http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/31/AR2008053101927.html

The Iraqi Upturn
Don't look now, but the U.S.-backed government and army may be winning the war.

THERE'S BEEN a relative lull in news coverage and debate about Iraq in recent weeks -- which is odd, because May could turn out to have been one of the most important months of the war. While Washington's attention has been fixed elsewhere, military analysts have watched with astonishment as the Iraqi government and army have gained control for the first time of the port city of Basra and the sprawling Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, routing the Shiite militias that have ruled them for years and sending key militants scurrying to Iran. At the same time, Iraqi and U.S. forces have pushed forward with a long-promised offensive in Mosul, the last urban refuge of al-Qaeda. So many of its leaders have now been captured or killed that U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, renowned for his cautious assessments, said that the terrorists have "never been closer to defeat than they are now."


Iraq passed a turning point last fall when the U.S. counterinsurgency campaign launched in early 2007 produced a dramatic drop in violence and quelled the incipient sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites. Now, another tipping point may be near, one that sees the Iraqi government and army restoring order in almost all of the country, dispersing both rival militias and the Iranian-trained "special groups" that have used them as cover to wage war against Americans. It is -- of course -- too early to celebrate; though now in disarray, the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr could still regroup, and Iran will almost certainly seek to stir up new violence before the U.S. and Iraqi elections this fall. Still, the rapidly improving conditions should allow U.S. commanders to make some welcome adjustments -- and it ought to mandate an already-overdue rethinking by the "this-war-is-lost" caucus in Washington, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

Gen. David H. Petraeus signaled one adjustment in recent testimony to Congress, saying that he would probably recommend troop reductions in the fall going beyond the ongoing pullback of the five "surge" brigades deployed last year. Gen. Petraeus pointed out that attacks in Iraq hit a four-year low in mid-May and that Iraqi forces were finally taking the lead in combat and on multiple fronts at once -- something that was inconceivable a year ago. As a result the Iraqi government of Nouri al-Maliki now has "unparalleled" public support, as Gen. Petraeus put it, and U.S. casualties are dropping sharply. Eighteen American soldiers died in May, the lowest total of the war and an 86 percent drop from the 126 who died in May 2007.

If the positive trends continue, proponents of withdrawing most U.S. troops, such as Mr. Obama, might be able to responsibly carry out further pullouts next year. Still, the likely Democratic nominee needs a plan for Iraq based on sustaining an improving situation, rather than abandoning a failed enterprise. That will mean tying withdrawals to the evolution of the Iraqi army and government, rather than an arbitrary timetable; Iraq's 2009 elections will be crucial. It also should mean providing enough troops and air power to continue backing up Iraqi army operations such as those in Basra and Sadr City. When Mr. Obama floated his strategy for Iraq last year, the United States appeared doomed to defeat. Now he needs a plan for success.





Related
What the GIs Deserve
POLITICAL PROMISES are easy to make, harder to keep. So it is a testament to the tenacity of Sen. James Webb (D-Va.) and the justice of his cause that Congress has enacted a new GI Bill for war veterans. The freshman senator's ability to work across party lines means that the men and women who risk...
Bias in High PlacesMillionaires Win
placeholder
» Related Topics & Web Content

People who read this also read …
Lewis takes the lead in her first pro start

Political Maneuvers Delay Bill After Bill in Senate

Dana Milbank - When Anonymity Fails, Be Nasty, Brutish and Short

If at first you dont succeed make a duplicate!!

Just another source, there are plenty if you look for positive truths. You berated my last source. Want another?

The demands of real-time television, Iraqi restrictions on reporters in Baghdad and the difficulty of getting to the front line are conspiring to make it virtually impossible for journalists to cover the war properly, the award-winning war correspondent Janine di Giovanni has warned.

Di Giovanni, who was reporting for the Times in Baghdad until editor Robert Thomson ordered her to leave the city last week, said viewers and readers had "no idea" how difficult the war in Iraq has been from a journalist's perspective.

"The story, for a reporter, is in one of two places: in Baghdad, which it is almost impossible to get to now, or in the southern desert with the marines. To be there, however, reporters had to "embed" with the Pentagon months ago.

"Most experienced war reporters balked at the notion of being so controlled and having to obey a 12-page booklet put forth by the American war machine," she wrote in today's Times.

Many of Britain's most experienced reporters - including the BBC's John Simpson, Fergal Keane and Allan Little - are marooned on borders they had thought would open up, but which are now far away from the action, she added.

"Reporters are pulling out their hair with boredom in Kurdistan; there's a real war in the western desert on the Jordanian-Iraq border, but no one can get to it; and on the border of Kuwait most of the press corps are miserably camping out in their cars, unable to get into the desert."

