Here is the fundamental problem/tip off:

"In the ideological and military clash of Christian fundamentals with Islamist fundamentals, the western media are simply off-limits to the latter. [...]"

Absent an analytically crippling preconception about what is going on, that sentence should read:

"In the ideological and military clash of Islamists against everyone else ..."

I'd love to see the likes of Robert Fisk and Ted Rall and Dan Blather and Maureen Dowd and so on embedded with enemy formations. That would make them, uh . . . I believe the technical military term is, uh, "targets."

"[W]ith luck, these days of the one-sided view might begin to fade. Then we may begin to cover not just Falluja and Iraq but the whole global conflict more fairly."

It's all about them. The real goal of the war should be to get access for the news organizations. What a load of tripe! Does anyone really believe that we need embedded news reporters in the terrorist camp to understand exactly what they believe?

I confess that I assumed this was satire, and that the reader was supposed to realize that people who saw off heads are quite obviously inferior to those hated Americans. The insanity that must go into sincerely proposing terrorist embeds as a way to do a "proper job" of reporting the WOT is beyond the limits of my comprehension.

I'm not so sure we need embedded reporters on our side either. Unless of course approved, vetted by the military.

Independent journalist should get the news the old fashion way "make it up out of whole cloth".

Hey, being willfully ignorant of the attitudes of Iraqis has paid off so far. Why stop now? Those flower petals will be strewn in the street any day now, and the resistance will surely collapse once we capture Saddam, er, Uday and Qusay, um, Zarqawi. That's the ticket, Zarqawi!

Ignorance is bliss, or possibly righteous anger.

Paraphrased from Jeff Goldstein's Celloid Wisdom blog:

Overheard inside a Fallujah bunker:

Militant: “Listen to that rumble. Do you suppose it's P-Diddy and his posse come to help us ‘Rock the Vote’?”

Embedded Al-Jezeera Reporter: “If that last air strike hadn’t pinned me under this rubble, Raed, so help me God I’d be on sitting on your chest right now, b****slapping you like the little woman you are."

We had Saddamite embeds. Doesn't anyone remember how relieved CNN was to come clean about how once he was removed they could now start accurately reporting the real news and not have to worry about losing their access?

Social Scientist -

Interest in what the average Iraqi has to say never seems to include the average Shiite or Kurd. (Oh what the heck, that's nly 70-75% of Iraqis.) And among Sunnis it only includes the kidnappers, beheaders that you'll call Minute Men, and their Saudi, Sudanese, Yememi, etc, paymasters. OK. Hey, if you want to volunteer to poll these guys, go ahead. You would not do a worse job that the Exit Pollsters did here.

Jeff:

No, he has that part right.

Social Scientist:

Even if everyone had believed that the Iraqi resistance would last this long, it wouldn't have meant that the invasion would have been called off.

Perhaps you recall, the Pentagon believed that 10,000 US deaths were a possibility; we invaded anyhow.

Even if everyone had believed that the Iraqi resistance would last this long, it wouldn't have meant that the invasion would have been called off.

That is almost certainly correct, if by "everyone" you mean everyone in the Administration. Too many people wanted this war. Just not for the reasons they told us.

SS:

There are no bad reasons for wanting a democracy instead of a murderous tyranny.

oj:

Save it for the Hallmark Company. We had a lot of bad reasons for getting into this war. And we don't (still) have a plan for making it a democracy, because we don't have a plan of how to secure the elected government. So, it was the one good reason for this war--and the only reason left standing--and these guys don't know how to get it done.

SS:

It has nothing to do with what we want or have plans for--the Shi'a and Kurds want it so it'll happen. We just made it possible.

Isn't this "journalist" just asking to film the next beheading and/or evisceration up close and personal?

The Geraldo of 1990 would have filmed it. And so would Mike Wallace, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, and Dangerous Dan.

SS --

The status quo in Iraq was unacceptable. On this there was and is broad agreement. There was no other way to change it short of war. The Left was and continues to be incapable, even today, to suggest any other alternative. All the ranting and raving you guys have done since 2003 is about scoring political points (which being cheap shots got you little anyway with the electorate) or increasing your bruised self-esteem.

By the way, what were your views on Afghanistan?

