Joe Galloway isn’t the point. I’m a big fan of Joe Galloway. The point of the article was to show that individual journalists embedded with units tend to see the entire campaign based on what’s happening to that unit. Hence you had all these reporters incorrectly assessing the situation during the operational pause and sandstorms during OIF. They incorrectly perceived the offensive to be failing by extrapolation. Meanwhile, the guy who was embedded up at the operational level had the whole picture. This is human nature and happens all the time. I’m just surprised that so many journalists keep falling into this type of bias.

Doma,

Backing away from who said what, and looking at Iraq as a whole, not just Anbar, I can’t help but conclude that the sictuation is precarious, and potentially volatile.

Yes, and I’ve never claimed otherwise.

To talk of the potential reemergence of death squads is no more fantastical than to dismiss the possiblity.

You’re right, (as I said in my previous comment) unfortunately, that’s not what this post is saying! This post is not only saying that the Anbar tribes could become future deaths squads but that they’d be supported by USA – in fact the post practically suggests its inevitable!

As I said before, there are elements in Iraq who’ve done and could in the future do the death squad thing (most of them have actually be AQI), but you won’t find Anbari bedouins among them. That’s not the vast majority tribes do things – it’s not in their nature. Additionally, our military is not stupid. The teams working with these tribes know the deals and dangers much better than any of us chairborne rangers here. We’re not giving these tribes a huge military capability – only assisting them in what many were already doing – defending themselves from AQI.

Now, if, as you seem to suggest, we are supposed to consider every possibility, no matter how fantastical, then yes, it’s POSSIBLE the Anbar tribes could leave their lands, head to Baghdad to murder them some Shia’s. Of course, by the same token, I could become an astronaut.

Even in Anbar, it’s a question of how long the locals will remain happy with US presence. In general, foreign boots on their soil are not greeted with glee.

Yeah, and that will suddenly turn them into US-supported death squads? Uh, no.

I think what someone chooses to emphasize depends a lot on that person’s position on the war in general. It’s just a fact of life that when two people look at an object from different angles, they will see two different objects.
We have to live with that.

*sigh* It’s not what someone chooses to emphasize. It’s what someone chooses to pull out of thin air or perhaps their fourth point of contact. And it’s not even mere “emphasis” – its a theory that’s ominously put forward as not only a possibility – but a likely outcome – one for which zero evidence is provided. And when I point this out it seems that I’m require to provide something to disprove his assertions. Whatever.

I fully expect Mr. Stickings to “emphasize” every bad thing he can about this war and that’s his right. But here he’s just making stuff up as anyone who has even an elementary knowledge of Anbar or US military operations would know. And that’s in addition to the comments on the surge in this post which make no sense. It’s not working – or maybe it is, but it won’t last – or maybe it is or it isn’t, but it will ultimately fail, etc.

But hey believe what you want.

Ok, I’m done with this thread.

To talk of the potential reemergence of death squads is no more fantastical than to dismiss the possiblity. Baghdad is still central in measuring the level of violence, and even Anbar is not immune to reacting to how things evolve there.
The relative quiet in Baghdad is artifically induced by wall separations and both forced and voluntray separtions of sectarian populations, as well as the flight of many of tis residents.

This artificial quietude can not be imposed forever, and a lot depends on a post-wall future no one can claim to see clearly.

Even in Anbar, it’s a question of how long the locals will remain happy with US presence. In general, foreign boots on their soil are not greeted with glee.

In the meantime. Al Qaeda has not left Iraq. There is always the posibility it will repeat attemps to stir up sectarian condlicts.

As far as I can see, Iraq is a minefield. There is no guarnatee that we will step on a mine tomorrow, but there is no guarantee that we won’t.

I think what someone chooses to emphasize depends a lot on that person’s position on the war in general. It’s just a fact of life that when two people look at an object from different angles, they will see two different objects.
We have to live with that.

Michael Yon cites a Galloway effect and mentions Joe Galloway, a reporter who is one of the few that the military awarded a medal for his bravery helping out wounded soldiers in Vietnam. From Yon’s article:

“I just had no idea our army was filled with such quality people.” When journalists are sharing the fatigue, deprivations, and danger of the soldiers they are covering, a new respect develops, and it is not long before the Galloway effect (Joe Galloway, a renowned military correspondent, has never written a bad thing about soldiers since he left Vietnam) takes hold.written a bad thing about soldiers since he left Vietnam) takes hold.