Di Giovanni said the risks for so-called "unilaterals" - journalists operating independently of the allied troops - are huge, as the death last weekend of the ITN reporter Terry Lloyd showed.

She revealed that coalition forces had received dozens of calls from journalists travelling alone in the desert who had come under fire.

Di Giovanni also admitted the demands of 24-hour television news sometimes meant mistakes were made.

"Most journalists simply don't have time to gather enough information before presenters sitting in cosy London studios throw irritating questions at them which they often cannot answer.

"As a result mistakes are made: Umm Qasr declared secure before it actually was controlled, the uprisings in Basra not yet proven to be true."

The BBC director of news, Richard Sambrook, yesterday admitted it was proving difficult for correspondents in Iraq to distinguish the truth from false reports, after a series of media claims about the progress of coalition forces turned out to be premature.

BBC presenters have now been told to use a standard phrase when introducing reporters in the Gulf, making clear they are operating under restrictions

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/mar/27/pressandpublishing.Iraqandthemedia

BAGHDAD — Roadside bombs killed four U.S. soldiers in northern Iraq, the military said Wednesday, in a spike of violence that pushed to at least 10 the number of Americans who have died here this week.

In the latest attack, one soldier was killed by an explosively formed penetrator, or EFP, about 9 a.m. Wednesday in the predominantly Shiite eastern half of Baghdad, the military said. The armor piercing bombs are believed to come from Iran and have been used by Shiite extremists to kill hundreds of American forces.

The U.S. military said three other U.S. soldiers and an Iraqi interpreter were killed late Tuesday by a roadside bomb in the northern Ninevah province, where al-Qaida in Iraq and other Sunni extremist groups remain active.

The four U.S. fatalities brought the monthly death toll for American troops in Iraq to at least 26 _ well below figures of last year but an increase over the 19 who died in May, the lowest monthly tally of the war.

In all, at least 4,110 U.S. military service members have died in the Iraq war since it began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

The U.S. military says violence in Iraq has dropped to its lowest level in more than four years, but attacks are continuing as Sunni and Shiite extremists try to regroup and undermine security gains.

"The level of violence has dropped dramatically," said Lt. Col. Steve Stover, spokesman for the U.S. command in Baghdad. "It has gotten quieter. But that doesn't make these losses any easier."



Reality!!!

Let the Mahdi militia end their cease fire in the Iraqi Civil War and violence will return to the levels seen before the cease fire. The Bush Administration is too willing to take credit for the drop in violence as a success of the Surge.
The reality is that the drop in violence coincides and is directly linked to the cease fire called by Sadr! Common sense and a free mind will tell you that!


Works for me!!!

Just goes to show how many Neocon reporters have an opinion!
Doesnt make them anymore right!

you might want to check the date from one of your post articles -2003
media/2003

Why do you think they suddenly started allowing more access to reporters with fewer restrictions?
I dont think the date is relevant in this case other than they have possibly gotten more restrictive.
I know the AP chief was just complaining a month ago about US forces arresting and jailing their photographers!
Maybe I should post that article here too!

Nothing is far from suddenly than 2003.

9-11-2006

The U.S. military in Iraq has imprisoned an Associated Press photographer for five months, accusing him of being a security threat but never filing charges or permitting a public hearing.

Military officials said Bilal Hussein, an Iraqi citizen, was being held for "imperative reasons of security" under United Nations resolutions. AP executives said the news cooperative's review of Hussein's work did not find anything to indicate inappropriate contact with insurgents, and any evidence against him should be brought to the Iraqi criminal justice system.

Hussein, 35, is a native of Fallujah who began work for the AP in September 2004. He photographed events in Fallujah and Ramadi until he was detained on April 12 of this year.

"We want the rule of law to prevail. He either needs to be charged or released. Indefinite detention is not acceptable," said Tom Curley, AP's president and chief executive officer. "We've come to the conclusion that this is unacceptable under Iraqi law, or Geneva Conventions, or any military procedure."

Hussein is one of an estimated 14,000 people detained by the U.S. military worldwide — 13,000 of them in Iraq. They are held in limbo where few are ever charged with a specific crime or given a chance before any court or tribunal to argue for their freedom.

In Hussein's case, the military has not provided any concrete evidence to back up the vague allegations they have raised about him, Curley and other AP executives said.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-09-17-photographer-detained_x.htm

Its a long article so of course I didnt post it all!
Later he was released after the AP Chief made a big commotion about it!
If you think conditions have changed for reporters in Iraq please !!!!

