The Dish

The head of the BBC has taken a pot-shot at andrewsullivan.com. Woohoo. He claims in a letter to the Washington Post today that

The BBC is not state-funded. We are publicly funded through a license fee paid by every household in the United Kingdom. The British public, not the government of the day, owns the BBC, and it is to the British public we are accountable.

Get the difference? That’s like the old canard that government-owned industries are actually owned not by the government but by the ‘people.’ The fact is the BBC is funded through a mandatory, repeat mandatory, license fee. If you have a television, you have to pay the BBC tax. Whom do you pay that tax, sorry, “license fee,” to? The government. How this can be spun as not state-funded is beyond me. The head of the BBC, Mr Dyke, is appointed by the prime minister. Government-run? Compared to any truly independent media service, I’d say so. That’s why the non-government-run alternative – Independent Television News – is called “independent.” No, the government doesn’t dictate coverage. But it pays for it through a mandatory tax, appoints the people who run the BBC, and decisions on future funding are made in parliament not at shareholder meetings. Yes, the BBC sometimes tries to proclaim its independence. For the first couple of years of BBC coverage under Blair, it was so supportive of the government, it was dubbed the Blair Broadcasting Corporation. Now it is expressing its editorial independence by attacking Blair from the left. But it’s all funded by those poor British tax-payers. Dyke is full of it. But then we knew that already, didn’t we?
CORRECTION: The director-general of the BBC is not directly appointed by the government. He’s appointed by the board of management. The non-executive chairman of the BBC is appointed by the government.

Johnny Apple – barely drawing breath after declaring absolute military disaster – now proclaims stunning political and military success, “taking the heat off” president Bush for his conduct of the war. Ta-da! Only on 43rd Street, of course, could anyone believe president Bush was in political trouble at any point in the last couple of weeks because of his conduct of the war. But there you have it. This is the newspaper, remember, that once declared the Enron scandal would have more historical salience than 9/11. On second paranoid Kausian 2am thought, of course, this Apple piece cannot but ne very bad news. The general rule in American journalism is that R. W. Apple (bested only by Arthur Schlesinger Jr.) is always, always wrong. God help the armed services in the next few days. Couldn’t Howell have restrained Johnny until we’d actually won?

MUST READS: Bill Keller brings closure, to my mind, to the debate over the war-plan. The first half of his piece reads awfully similar to the arguments in this blog over the past week. The second is really smart. And Ken Ringle’s appreciation of Mike Kelly in the Post also told me things I’d forgotten or didn’t know.

TOUGH ENOUGH: “I’m not tough. I thank God everyday that there are tough men and women out there who are willing and able to protect the way of life I enjoy so much. I’m 26 and kids my age right now are living in the desert with the realities of war all around them, so that I can go home tonight, kiss my wife, throw the tennis ball for my dog, and fall asleep … free. Free from fear, free from tyranny, free to enjoy my life and pursue my happiness. They are all heroes and patriots in the truest sense of the word and I just wish that I could express my gratitude to each and every one of them.
But I can’t, so I did the only thing I could think of to really help. I found a blood donation center that is sending blood to the military and I gave what could arguably be the most precious thing I have — my blood. It was not a fun experience (note the first sentence of this letter), but as I walked to my car, for the first time since this whole debate started, I felt good. Sure, it could have just been the lightheadedness from being a couple pints down; but more likely it’s because on the off-chance that my blood ends up saving the life of someone fighting to protect my country, well, that would just fucking rule.” – more reader comment on the Letters Page.

An appreciation from the bottom of my heart. The sadness swells.

Here’s an email worth running in full. It makes some excellent points about the war so far:

I will admit to being a bit of an Army partisan. I’m also the first to acknowledge the brilliant work the Air Force has done in close air support (bombing of tanks, troops, etc). It looks like the strategic work (Baghdad, communications networks, etc) has been more mixed, but even there the jury will be out until the war is over. But with “it looks as if this war will be won primarily by the amazing work of the special forces, and the airforce” you’re off base. I think a full reading of the available reporting from both the embeds and those covering the larger view will bear that out. But I’ll highlight a few points –

-The 3rd Infantry Division has been in one giant knife fight for much of its charge north (a charge praised by the British, see London Times). The 3rd Squadron of the 7th Cavalry Regiment (the lead element for the 3rd ID) has been in some brutal battles. In those battles the Army has lost M-1 tanks on the battlefield for the first time EVER. Both the Marines and Army have been fighting house to house. We’re hearing anecdotal stories of streets covered with dead Iraqi troops. This has been a brutal fight. John Ringo (www.johnringo.com), a Fox contributer and former paratrooper might be a good guy to talk to if you’re interested. He’s pretty accessible (though I don’t know him) and well informed on the 7th Cavalry’s recent battles.

-You say “Rummy” was right. Rummy also said we didn’t need the Brits. Imagine where we would be if the Brits weren’t bottling up Basra with a couple of brigades. Keep in mind the Brits have one division in country, and we only have a little more than two. That he would even consider writing off that contribution should tell you a little about what he thought this war was going to be like.

-Everyone talks about the plan for a “rolling start”. Why? It’s BS to suggest that this was Frank’s ideal plan. Vernon Loeb’s reporting in the Washington Post makes that clear. Rumsfeld tore up plan after plan until he got a small enough force that he could live with. But WHY? It’s one thing if you have to make decisions about what to do when you don’t have time to build forces. But this war has been likely, if not certain, for months. What was the downside in having another division in the desert? Were the political, economic, logistic, and troop issues so overwhelming that it couldn’t be done? I actually think the costs were pretty minimal.

-I hope that we don’t need to fight house to house in Baghdad or Tikrit. I will be thrilled if this all ends tonight. But what if we do have to join that fight? Do we have enough troops?
Someone needs to show me where, because I don’t see it, until the 4th ID gets there. If then.

-At least some of the rapid success has to do with Iraqi failures. Not blowing bridges, for example. Did spec ops and the AF contribute to this? Probably. Should it be something that we count on? Of course not. Is Barry McCaffery (or anyone else) wrong to worry about what could go wrong? Again, of course not. Should we count on this in whatever’s next? No.

-You’re putting an awful lot of weight on the musings of one infantry company XO (probably about 25 years old) with the Post article that you cite. In any case, “Air Force jets, Army AH-64 Apache helicopters and multiple-rocket launchers” – two of the three are Army. And the multiple-rocket launchers (MLRS) are Army artillery – “the dominant tactical weapon on the battlefield” – so says General McCaffery (Kudlow and Cramer, a couple of nights ago).

-Sometimes military officers need a kick in the pants to make needed change. But in not giving them what they ask for (and again, there is no way CENTCOM and V Corps got what they would have preferred), you assume a massive responsibility. Again, it’s one thing if you face a political decision to fight and you don’t have time to get them what they would like in a perfect world. But it’s a different animal if you have the time and you’re taking the opportunity to test a new theory.

-Even if this does end tomorrow, I don’t think anyone looking at this in a year would say that we had the appropriate amount of ground forces in the south. Turkey’s surprise not withstanding, there was no margin for error. One company out of place, one Iraqi tank company sneaking past into our supply convoys, and we would have been facing a disaster, because we had no significant reserves, and no troops with which to secure the areas in the south.

I don’t mean to beat a point to death, but I think the reporting on this point is out there. Do not sell short what these people (Army and Marines) have had to do.

I have a feeling this debate is going to go on fo quite some time.

I’m simply stunned by the news of Mike Kelly’s death. He was a beautiful writer, a brave polemicist, a prickly, funny man, a superb editor, and a friend. He died in action, which is perhaps as he might have wanted it. I can’t think of anything more to say right now in the moments after reading this awful news, except that please pray for his young family, his wonderful wife, and his wider family and friends. He was a great journalist and a good, good man. May he rest in peace.

