The Washington Re-Post

In a report on “Operation Iron Fist” against terrorists in western Iraq and their supplies coming from Syria, a substantial portion of the article was devoted to giving voice to anti-American Iraqis who support the terrorists. [Jackie Spinner, “U.S. Troops Target Rebels In Town in Far Western Iraq,” The Washington Post, 10/2/2005, A21].

While the skeptical media reports any statement by the Bush Administration and our military as a potential lie that only remains to be proved to be so, they seem to have no problem reporting anti-American statements without only a minor caveat that they are unverified.

The Post provided the following example from the article:

Twelve civilians were killed in an airstrike in Sadah on Friday night, said Ali Rawi, a physician at the hospital in nearby Qaim. Among the dead were seven women and children, he added. The bombs hit four houses, witnesses said.

"Two more families were killed Saturday at 11 a.m. when they were fleeing the town, driving on a dusty road," Rawi said. An ambulance rushed to the area, but "the driver was shot by the U.S. forces and his assistant was wounded," the physician said. "This is the only ambulance we have, as the others were either stolen or destroyed by the American forces."

Rawi's account could not be independently verified.

Might the statements by Dr. Rawi be correct? Yes, however, as a doctor in a Sunni area, he is likely to be an unrepentant Baathist, and potential supporter of the terrorists. Further, his statement drops the context of the reason for US action and thus make it appear purely malicious.

In another statement from the article:

"We took our money and some of our jewelry, and now we escape as the Americans said that there are black days waiting for us," said Jawad Khattab, 55. "They want to avenge their dead." [emphasis added]

This statement reflects an ignorance of American objectives. However, it is not reported by Jackie Spinner as ignorance. More importantly, the article does not report on the source of this ignorance as that would actually have been useful.

Regarding US efforts to sort civilians from terrorists, the article reports:

Some residents objected to the checkpoints set up by Marines and Iraqi army units to search anyone leaving the town. "It is so insulting," said Nabeel Mohammed. "They even search the women like they search men. I hope the resistance rises and gives them a lesson for what they did to us."

In this quote, Nabeel Mohammed explicitly expresses support for the terrorist attacks and wishes injury to our forces! Individuals like him are terrorists, as their lose affiliation with the terrorist organization provides assistance to the violence. Mohammed’s statement is not a rational opinion subject to debate, and he should be jailed like the dangerous criminal that he is instead of quoted respectfully by the Washington Post.

Meanwhile, the Post reports a conspiracy theory that the goal of our effort is the opposite of one of its stated goals:

Abdul Karim Hadeethi, a local religious leader, said the assault was brought on by Shiite Muslims who want to ensure that Sunni Muslims do not vote in the Oct. 15 national referendum on a new constitution. Many Sunni Arab groups have rejected the proposed constitution and urged followers to vote against it.

"These operations will be an obstacle in the way of going to the polling centers," Hadeethi said.

Unfortunately, the report gives less space to mentioning that one of our objectives is to secure the voting from terrorist intimidation.

While the Washington Post has an important role in the War on Terrorism, this article fails to fulfill that responsibility. The Post should be leading the backlash in non-governmental opinion against terrorism yet it is failing to identify and condemn those who participate in terrorism.