few months ago.
I've been sadly amazed (and gravely amused) how often progress in war is played out not on the battlefield but in the back rooms of news broadcasting studios. It reminds me of when I was in Iraq in September of 2007, toured 17 bases, sat in Intel briefings and listened to many officers across the country detail progress since I had been there the year before. It was clear to me even back then that the surge was working, but at the time no one was talking about the successes in war (except John McCain). From Fallujah, I reported to WorldNetDaily the positive news that "the surge is working." When that feedback hit the press, I was immediately mocked by other media outlets for saying so. Even Jay Leno on his Tonight Show said, "Chuck Norris is over in Iraq visiting the troops. Today, Chuck said the troop surge is working. Keep in mind, this is the same guy that said the whole Total Gym thing works, too. So, I don't know." Of course, such jokes would fall flat now, because everyone knows the surge has worked.
On the eve of another Pearl Harbor anniversary (Dec. 7), and in a Christmas season when the sacrifice of our troops is accentuated by their absence from loved ones, it's fitting to honor not overlook those who fight for freedom. Encourage others this week to do the same. Find ways to commemorate their courage and commitment. Admonish others to watch positive and honorable tributes to our service men and women, like those on the Military Channel and those created by Director Mike Slee of Zaragoza Pictures, a documentary filmmaker whose mission is also to capture the progress of our troops – including those in Mosul.
The fact is, American coalition forces have reduced al-Qaida from 12,000 to 1,200 in Iraq, cornered them in Mosul and are successfully gaining the upper hand on their remaining strongholds. That is why Gen. James Conway, the head of the Marine Corps and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, summarized, "Iraq is now a rear-guard action on the part of al Qaeda." In fact, he says that security is so good around the country that for the first time it "smells like victory," adding that next year as many as 20,000 Marines currently deployed will return home.
It will happen just in time for President-elect Obama to withdraw our troops – and he is likely to get the credit as the commander in chief who not only brought our troops home but brought victory in Iraq. Now there's a 2009 news story that America's mainstream media will be guaranteed to run over and over.
(For the month of December, Chuck is giving away a free chapter from his New York Times' best seller, "Black Belt Patriotism." To obtain yours, go to ChuckNorrisNewBook.com. "Black Belt Patriotism" makes a great Christmas gift!)