Now we have the BBC's Jonathan Charles clueless in Iraq.
Here is his opening paragraph.
Fierce opposition to Iraq's draft constitution looks set to ensure there will be no withdrawal of US troops in the near future, and as the violence continues, the Vietnam comparisons return.
Wow. A lot going on there isn't there?
Charles doesn't tell us who has "fierce opposition" to the draft constitution nor how many feel that way. Why? Because he doesn't know and if he did he wouldn't tell you because it would spoil his spin.
Who said there would be a "withdrawal of US troops in the near future" in the first place? In fact, most reports I've read say the troops will be there most likely for a year or more.
And who is making the Vietnam comparisions? Charles? The BBC? The Left? All three it would seem.
But is it an accurate comparision? Charles doesn't bother to even address that issue. I guess you could compare the two except that in this case, we've captured Hanoi, the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong leadership, liberated the whole country, free and fair elections have been held, the people are in the process of drafting a constitution and the US death rate is about 10% of what Vietnam was.
There is one valid comparison to made with Vietnam and that is the press aiding the enemy - again.
Here is what General Vo Nguyen Giap had to say about the meida's assistance to him in Vietnam.
Even Giap admitted in his memoirs that news media reporting of the war and the anti-war demonstrations that ensued in America surprised him. Instead of negotiating what he called a conditional surrender, Giap said they would now go the limit because America's resolve was weakening and the possibility of complete victory was within Hanoi's grasp.
People like Charles and the BBC are trying to do it again. And despite the BBC's attempts to whip up anti-war sentiment using the Vietnam comparision, there are no mass anti-war demonstrations.
Further, the Vietnam war brought down the American party in power at the time. What's happend to the parties in power since the war in Iraq began? Howard, Bush and Blair were all re-elected!
That doesn't stop the BBC from trying to lose a war again.
How bad is the BBC's reporting on Iraq? Paul Adams, the BBC's defence correspondent went so far as to accuse the BBC of lying in its reporting on Iraq.
Here is Charles Vietnam comparison.
The continuing violence is fuelling yet more comparisons about whether what is happening here - with American troops bogged down in a seemingly endless battle against the insurgents - is similar to the United States' terrible experience in Vietnam.
Where are they bogged down, Charles? Not in Falluja, Mosul, Tikrit or Sadr City. In fact all of those cities are being rebuilt. Where are the bogged down?
And who is backing the terrorists that are harassing our troops? Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Hardly superpowers like the Soviet Union and China.
As you can see by now, far from being a "news report", Charles is engaging in sheer speculation. Take this next bit for example:
The American troops - just like their predecessors in Vietnam - do appear to have low morale.
What proof does Charles give for this very serious charge? One un-named Captain.
If morale is so low, how does Charles explain the astounding record number of re-enlistments in Iraq? Note that is re-enlistments - combat soldiers in Iraq whose time is up and they can hop the next plane and go into civilian life.
Every one of the Army's 10 divisions — its key combat organizations — has exceeded its re-enlistment goal for the year to date. Those with the most intense experience in Iraq have the best rates. The 1st Cavalry Division is at 136 percent of its target, the 3rd Infantry Division at 117 percent.[and we had the draft for most of Vietnam]
Among separate combat brigades, the figures are even more startling, with the 2nd Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division at 178 percent of its goal and the 3rd Brigade of the 4th Mech right behind at 174 percent of its re-enlistment target.
This is unprecedented in wartime. Even in World War II, we needed the draft. Where are the headlines?
Charles continues with his Vietnam comparison and indulges in some history re-writing.
During the final years in Vietnam, the Americans started handing over more and more military responsibility to local troops - the policy of "Vietnamisation" - but they proved ineffective, unable to stop the communist onslaught.
In Iraq today, there is a policy of "Iraqisation".
The truth is quite the revese. Not surprising as we are dealing with a BBC "report" after all.
"... Iraq will only be another Vietnam if the home front collapses, as it did following the Tet offensive that began on the eve of the Chinese New Year, Jan. 31, 1968. ..."
After the first few hours of panic, the South Vietnamese troops reacted fiercely. They did the bulk of the fighting and took some 6,000 casualties. Viet Cong units not only did not reach a single one of their objectives - except when they arrived by taxi at the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, blew their way through the wall into the compound and, guns blazing, made it into the lobby before they were wiped out by U.S. Marines. But they lost some 50,000 killed and at least as many wounded.
Gen. Giap had thrown some 70,000 troops into a strategic gamble that was also designed to overwhelm 13 of the 16 provincial capitals and trigger a popular uprising. But Tet was an unmitigated military disaster for Hanoi and its Viet Cong troops in South Vietnam. Yet that was not the way it was reported in U.S. and other media around the world.
Some 30 years on and the BBC are still spreading communist propaganda.
Folks if you want to know what is really going on in Iraq, do yourself a favor, do not believe anything the BBC says and instead, read Chrenkoff's Good News Iraq series and his other reports about Iraq.
Do a search of my blog using the search bar at the top and use these terms, "Justin Webb", "Paul Reynolds", and "Jo Wilding" to see just some of the anti-American bias the BBC is rife with. And now we can add Charles to the list.
Also, be sure and read my Case Against the BBC.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment