Getting Off On Donkey Island

"Evil news rides post, while good news baits."
John Milton, Samson Agonistes, Line 1538.

This past Sunday, the Washington Post carried a lengthy article on its front page about a recent battle in Iraq, written by Ann Scott Tyson. It is, I believe, a classic study in factually good news from Iraq, caught up in the entrenched bad news analysis meme. She and her editors simply sought to stretch and twist an exceptional story of victory, though it was somewhat modest in size, into a foreboding tale, fraught with the same old and tiresome lessons that certain news outlets continually try to impose on war stories out of Iraq.

Her facts are, so far as we know, accurate. But the headline, and her "lessons drawn" are right out of deep discount central. You almost have the feeling she thought she was on the trail of Tet.

MSNBC also carried the story, but has apparently now -- a mere three days later -- determined it is no longer newsworthy and has actually taken the link down!

Wrechard at Belmont Club analyzed the MSNBC version, and concluded:

Of course, once the local American reinforcements arrived the al-Qaeda unit was doomed, but their fate was sealed earlier. The three Humveee patrol fixed, disrupted and cut up a force three to four times their size and immobilized an enemy unit that saw its mission change instantly from the infiltration of Ramadi to surviving. It's an amazing story.

Yet, neither Belmont Club's link to the MSNBC story, nor a search of the MSNBC news site using MSNBC's own search engine, yields any remaining Donkey Island story link. It has simply disappeared, including the Today Show version. All you get, as of noon today, August 22d, is "Page not found."

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?


The Washington Post version of the story factually relates the circumstances of a rather intense roadside firefight back on June 30th, initially between a small patrol of 9 American troops from the 1st Battalion, 77th Armor Regiment, and a vastly numerically superior contingent of 70 or so al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) terror fighters (the MSNBC version said 40). The American patrol unexpectedly came upon them while riding on patrol along swampy trails near the Nassar Canal, just south of Ramadi in Anbar Province.

While both the canal and the Euphrates River tend to "compartmentalize" the city of Ramadi, neither is "wide enough to seriously limit crossing" hence such recon partols are considered a military necessity in the area.

Our guys were driving along near the canal looking for water-based weapons smuggling operations, and at around 9:15 pm, they suddenly happened on the AQI contingent, and two “semitrucks” that, as was later determined, had been used to smuggle the terror fighters and weapons around several checkpoints, and into the area. Both sides were surprised at the contact, and a firefight ensued that lasted much of the night. Our guys won the engagement, big-time.

But the "lessons" portion of the story Tyson tells is fraught with exaggerated concerns and misgivings that seem plainly unjustified in the context of the very facts she cites.

As she reported, captured video and other intelligence from the insurgents later showed, that the AQI terrorists had trained for months in the lake region north of Ramadi, and were apparently seeking to launch terror counterattacks in and around the city, including proof of a desire to assassinate a local tribal chief just south of Ramadi, one "Sheik Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, who founded the main pro-U.S. tribal alliance, known as the Anbar Awakening." The clear outcome of the battle, in light of the high AQI casualties, compromised intelligence and captured weapons cache, is that neither of those two AQI objectives will be attempted at any time soon. But she doesn't say that. Instead she describes this demonstrably failed attempt, as a battle,

which would not only reveal their enemy's determination to retake Ramadi but also throw into question the region's long-term stability if the Americans were to leave. It suggested, moreover, that preserving the city's fragile, hard-won calm would call for heavier fighting than anticipated.

Sheik Rishawi was one of the first tribal leaders in the largely Sunni region to begin working closely with the Americans last fall, in order to fight AQI. It was back then that, as stated in the article, several “influential Sunni tribes around Ramadi, weary of the violence and executions of their leaders, joined with the U.S. military to oust the hard-core Islamic insurgents.” Though unstated in the story, they were also outraged by the constant terrorizing of civilians, and the attempted imposition of extremist Sharia, or Islamic law on the populace. No doubt that was buttressed by the fact that recent intelligence obtained from captured AQI demonstrated that the terror organization is teeming with foreign fighters and leaders, which has no doubt contributed to the rivening between Sunni Iraqi tribal leaders and AQI related groups.

Clearly, neither the Americans nor the highly trained AQI insurgents anticipated running into one another that night, but the ensuing roadside battle, later dubbed by someone as the Battle for Donkey Island, turned out very poorly for AQI. Donkey Island was a small strip of land in the canal that a few of the AQI fighters swam to in an unsuccessful attempt to flank the American fighters during the battle. As soon as they discovered the AQI fighters, the Americans quickly backed up their three Humvees about 100 yards, lining them up three abreast, and where they also got cover from a small ridge. The fire fight had ensued. Some time later (around 11 pm) additional reinforcements from the I-77 Charlie Company, and no doubt some form of air cover, joined with the nine Americans in the battle, but at no time did American troops outnumber the insurgents.

Two Americans were killed and eleven were injured in the all night violent exchange, while nearly half, or 32, of the AQI fighters were killed. Both American deaths tragically occurred the next morning while troops were disarming AQI “suicide vests” on the dozens of AQI bodies. They were shot by a wounded terrorist.

Largely disregarding the overall tenor of what she was covering, you could tell that Ms. Tyson, or perhaps an editor, were intent on reporting uncertainty about the outcome of the struggle, including raising questions about the entire current surge operation. But the facts, even as she reported them, simply do not support those conclusions.

Take for example, just the highly misleading headline attached to the story:

A Deadly Clash at Donkey Island
On a Routine Night Patrol Near Ramadi, U.S. Troops Stumble Upon a Camp of Heavily Armed Insurgents Poised to Retake the City

Deadly Clash –

Plainly, the deadliness of the clash was heavily weighted to the al-Qaeda fighters who were crushed by the engagement. Months of planning for a series of terror attacks, simply went down the drain for them. And in spite of having significant numerical superiority, they were utterly outgunned and suffered nearly 50% killed, or 32 dead. The two Americans deaths both occurred the next morning after the firefight, when two troops were attempting to disarm the suicide vests of the dozens of dead AQI fighters, and were tragically shot by a wounded terrorist.

On a Routine Night Patrol – Stumble Upon Insurgents --

Secondly, the article strongly implies that our troops, while on patrol, only stumbled on the enemy. You would almost think it was a dumb mistake, stumbling upon insurgents. But that is exactly what recon patrols are all about – discovering enemy movements while on patrol in order to keep them from succeeding in surprise attacks on your defensive positions. Prarie Pundit pretty well nailed that aspect of the "battle."

Heavily armed –

Thirdly, the statement that the insurgents were heavily armed is just plain silly. They had AK-47s, a few machine guns and some grenades, as well as the suicide vests. And, in the trucks were whatever arms they had smuggled into the area for future attacks in the area. In any event, all were lost to AQI.

Poised to retake the city –

And finally, the most outrageous statement was that they were "poised to retake the city." That is just plain unadulterated rubbish. This AQI terror group planned to launch a sneak attack on at least one tribal leader of the region, in order to try and undermine local support for us in our mission, and to launch additional terror attacks. But it was seventy (or forty) fighters. They failed miserably at both, and paid a very heavy price. However, the suggestion that they were poised to retake the city is nonsense.

But you have to dig well into the story to find one small accurate assessment in the story, which the author couches in the opinion of the U.S. military.

U.S. commanders said the battle was a major defeat for al-Qaeda-affiliated insurgents, showing how hard it is for them to operate in Anbar, where they face an increased U.S. troop presence and rejection by the Sunni population.

And the story ends with Tyson quoting a general assessment by General Petraeus, noting al-Qaeda in Iraq has largely lost in Anbar Province, which she follows with quotes from local commanders suggesting contradictions -- i.e., that further AQI attacks in Ramadi will likely occur.

Her over all tone is a “forced” note of pessimism that seems largely unjustified.

As Prarie Pundit quite correctly noted:

What the story really shows is that some relatively inexperienced troops overcame a numerically superior force and prevailed. This is the kind of action that deserves medals and commendations. It does not deserved to be used in someones talking points for defeat.

With stories and assessments of success quickly emerging, even among former war critics, there certainly seems to have been a sea change in the statements and attitudes of national Democrat politicians, who all now seem to be scrambling to align themselves with evidence that the mission in Iraq has turned the corner. Today's Washington Post story on the subject notes in a gentile manner, the "refocus" of the Democrat message.

