TOTTEN'S LATEST: FASCINATING REPORTING; WEAK ANALYSIS

Read Michael J. Totten's latest essay about his latest trip to Iraq. It's a fascinating first hand account. RTWT.

Totten's analysis is - as usual - far less outstanding. EXAMPLES:

Totten wrote:

American soldiers arrived in Iraq in 2003 with not much of a plan and little idea what to expect.

I'd like him to tell that to Tommy Franks. The planning was magnificent, and it was executed brilliantly despite unforeseen difficulties like the Turkish treachery.

The Iraq War itself - as opposed to the occupation from the war until the election - was perhaps the most brilliant invasion ever executed. Most analysts were fearing the worst, and the Pentagon was prepared for thousands of deaths during the campaign to gain control of Iraq and thousands more to gain control of Baghdad.

BUT WE KICKED ASS. It was brilliant.

Totten is wrong. And by starting off this essay in this manner he reveals his basic/deep bias. It muddies the waters, too: by conflating the War plan and it's brilliant execution with the occupation plan and its poor execution.

Totten also wrote:

Clear, hold, and build is the strategy now.

HE IS WRONG AGAIN - and coincidently we posted o this only a few days ago.

The CLEAR, HOLD AND BUILD strategy goes back to 2005 - this is from a WHITE HOUSE DOCUMENT AT THE WHITE HOUSE WEBSITE:

The Security Track

(Clear, Hold, Build)

o Objective: To develop the Iraqis' capacity to secure their country while carrying out a campaign to defeat the terrorists and neutralize the insurgency.
o To achieve this objective, we are helping the Iraqi government:
+ Clear areas of enemy control by remaining on the offensive, killing and capturing enemy fighters and denying them safe-haven.
+ Hold areas freed from enemy control by ensuring that they remain under the control of a peaceful Iraqi government with an adequate Iraqi security force presence.
+ Build Iraqi Security Forces and the capacity of local institutions to deliver services,

REPEAT: THAT'S EXCERPTED FROM A 2005 WHITE HOUSE DOCUMENT..

Totten's comment proves he is basically misinformed or at best UNDER-INFORMED. I think this basic inadequacy colors ALL OF HIS ANALYSIS. His misinformation makes it seem like ONLY NOW are we getting anything right, and only because of NEW STRATEGY. This is wrong.

BUT LETS NOT FORGET WHAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT IS NOT TOTTEN. What's crucially important to realize is that Petraeus is just implementing it with better tactics. And chief among these are the efforts to co-opt the Sunni Tribes: we have them on our side fighting the foreign fighters.

As a result: we are kicking more ass. This is the chief reason. (Readers of this blog know we have touted the Tribal Strategy for a long time. And we are glad it is being implemented effectively.)

This is why we MUST give our troops and Iraqi troops MORE TIME --- AS MICH TIME AS IT TAKES! And if we have to change tactics again... so be it The goal is great and noble and the strategy fine.

What Totten does - by going to Iraq - is admirable, and his reportage is excellent. But I find this his knowledge base weak - (he is neither a historian or Orientalist) and his weak analysis VERY annoying- (he is neither a diplomat or a military historian).

That's why he should stick to first person reportage.

There's more to good analysis than having unusual experiences and relating them as anecdotes with JPEGS. As someone once said (parapgrasing), anecdotes are not data, and data are not analyses.

Tom Friedman of the NYTIMES has proved this over and over again: Nice anecdotes, lousy analysis. (So Michael Totten is in illustrious company!)

BTW: I posted these comments and corrections over at Totten's blog. He deleted them and he's left his misinformation in the article UNEDITED.

That's more like the MSM than a blogger.

AH: to each his own...

MORE HERE ON TOTTEN'S LATEST - AT MEMEORANDUM.

AND THIS POST IS VERY MUCH RELATED TO THIS ONE; EXCERPT:

.All of these arguments about the need for reporters to report facts are dishonest. No one challenges this notion. No individual blogger could conceivably devote enough hours of his spare time (or his blogging time, if he does this full-time) to develop, confirm, and write a true bit of first-hand journalism once a week or so.

And the MSM knows that. They know their job on that score is secure -- simply because no one but a salaried reporter could put in forty hours a week working on a single story. (Especially because 99% of stories are not terribly important or remarkable, but still need to be reported -- but obviously no blogger could write up the Kalamazoo Crime Blotter three times a week and expect to be read by more than three thousand people as an absolute ceiling.)

What they are worried about is the decline in their influence as to matters not directly related to data-collection and not even remotely related to reportage. They're worried that they're losing their ability to shape (and mislead) public opinion in ways they find best for the public good. These people did not get into journalism, after all, to report on 3M's quarterly earnings advisory. They got into journalism to change things.

(I REPEAT: TOTTEN IS A GOOD AND BRAVE REPORTER/"DATA COLLECTOR". HIS COMMENTARY/ANALYSIS IS NOT AS GOOD. YET. AND HIS FAULTY ANALYSIS HAS LED HIM TO MAKE SOME OVERLY NEGATIVE CONNOTATIONS. I SUSPECT I KNOW WHY, BUT THAT'S FOR ANOTHER POST...)