WASHINGTON – Sylvia Smith, president of the National Press Club, saluted the announcement Monday that the U.S. military will release AP photographer Bilal Hussein this week after more than two years in custody in Iraq.

"Journalists who risk their lives to report in dangerous areas of the world, particularly war zones, are the bravest members of our profession. Democracy can’t function without accurate information about the actions of the government," she said.

"On behalf of the 3,700 members of the National Press Club, I commend the U.S. military for agreeing to release Hussein," she said.

Hussein has been in custody for more than two years. Last week a judicial committee in Baghdad ordered his release, and on Sunday a panel dismissed the remaining criminal allegation against him and ordered his release.

http://press.org/activities/pressfreedom.cfm

765 days????

My lord and a flat bed ford henry!!!

This sometimes happens in the US too. The innocent get accused of wrongdoing. But that is not the norm. It sounds like to me your are implying this case to all reporters. Remember' there is a war going on......

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/medindex.htm

Media Coverage of Iraq
This section looks at mass media coverage of the Iraq war and occupation, especially how the big US-based media companies fed the public sensational, pro-war news reports. During the war, most journalists were "embedded" with US military units, giving them a very one-sided picture of the conflict and ruling out even-handed reporting. Other journalists who decided to go "free-lance" came under attack by the US military and two popular Arab television offices were directly bombed by the US air force. Post-war reports on Iraq by the big media companies have continued in an uncritical vein, with positive reports about the occupation and negative coverage of Iraqi opposition.

They had arrested almost every AP Photographer in Iraq at one time! I can find more!!

US Military Blocks Soldiers' Access
to Blogs, Popular Social Sites
By Naomi Spencer
May 21, 2007
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/medindex.htm



The US Department of Defense issued regulations April 19 severely curtailing the use of the Internet by military personnel, contractors, and their families. As of May 14, the Pentagon has blocked use of public weblogs, forums, video hosting and social sites on military-run networks, citing bandwidth limits and security. Blocked from military networks is the enormously popular social networking site MySpace, which many deployed soldiers used to keep in touch with family and friends. Also blocked is the video-sharing site YouTube, where soldiers had been uploading unauthorized original footage of combat, other troop activity, and daily life in Iraq.

In addition, 11 other sites frequented by troops have been blocked, including the video sites ifilm, FileCabi, and Metacafe; photo-sharing site Photobucket; Internet music and broadcasting sites Live365, MTV, Pandora, 1.fm; and the social sites BlackPlanet and hi5. Defense officials are increasingly concerned about the growth of anti-war sentiment within the military, as well as the possibility that atrocities committed by US troops may be exposed. As public outrage at the leaked photographs of prisoner abuse from Abu Ghraib demonstrated, the US administration and military leaders have every reason to want control over what information comes out of occupied Iraq.

In addition, the Army revised its Operations Security (OPSEC) regulations to curb information from military operations. The OPSEC regulations (available in pdf via Wired News) present the social networking access primarily as a security rather than technological issue. "In recent years," the document states, "the Internet has become an ever-greater source of open source information for adversaries of the US, websites in particular, especially personal websites of individual Soldiers (to include web logs or "blogs"), are a potentially significant vulnerability."

In seeking to justify curtailing blog activity, the document sounds an ominous tone for civilian as well as military information flows. "Because the US is a free and open society, information is readily available and easy to access. Adversaries are exploiting this vulnerability by aggressively reading open source and unclassified material about the US Army." Open source material, the regulations explain, make up "80 percent of the adversary's intelligence needs" and includes "photographs, newspapers, magazine advertisements, government and trade publications, contract specifications, congressional hearings, computers and other public media."

It also includes "public presentations, news releases from units or installations, organizational newsletters (both for official organizations and unofficial organizations, such as alumni or spouse support groups), and direct observation." In other words, every public statement about the war is potential intelligence for Al Qaeda, according to the military. The restrictions are far more sweeping than the military-wide blocking of public websites. Under the Army regulations, soldiers are required to consult with their immediate supervisors and OPSEC officers prior to publishing or posting any information in a forum, any website, or in articles, e-mails, blogs, and even written letters. Material considered sensitive or critical includes information about troop casualties, battle scenes and Improvised Explosive Device (IED) strikes, and details about military outposts.

This regulation applies not only to "military and civilian personnel of the Active Army, the Army National Guard of the United States/Army National Guard, the United States Army Reserve and related activities of those organizations," but also to civilian contractors and family members back in the United States. Family members are expected to follow the regulations as well, to "protect critical and sensitive information." Soldiers who publish material deemed "critical" or "sensitive" to security will be subject to military discipline, including court martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. For contractors and, potentially, family members, whom the military defines as part of the "Total Army," "Personnel not subject to the UCMJ who fail to protect critical and sensitive information from unauthorized disclosure may be subject to administrative, disciplinary, contractual, or criminal action."