A few days ago, Representative Brian Baird, (D-WA), long a critic of the battle in Iraq, stated that we may need to stay there longer. Some, as today's Post noted, are even beginning to turn on leadership, such as Representative Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.), who has recently begun waivering on troop withdrawal deadlines.

"We should sit down with Republicans, see what would be acceptable to them to end the war and present it to the president, start negotiating from the beginning," he said, adding, "I don't know what the [Democratic] leadership is thinking. Sometimes they've done things that are beyond me."

If the tide of the battle of Iraq continues to turn, and begets success, he's not the only one who is going to be raising that very question. After all, only two months ago, Harry Reid was calling General Petraeus, "out of touch," and even strongly implying that the General was lying.

As for the Democrat Presidential contenders, watching them scramble for position may well challenge the triggers of the world's least sensitive hypocrisy meters. Not two days ago, Barak Obama confidently assured the world that it was too late . . . there could be no victory in Iraq. But today the Post story quotes him saying,

"My assessment is that if we put an additional 30,000 of our troops into Baghdad, that's going to quell some of the violence in the short term," Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) echoed in a conference call with reporters Tuesday. "I don't think there's any doubt that as long as U.S. troops are present that they are going to be doing outstanding work."

What's it going to be, Barak?

And Hillary Clinton is now even saying that the surge strategy is working! But where was she last week?

For the troops fighting and putting their lives on the line, however, all of these positions du jour must seem very unsettling. After all, these people claim to be leaders running for President, which would make one of them the Commander in Chief.

As a child I often wanted to see the noblest of motives in others. So my father used to somewhat cynically remind me from time to time, "Just remember . . . everyone lives on Selfish Island."

For the legions of Americans who had lost a measure of faith in the real liklihood of success in Iraq, the leapfrogging siren songs of the political opposition may have seemed somewhat enticing -- for a while. But now, watching them all hastily swim away from their positions, away from their Donkey Island, just has to furrow more than a few brows.

NY Times: Two Liberals Turn Tail On Iraq Loss:
Yanking Stability from the Jaws of Defeat?

(Update below)

Two liberals from the Brookings Institute, Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack published an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times today, (HT: Powerline here), grudgingly observing that the war in Iraq just may be a war we could . . . ahhhh . . . win.

Well, they don't quite say that. Not yet, anyway. They delicately sidestep the use of the term "victory," of course, preferring instead to choke up a familiar diplomatic alliterative euphemism -- "sustainable stability." That put them on the same page as Iraqi Ambassador Ryan Crocker, in his remarks just the other day. Said he, as quoted in a Steven Hurst AP article:

"I think it is very important that for own interests that we stay with this until Iraq gets to the point of sustainable stability, I think that can be done."

And though Scanlon and Pollock were quick to charge that the Bush Administration "has over four years lost essentially all credibility" on the War, they nevertheless concede that Administration critics have indeed failed to take note of several positive changes taking place in Iraq.

Well, it's not like the ignoring of specific successes, as well as shortcomings, haven't been repeatedly pointed out by Michael Yon, or Michael Totten and a slew of milbloggers, and other new media critics all along. Here, for example, is some incredible recent reporting of Michael Yon on us working with Iraqi insurgents, and how we are persuading them to come over to our side. This kind of reporting never makes it into your average newspaper. And Michelle Malkin links to the latest dispatch from Michael Totten.

Yet O'Hanlon and Pollock are incapable of acknowledging anything sounding like praise for even the Administration's recent handling of the conflict, notwithstanding acknowledging several recent successes. Check, for example, the inherent inconsistency in this introductory statement of theirs:

As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

Live with? Basically, these two sound a little unhappy, don't they? Don't they seem to be saying that Americans could grudgingly learn to "live with" success? They're only talking to the left when they say things that way.