This is what some in the army – and their supporters in armchairs all over cable news – most feared:

Air Force jets, Army AH-64 Apache helicopters and multiple-rocket launchers “destroyed our objective,” said Lt. Bevan Stansbury, executive officer of Bravo Company in the 2nd Brigade’s 3rd Battalion, 15th Regiment. “So we have no fight right now.” “They pretty much destroyed every vehicle in the brigade,” Stansbury said. With a trace of disgust, he added, “Now we’re just rolling in and will probably be an occupation force.”

Now I can see the army is pissed off that they haven’t really been needed yet for the climactic battle against the Republican Guard (if it hasn’t already happened). But remind me why the rest of us should be concerned? From my particular, reclining armchair, it looks as if this war will be won primarily by the amazing work of the special forces, and the airforce (with critical backup, of course, on the ground). But that would prove Rummy right, wouldn’t it?

TO CHEER YOU UP: This tale of a humane Iraqi is worth a throat-catch or two.

A useful reminder.

SPIN AND SQUIRM: Mickey – “Don’t Rush Me, Rush Rummy” – Kaus is backing his friend (and mine) Bob Wright for the following assertion (made only two days ago!) that

as the war drags on, any stifled sympathy for the American invasion will tend to evaporate. As more civilians die and more Iraqis see their “resistance” hailed across the Arab world as a watershed in the struggle against Western imperialism, the traditionally despised Saddam could gain appreciable support among his people. So, the Pentagon’s failure to send enough troops to take Baghdad fairly quickly could complicate the postwar occupation, to say nothing of the war itself.

It’s a valiant effort, even as Bob’s piece seems to be moving inexorably toward a von Hoffman award (not yet, but it’s not looking good for the earthling U.N.-lover). Here’s a pitch-perfect rear-guard “spin and squirm” “what-did-the-Romans-ever-do-for-us?” pirouette from Mickey:

It’s true that the military picture has seemingly improved since Wright’s piece was posted; his how-can-we-trust-the-hawks-who-muffed-the-war-to-remake-the-Middle-East argument has less force than it did even 24 hours ago. But the hawks were surprised by initial resistance in the South (even if it was mainly resistance obtained at gunpoint), and Rumsfeld still did send too few troops, it seems — even if the war overall is going well so far. So there’s still room for doubting the hawks grander rosy scenarios.

The phrase “it seems — even if the war overall is going well so far” is the qualification only a master blogger could pull off. So’s the final sentence. If there’s room for doubting the hawks’ “grander” rosy scenarios, is there no room for doubting the less grand ones, like, er, that Rummy hasn’t obviously screwed up so far? In fact, to the naked eye, he’s kicking butt. Surely the best neoliberal criterion should still be Kenneth Pollack’s (partly because it wasn’t made with any of the current debate in mind):

Probably the most likely scenario would be about one third of Iraq’s armed forces fighting hard, limited use of tactical WMD, and some extensive combat in a few cities. In this most likely case, the campaign would probably last four to eight weeks and result in roughly 500 to 1,000 American combat deaths.

To argue that the war has taken much longer than necessary seems to me at this point to be pushing credulity. At the current rate of progress, it looks as if we’re going to come in at the lower end of Pollack’s estimate. But I guess the anti-neo-cons have got to grasp at something. If things continue at this pace, it’s going to be a cluster of von Hoffman awards.

The incorrect quote from the New York Times story about Lt. General William Wallace is a story that won’t quit. As a quote, it wasn’t a minor deal. Here’s a Google search of its impact – an entire array of media sources perpetuating a quote that was inaccurate. In fact, a whole wave of “quagmire” spin was promoted by the quote. And yet – and here’s the new twist – a few days earlier, a different New York Times story, by Jim Dwyer, got the quote right. Here it is. The same day, the Washington Post got it wrong. So the New York Times, having started out in better shape than its rival, then swerved into inaccuracy. Then – on the day of its correction – it went and did it again, in this piece in the Circuits Section:

The debate over the use of computer simulations large and small was sharpened when Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace, the commander of the Army V Corps based in Kuwait, remarked that the guerrilla-style resistance of Iraqi militia groups made for an enemy that was ‘different from the one we war-gamed against.‘ The current situation in Iraq, some critics say, may highlight the problem of depending too much on virtual realities for training. They argue that military leaders can become too enmeshed in a gaming scenario to allow for what is actually happening. (My emphasis.)

Yes, I guess you could say the quote marks make the quote technically ok. But after all this fuss, wouldn’t it be appropriate to make sure that the infamous “a bit” bit wasn’t snipped out the quote? It seems to me the Times got it right, then wrong, then corrected it, then got it wrong again. Is anyone actually editing this paper?

A BRITISH SETBACK: On the dusty streets of Umm Khayyal, a fierce battle ends in utter British defeat. But a minor p.r. victory. I hope to read more stories like this one.

THE OTHER WAR : And CNN’s in a bit of a “quagmire“.

SADDAM AND ISLAM: As things get worse, Saddam gets more and more religion. Odd that, isn’t it? We’ve been told endlessly that his rule is secular, yet it’s based on religious arguments. Hmmm. Here’s Lileks on the theme:

Anyway – I thought of this today while reading another one of Saddam’s dispatches from beyond the grave. It contained the usual BS (how do you know a Ba’athist is lying? His mustache is moving. And we curse it!) and it contained what we now have come to expect from this noted secular despot: explicit religiosity. (Reuters link via the indispensable Command Post.)
“Damn them, and by God, there will be thousands of soldiers fighting for what is right, virtue and faith in defense of the land of prophets and holy places, of belief and devotion,” it quoted Saddam as writing in a letter to his niece on April 1 . “This war is not like previous wars. It is truly a jihad (holy war) for the sake of God and the nation. It is a war between Muslims and infidels.”
We all know he doesn’t mean it; this is a fellow who probably installed drainage channels in the mosque floors in case he needed to use them as torture depots. But it’s a reminder that this campaign is not disconnected from 9/11 – it’s an integral part of the war. Whoever chose to speak for Saddam did not appeal to pan-Arab solidarity, to socialist duty, to the struggle against globalization, to the need to contain the American hegemony, or the primacy of the rule of international law, the campaign to release “Freaks and Geeks” on DVD, or whatever cause is floating out in the great maelstrom of international contention. Prophets, holy places, belief, devotion, jihad, God, war between Muslims and nonbelievers. Those are the terms.”

Yep. and they’re non-negotiable.

The New York Times has commissioned another piece designed to attack the administration’s journalistic supporters. The first, by Jim Rutenberg, was an attempt to gloat over conservatives’ alleged belief that this war would be a “cakewalk.” (I wonder if the Times would ever ever run a piece about those journalists who recently claimed that a “quagmire” was imminent.) The second by David Carr is designed to portray non-lefty journalists as stooges of the administration. It’ll probably appear tomorrow. Carr’s scoop is that yesterday, a bunch of us hacks had lunch with Karl Rove at a public restaurant in downtown DC. Organized by National Review’s Kate O’Beirne, these off-the-record lunches are regular events, and, although no material can be used, they are a good way to sense the mood in the administration, ask tough questions, talk candidly and so on. Most political magazines organize such lunches – at The New Republic, we used to have them all the time. In fact, such off-the-record lunches with senior politicians are a Washington fixture. But watch the Raines spin. Just a heads-up.

I apologize for sometimes linking to pieces in foreign languages, but sometimes they’re the only source for fascinating stories. Here’s one from “Proche-Orient,” a French publication covering the Middle East. You may recall an anti-Semitic incident at the poignantly named Albert Camus school last year, where a young Jewish girl was beaten in an anti-Semitic attack. A judge has now fined the parents of the girl – yes, the parents – for talking to the media about the affair. The French authorities deal with anti-Semitic violence the way the Catholic Church has historically dealt with child rape. Why? Because they know they’re guilty.