Well, Moe, since you asked--my views on Afghanistan were the same as about 90% of the American public, left and right: that we had to go in, do our best to destroy al Qaeda, and that this necessitating the felling of the Taliban didn't cause me to bat an eye.

As to the status quo in Iraq being unacceptable, well, we tolerate a lot of "unacceptable" stuff. We fought on the same side as Stalin in WWII, to name just one. As a result of 9/11, Saddam effectively became the new Stalin: the enemy of our most dangerous and active enemy. There was no support for al Qaeda in Baghdad and there was no threat to us from Baghdad.

You know, when this war started I said "Saddam has no nukes, no biological weapons, no delivery system, and hates al Qaeda. He might have chemical weapons, but that's all. We can easily knock off the Iraqi military, but the people will turn against us if we try to stay, and eventually will drive us out." Most of what I predicted about Iraq has come to pass so far--why would I be the one with bruised self-esteem?

SS -

The media is against America to a much greater degree than the Iraqi population. And soon we will be gone.

But the media will still be 'against' America.

Even with respect to NK, Zimbabwe, Cuba, and other hellholes around the world.

Jim--

The media is against America to a much greater degree than the Iraqi population.

You mean the media that en masse refused to refer to an invasion as anything other than a "liberation?" That media? The one embedded with our troops?

Oh, and please do find me an Iraqi who regards Abu Ghraib as a "fraternity hazing" and "sexual hijinks." One not in the pay of the U.S. government, that is.

Jim--

Here's a thought experiment. Try to imagine an American who regards 9/11 as aeronautical daredevilry, not involving the leadership of al Qaeda. Now try to imagine an Iraqi who regards Abu Ghraib as a fraternity hazing, not involving the leadership of the U.S. military. You know why you can imagine the second part but not the first? Yes, the "liberal" American media!

SS:

Yes, but who cares if it involved al Qaeda?

oj--

Is your point that it doesn't matter who was behind the 9/11 attacks?

SS:

Precisely. We needed to get rid of al Qaeda and liberalize the Middle East regardless, a project that's been extraordinarily successful.

oj--

By all accounts al Qaeda is far larger than it was before 9/11 and the US is far less popular. Meanwhile, Iraq is in chaos as the insurgency continues to grow and Iran is nuking up. I don't see this as extraordinary success.

I agree we needed to do something about the ferment in the Middle East. We had a fantastic moment right after 9/11 when a fair number of Arabs thought "this is what we've come to?" But wouldn't it have made more sense to go harder after al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan while pressuring Saudi Arabia to both liberalize and to stop its support of terrorism? Of course, this Administration doesn't do pressure on Saudi Arabia.

SS:

You would have gone to war with Pakistan over the al Qeda remnants? Why? They're rooting out the dead-enders for us, but the bulk of the operation was broken at Tora Bora.

75%+ of Iraq will participate in democratic elections in January. The Sunni have to decide whether to make it 100% or become enemies of the state. Either way things have worked out better than anyone would have expected, in particular the ferocity which which Sistani and the Shi'a demand democracy.

The Saudis have dealt with their end of the al Qaeda problem and are liberalizing as quickly as can be expected, largely due not just to pressure from the Administration but to overreach by the extreemists who had to bring the war home in acts of desperation because we were wiping them out.

oj--

the bulk of the operation was broken at Tora Bora.

There's no evidence for that. And don't give me the Condi Rice "we've captured 75% of the known leadership" crock--she won't even say 75% of how many.

Either way things have worked out better than anyone would have expected,

Yet to be seen.

The Saudis have dealt with their end of the al Qaeda problem

Well, they say so. Of course, they also deny funding al Qaeda.

overreach by the extreemists who had to bring the war home in acts of desperation because we were wiping them out.

Saudi Arabia was always the target. Getting shots at your main target is not desperation, although possibly overreaching. And if we're "wiping them out," why do most (all?) estimates have their numbers increasing?

SS:

Of course it was the target, but by striking long before they were capable of affecting the country in any meaningful way they lost.

SS -

After 30+ years of torture and bloodletting and death in Iraqi prisons, your supposition of what Iraqis think about Abu Ghraib is beneath contempt.

Are you a reporter, perhaps?

And I apologize in advance, Harry.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Libya.

That didn't come for free.