[Reader-list] russian site sets itself up as objective forum for war commentary

[Rana Dasgupta]

Truth and Lies on the War in Iraq

(Where to Find the Truth)

by David Wiggins

How did an obscure Russian aviation web site's Alexa ranking shoot from
95,865 over the last 3 months to 7,831 on March 23rd and 3,623 on March
24th? Perhaps because it is one of the few places on the net, or in any
media, to find informed, timely, objective information on the situation in
Iraq. The name of the site is Venik's Aviation - Aerospace News and
Technical Information, which is an English language version of
http://www.iraqwar.ru/. They describe themselves as an:

"...analytical center was created recently by a group of journalists and
military experts from Russia to provide accurate and up-to-date news and
analysis of the war against Iraq...based on the Russian military
intelligence reports."

Most people assume Iraq's media to be biased and unreliable regarding
reporting of the war. For this reason, even if truthful, reports from Iraqi
media will not be taken seriously. Western media, particularly United States
media has become nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Pentagon. Their
errors have been so huge to be laughable if this wasn't such a serious
business, or if there wasn't a chance they were doing it on purpose:

"You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple
hundred dollars a month." ~ CIA operative discussing with Philip Graham,
editor Washington Post, on the availability and prices of journalists
willing to peddle CIA propaganda and cover stories. Katherine The Great, by
Deborah Davis (New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1991)

Embedded reporters are increasingly censored. Battles raged, but initially
we saw little more than tanks speeding through empty desert. It seems there
is a three-step process for seeing bad news on CNN, etc. First, evidence of
a POW or fatality must be seen on Iraqi TV. Second, there must be a grudging
admission by the Pentagon. Finally, we see the story on CNN, MSNBC and Fox.
This all leads us to wonder how much is not being reported just because it
did not show up first on Iraqi TV! There is little or no effort to
independently verify the Pentagon's claims. Reports invariably begin with
references to their sources in military or government positions. This is all
given an air of legitimacy by some retired "expert" Colonel du jour who may
very well be on the Defense Intelligence Agency's payroll. This is the plan,
of course, and it allows the military to make blatant use of CNN, MSNBC,
Fox, etc. as propaganda mouthpieces.

The two most egregious examples of disinformation disseminated by the major
news media are the battle for Umm-Qasr and the surrender of the Iraqi 51st
Infantry Division. Demonstrating its first victory in battle and
demonstrating mass surrenders on the part of the Iraqi Army was extremely
important to the Pentagon. This would increase support for the war on the
home front, increase coalition morale, and demoralize the Iraqi Army. It was
so important to the Pentagon, in fact, that they chose to completely make it
up. We're not talking about shading the truth here; we are talking lie -
bold, plain and simple.

All major media outlets dutifully reported that Umm-Qasr had fallen to
coalition forces on 20 March. They have repeated the same lie every day
since then, never demanding independent verification, just mouthing the same
Pentagon lines. The truth is the battle there continues as of March 24th. So
far, coalition forces have not taken a single town. CNN, MSNBC, Fox and
others also reported that coalition forces took the city of Basra, a charade
that was extremely simple to refute. Nonetheless, when the Pentagon told CNN
Basra had fallen, CNN reported it as fact.

On March 21st all major media reported the surrender of the entire Iraqi
51st Infantry Division. Where were the supposed 8,000 POWs? Don't ask
General McChrystal who was asked this question during a Pentagon news
briefing. "They must have run off," was his reply. Nobody laughed at him. In
fact, nobody even asked a follow up question. Imagine his surprise (none I'm
sure) to see the commander that "surrendered" on Al Jazeera March 23rd
describing how well his division was fighting.

Fortunately, humans have some latent desire to know the truth and at least a
rudimentary ability to know BS when they hear it. In the past, this led to
frustration because alternative sources for news were not readily available.
Ironically, the DoD created the internet, and it has undone a great deal of
their efforts to keep the people in ignorance and fear. Knowledge empowers
people and facilitates another latent desire - the desire for justice. All
over the world people who know better are demonstrating against the war in
Iraq. Only in the United States and Israel, the homes of the world's most
sophisticated disinformation apparatus, is there not an overwhelming
majority in opposition to the war. This will change as the truth emerges.

All this brings me back to that Russian website. The Russians have the
intelligence capability to eavesdrop on coalition conversations, so they get
the real uncensored scoop from the battlefield. They are not in NATO or
closely allied to the United States, so they feel no need to shade the truth
for the benefit of the United States. One might contend that the Russians
are reporting mistruths in favor of the Iraq, but this should be tempered by
the economic ties they have with the United States as well as the knowledge
that the United States will almost certainly emerge victorious. A look at
the site will reinforce its credibility. The reports are factual and
detailed. They give a distinct air of credibility. They are also concerning
and eyebrow raising. Here are some tidbits:

- Coalition pilots are finding it very difficult to identify and destroy
radar and aircraft due to the extensive use of mock-ups. "We engaged
everything that looked like a radar. But there is no way in hell we can know
what it really was!" - reported one of the coalition pilots back to ground
control after releasing missiles against a suspected Iraqi radar site. "

- At least two of the eight supposedly Iraqi missiles that hit Kuwait turned
out to be US sea- launched cruise missiles that strayed off course.

- A radio intercept made last night at approximately 4:40 am [March 22nd]
indicated that two British helicopters were shot down by a "Strela" SAM
system after flying into a SAM trap. The official explanation for the loss
was that the two helicopters crashed into each other while taking-off from a
ship.

- Chairman Gen. Richard Mayers expressed strong criticism of the actions by
the coalition commander Gen. Franks and proposed to strengthen his
headquarters with several other senior military commanders.

- A CIA referent in the combat area Col. Davis (likely to be a pseudonym)
and the US DoD Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) regional director were
demoted due to their inadequate performance in estimating the strength of
Iraq's forces and their combat readiness.



-According to the intercepted radio traffic, the US forces have sustained up
to 40 killed, up to 10 captured and up to 200 wounded during the fighting
near An-Nasiriya. The US forces have also lost up to 40 armored vehicles,
including no less than 10 tanks.

- The overall coalition losses at Umm Qasr during the past four days
amounted to up to 40 killed and up to 200 wounded. The overall British
losses on the Fao peninsula during the past four days of fighting include up
to 15 killed and up to 100 wounded.

Work is paralyzed at the coalition press-center in Kuwait. Journalists are
not able to get any information except for the hourly press communiqué from
the command. A variety of reasons are cited by the military to reduce the
number of trips into the combat zone for the journalists. All reports coming
from the journalists attached to the coalition units are now being strictly
censored by the military. All live broadcasts, as those seen during the
first day of the war, are now strictly prohibited by a special order from
the coalition command. The required time delay between the time news video
footage was shot and the time it can be broadcast has been increased to a
minimum of four hours.