Guardian Article Misrepresents the Advisers' View

Guardian Article Misrepresents the Advisers' View - Dave Kilcullen at the Small Wars Journal Blog.

Quote:

---

Today’s Guardian article (“Military Chiefs Give US Six Months to Win Iraq War”) misrepresents the Baghdad advisers. So much so, it makes me doubt the reliability of the single, unidentified source responsible for much of the article’s reporting.

I hope SWJ colleagues will forgive this more "personal" post than usual, but as Senior Counterinsurgency Adviser I have a duty to set the record straight on this...

---

As with all SWJ Blog posts - please comment on the blog as well as here. Also, take a minute to visit Real Clear Politics and vote on this blog entry if you see fit.

Thanks,

Dave D.

A great many main stream "news" sources seem for more interested in putting a negative spin on events than providing accurate information. The Guardian has long covered the war in a way that seems more in line with reinforcing the insurgents than providing coverage. (We can add Reuters, the New York Times, CBS, and a host of other "news" organizations to the list. I don't expect rah-rah coverage. I expect to hear about the good, the bad and the ugly. But their reporting has been so bad that "journalistic ethics" has to be the greatest contradictions in terms in the English language.)

Given the Guardians track record, I suspected the article from the start. My thanks to Lt. Col. Kilcullen for setting the record straight. We need to ask a lot more of these "news" organizations "But whose side are you on?" However, I don't think they want that answer known.