Perhaps these two are ringing what amounts to a political two minute warning bell for all the liberal Democrat Presidential candidates and congressional leaders (a repetitious redundancy if there ever was one), to cautiously eschew the scheduling of any more specific funeral dirges for this war. One recalls Harry Reid announcing that the war "is lost" and basically calling General Petraeus a liar, alleging that the surge had failed back in mid-April, well before the extra troops had even arrived! Or the ill-timed scheduling of the congressional vote on the Levin/Reed "al-Qaeda Enabling Act of 2007." Or, maybe they're cautioning against holding any more hearings where congressional members openly and personally attack our military leaders, at least for the time being?

It seems unlikely the Democrat leadership will listen. Having arguably spent the entire good will of their political victory last fall, in an unceremonious, undisguised, and ill-advised series of attempts to force a humiliating military defeat on this country, these Democrats are now singularly ill-equipped to find, or even recognize any neutral middle ground.

If this nation and the coalition should succeed in Iraq in spite of them, they lose. And their entire current lineup of Presidential contenders are hopelessly locked into endlessly parroting their nutroot base's Bush-hate rhetoric, so that any attempt by any of them to pull back now will backfire with their legions of primary voters. None of them dare. And who would be the Fred Thompson to those pygmies? There is no Scoop Jackson in that party, let alone a Senator Vandenberg!

Here are a few of the specific developments in Iraq that O’Hanlon and Pollack now acknowledge:

Troop Morale Up:

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.

What happened? Wasn't the leftie "plan" to undermine troop morale? The New Republic (TNR) had just launched (subscription needed for full article) their latest salvo with the "Scott Thomas" story in that regard, that is until serious questions began to surface, and it suspiciously turned into what Howard Kurtz at the Washington Post reported was a TNR concession that the story was an inside job. Hack job would be more like it.

O’Hanlon and Pollock also note significant other good news.

Improvements in Security and Providing Basic Services:

Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people.

Other things these two liberals point out we are now doing well in Iraq include, holding areas until they are fully secured.

And, they say, we are successfully persuading the Iraqis into helping to fight the right enemies, i.e., al-Qaeda and other Salafists. They will have to patiently explain why this latter one is a positive development to Katie Couric, and the folks over at CBS News, who allege that this is all just Bush propaganda – his "new rationale."

O’Hanlon and Pollock also note that the

coalition’s new Embedded Provincial Reconstruction Teams are working. Wherever we found a fully staffed team, we also found local Iraqi leaders and businessmen cooperating with it to revive the local economy and build new political structures. (my emphasis added)

And outside of Baghdad, they point out that a new focus on decentralizing power is working surprisingly well, too.

They also note areas of what they believe are shortcomings, especially on the political front with many politicians "of all stripes" resisting reaching accommodations where they are needed. Please read it -- it sounds like a pitch-perfect description of the new Congress.

But in the end, even these two "progressives" conclude that,

there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.

Given the nearly completely opposite view, driving a daily drumbeat of harsh criticism from the Democrat party leadership for so long now, isn't it just possible there has been a dogged blindness on the part of the Democrats to any precurser signs of progress all along? Or that there has been a complete lack of respect for balance in reporting the news out of Iraq by this nation's left-leaning mainstream media?

As for the Democrats' staunch supporters in the media -- enablers really -- won't this talk of possible success likely prove very confusing?

Sustainable stability? What is that?

Perhaps we could think about it historically. Let's see . . .

"Sustainable stability" has really meant unabashed victory to several generations, and thus, millions upon millions of Korean people living below the 38th parallel, for over half a century. Hasn't it?

Oh well, somebody call "Okinawa Jack" Murtha, and break the news.

There go the damned Viet-Nam analogies!

(Update: 6:53 pm) Dean Barnett from Hugh Hewitt notes the anticipated reaction from the left -- personal attacks mounted on the two authors of the Op-Ed, with no effort to address what they actually observed. Given that, how likely is it that there should be anything other than personal invective coming from the Democrat leadership?

Dean also links to a Michael Goldfarb piece posted today at the Weekly Standard regarding the piece, and noting the strange behavior of Congresswoman Nancy Boyda (D-KS) during hearings at the end of last week. Boyda sits on the House Armed Services Committee, and on Friday, she actually got up and left the room rather than listen to the testimony of retired General Keane. She later returned to the hearing, only to deliver a rant about how she refused to listen to claims regarding Iraq "that it's a place that I might take the family for a vacation . . ."