One big problem, it appears he’s confusing or conflating George Galloway with Joe Galloway. Joe is the renowned reporter, George Galloway is a corrupt radical British politician. A Google search of “Galloway effect embed” only turns up 9 links to the James Lacey article. In said article Lacey then attacks Galloway with this gem.

Joe Galloway has never said anything bad about the American soldier, but that has not stopped him from pointing his rhetorical weaponry at the Pentagon, the top brass, and the system whenever he has spotted a wrong or injustice. A journalist with a negative story is still going to publish. That is how he gets page one, promotions, and the praise of his peers. However, the military can expect to receive the benefit of the doubt more often than is now the case, and the journalists at least will know what they are talking about, making them more likely to get the story right.

The only problem is that Galloway ALREADY has “promotion” and “praise of his peers”, he doesn;t need it again. Maybe Lacey doesn’t like Galloways attack on Pentagon hacks.

From McClatchy:

ABOUT JOE

General H. Norman Schwarzkopf has called Joseph L. Galloway, a military columnist for McClatchy Newspapers, “The finest combat correspondent of our generation — a soldier’s reporter and a soldier’s friend.” I don’t see any independent study of a “Joe Galloway Effect”.

Galloway is the co-author, with Lt. Gen. Hal Moore, of “We Were Soldiers Once … and Young,” a story of the first large-scale ground battle of the Vietnam War. The book was made into a movie of the same name. Galloway was portrayed in the movie by actor Barry Pepper.

From Wiki:

Awards

In 1991, Galloway received a National Magazine Award for a U.S. News cover article on the la Drang battles in Vietnam.

In 1998, Galloway received a Bronze Star Medal with V for rescuing wounded soldiers under fire in the la Drang Valley of Vietnam in November, 1965.

[edit] Controversies

[edit] George W. Bush administration

In a number of columns, Galloway has spoken out against the Iraq War and George W. Bush. In a column on July 6, 2007, Galloway asked why the Bush administration “looks remarkably more like an organized crime ring than one of the arms of the American government?” He further asks what happened to the George W. Bush he voted for in 2000 and who promised to give a government “whose appointees would be honest, upright, fair and moral.”

It appears that Lacey isn’t questioning Galloways courage(civilian wins Bronze Star), but his politics( Bush administration “looks remarkably more like an organized crime ring than one of the arms of the American government?”)

This post accents the possible negatives, while you accent a rosier reading of the crystal ball. You make a lot assumptions yourself about the mindset of various tribes, forgetting the fire that can spread when it’s ignited by a ‘few dead enders’. Like I said, the possibilities are numerous

No, this post obsesses with the negatives – many of which are fantastical. There are Sunni’s in Iraq who are certainly predisposed to death-squad-like activity – the vast majority of tribes in Anbar are not among them. The direct comparison made to “right-wing death squads” from Latin America or SE Asia is, frankly, laughable. Naturally no evidence for such bogus possibilities is ever provided in posts like these.

In the interest of providing some educational value to my comment, here’s a primer on the Anbar tribes (390 page PDF file).

As for all this Shiny new AK’s for some Sunni’s aren’t much compared to what the Iranians are providing these days.

What is the source for this claim?

I will give two links to a US and British Generals who say that Iran is stopping the flow of weapons into Iran. It’s the warmongers who are making exaggerated claims about Iranian weapons. I’m not supporting Iran, just skeptical about Pentagon spin. Their history of distortions is reminiscent of Vietnam.

The links:
http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=11962
Petraeus Sought to Prevent Release of Iranians

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/november152007/iraq_iran_111507.php

(BAGHDAD, Iraq) – Recent weapons cache finds in Iraq indicate that the Iranian government is living up to its promise to Iraqi leaders to stem the flow of weapons across the border into Iraq, a senior U.S. general in Baghdad told reporters today.

Army Maj. Gen. James E. Simmons, Multinational Corps Iraq’s deputy commander for support, said coalition troops and Iraqi security forces continue to find Iranian weapons in caches they uncover.

“But most of these weapons appear to have been in Iraq for months,” he said. “So we have not seen any recent evidence that weapons continue to come across the border into Iraq. We believe that the initiatives and the commitments that the Iranians have made appear to be holding up.”

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/06/africa/ME-GEN-Iraq-US-Iran.php

Rear Adm. Gregory Smith, director of the Multi-National Force-Iraq’s communications division, told reporters the identities of the nine Iranians would be released later and that many of them had been taken prisoner through the course of the war.

Meanwhile, Kurdish rebels released another Iranian soldier Tuesday, captured two months ago in northern Iraq. Associated Press Television News showed the soldier being handed over to representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross in the Qandeel mountains near the town of Ilan Shahir.

Smith said Iran appeared to have kept its promise to stop the flow into Iraq of bomb-making materials and other weaponry that Washington says has inflamed insurgent and militia violence and killed hundreds of U.S. forces.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkx-3oYeFwuWKCusr2jrojs98w8wD8T506CO3
Iraqi Shiite Leader Defends Iran

Where are your links from John Pike(Global Security) or Bill Roggio(The Long War Journal) to back up your claim.

This post accents the possible negatives, while you accent a rosier reading of the crystal ball. You make a lot assumptions yourself about the mindset of various tribes, forgetting the fire that can spread when it’s ignited by a ‘few dead enders’. Like I said, the possibilities are numerous

The ‘to be negotiated’ part of the security commitment is only a metter of working out the details. The permanent bases we are building belie any iffiness about he commitment itself, IMO. It seems to be a bipartisan acceptance, BTW.

While I would agree with you about exaggerations, I would caution also against complacency. Sometimes, there really is a lion under the bed. Picking the right time to raise the alarm is never easy and doing so too early is no worse than being too late.

No one knows for sure, what the majority of Sunni tribal chiefs have planned for the future or will decide in the future.

That’s quite an assumption you make! The fact is that first one must distinguish between the more urbanized tribes and those in rural areas. For the most part, the rural tribes just want to be left alone – they certainly have no desire (nor have they ever shown any) to go marching about Baghdad – a city they’re completely unfamiliar with – randomly killing Sunni’s. For the more urban Sunnis there is more danger but they are such in the minority that they cannot really defend their own population while attempting take over additional territory – particularly when faced with a much larger Shia population that’s better-armed. Some of these urban guys are Cheney’s “dead enders” but many of them have been killed and others realized the Shia can ethnically cleanse a lot better than they can.

As for all this Shiny new AK’s for some Sunni’s aren’t much compared to what the Iranians are providing these days. The fact is that most US assistance comes in the form of support – if the Sunni’s get in trouble we help them out, provide fire support/CAS, etc. Without this critical US support the Sunni tribes are just a bunch of guys with AK’s. I guess that Mr. Stickings assumes the US will just keep providing that support when these these ninja Sunni death squads he predicts are going to pop up any minute.?

Maybe I was “demanding a basis in fact” argumentation, but the post had so little in the way of fact that I couldn’t help my self.

Pooh-poohing possible trouble makes no more sense than pronouncing catastrophy to be inevitable.

You’d be right if that’s what I was doing! One can, I think, point out some of the hyperbole out there without saying that everything is wine and roses.

We;ve just had a new element introduced, by virtue of long term security commitment to the current governement.

Well, hate to point out the obvious, but it’s not a commitment. It’s a potential commitment. People are talking as if it’s already signed, sealed and delivered.

We could well end up fihhting the very Sunnis who are our friends today.
Worry is definitely in order, IMO.

Certainly that is a possibility and yes, worry is in order. Now compare your reasonable statement with the title of this post. See a difference?

No one knows for sure, what the majority of Sunni tribal chiefs have planned for the future or will decide in the future. Various statements from some, however, indicate that they have not given up on emerging as the dominant/ruling force in Iraq,again, though. That can mean nothing else than a readiness to fight the SHIIas when the opportunity is ripe.

To unite against AlQaeda is not the same as to unite with the SHIIas or to support the central governemtn. As we have seen over and over, it doesn’t even take a majority opinion to begin dolossal mischief. A few hotheads will do.

Doubt about the end result of the surge seems only reasonable while the unrest under the surface is still bubbling. At the very least, we should be alert to these possiblities and plan now for how to react.

Pooh-poohing possible trouble makes no more sense than pronouncing catastrophy to be inevitable.

We;ve just had a new element introduced, by virtue of long term security commitment to the current governement. That could seriously tie our hands amid local struggles. We could well end up fihhting the very Sunnis who are our friends today.
Worry is definitely in order, IMO.

Sincerely,

A Warmonger.

Any opinion expressed next is totally biased against the Iraq War. Just more left wing – liberal dribble and hysteria.