Military spokespersons, downplaying the severity of these restrictions, have insisted the website blocks are not a form of censorship but rather a matter of freeing up the network from what they characterized as "recreational traffic." At a press conference May 17, the Washington Post reported, the vice director of the Defense Information Systems Agency, Rear Admiral Elizabeth Hight, told reporters that the military "cannot accommodate the growth in bandwidth demands from these newer technologies." Asked whether the bandwidth had been compromised before, she commented that the block was "proactive."

The official talking points are bogus on a number of levels. Most obvious are the exceptions the military makes for higher-ranking officials, who may request exemptions from the policy. Secondly, the military runs ads on the social networking and video sites in order to draw in recruits. According to Rear Admiral Hight, recruiters have already been granted a waiver from the block. Moreover, only days before the block policy was drafted, the Pentagon launched its own Multi-National Force Iraq channel on YouTube, which purports to "give viewers around the world a 'boots on the ground' perspective of Operation Iraqi Freedom from those who are fighting it," while editing videos for "time, security reasons, and/or overly disturbing or offensive images."

Material withheld or edited out includes "profanity; sexual content; overly graphic, disturbing or offensive material;" and "footage that mocks Coalition Forces, Iraqi Security Forces or the citizens of Iraq." The Google corporation subsidiary YouTube, which already voluntarily removes graphic footage of violence committed against or by US troops, has announced that it will work with the military to be exempted from the block. Also this month, the Iraqi government implemented a ban on the filming of bombing scenes by news photographers and camera operators. Effectively, unauthorized videos uploaded to Internet sites could become the only way such events become known to the public.

Military officials have said that troops are still allowed to access the blocked sites on outside networks if they have personal computers or are able to visit Internet cafes. But in many areas where US military personnel are stationed, connections outside of Defense Department networks are scarce or nonexistent, and personnel stationed on ships or otherwise physically remote areas cannot regularly reach other networks. In some regions of Iraq, troops may access the sites at Internet cafes hosted by a non-governmental vendor.

With regard to the claim that bandwidth faces overuse, there are longstanding Internet mechanisms, known as Quality of Service guarantees, which can automatically prioritize the type and size of data flows in order to optimize the efficiency of traffic on a limited network. The Department of Defense, which maintains more than 15,000 networks accommodating 5 million computers, could easily implement a system whereby data requests such as video uploads would receive lower priority on the networks.

In reality, the military has long been concerned by the flow of unauthorized material on the Internet and is taking this "proactive" step in preparation for popular backlash and escalation of the war. Over the past decade, numerous steps have been taken by the Pentagon to control information at its source, particularly in Middle East operations, such as attaching public affairs officers to units and carefully vetting troops who appear with visiting politicians. The Pentagon has also managed media coverage by "embedding" journalists who agree to abide by military guidelines. But even the number of embedded journalists has been drastically cut over the past four years, from 770 at the time of invasion to nine as of September 2006. Four of the remaining nine are part of the Defense Department's own media outlets, Stars and Stripes and Armed Forces Network.

In 2005, commanders in Iraq told military personnel who kept blogs that they had to register their sites with their superior officers. The Army imposed additional restrictions on bloggers later that year by ordering that soldiers be granted approval from their commanders before posting. The following year, an order from the Joint Chiefs and Secretary of Defense stated that no information could be placed on any website prior to approval by Public Affairs officers. Last October, the Army announced it had assembled a "Web Risk Assessment Cell" for the purpose of further monitoring soldiers' blogs, post-commander approval. Not surprisingly, the number of soldier-administrated blogs and online journals dropped significantly as a result of the regulations, particularly those presenting a critical or negative perspective on the Bush administration and the war. .

My question is why wait until 4 1/2 years into the war to do this if it was done as a security concern?

Let's say that the security situation has improved so much that they can now how more freedom without the troops having to fight a war and look after some damn reporter looking to report only the blood and gore. As a similar example look how the reporters in this country hound Hollywood people - if they can't stick the camera in somebodys nose they use a spy satellite to photograph and try to shock the world about what they are doing in their private life. Bet the ones in Iraq are aggressive too while demanding protection.

Let's put a reporter in every police car for awhile and see how the police departments put up with that. I can tell you it wouldn't last very long. And it would interfere with police doing their job.

Fanta's idea is to drown the thread by posting anything he can find, anywhere, to take over. Not wanting dissenting opinions to be heard that counteract his own position that he will not sway from despite evidence that will show fallicies in staying so strict to it.