British press reaction to the Petraeus report

Britain's two most influential newspapers - The Guardian (the newspaper of the ideas class) and The Daily Mail (the voice of Middle England) - are both negative about Petraeus' report.

The size of The Guardian's online American readership is now comparable to its British readership.  The Guardian's leader on Petraeus focused not on the General's numbers but on the BBC poll which suggested a majority of Iraqis did not have faith in the surge.  The turnaround in Anbar, the newspaper editorialises, was not due to the surge but to the power "of local Sunni forces, the same ones that supported Saddam, to turn on and turn off the violence".

The Mail, which although right-of-centre has opposed the Iraq war from day one, says that "Britain and America [are] utterly compromised as a force for peace" in the Middle East.  Its leader concludes:

"Isn't it becoming increasingly clear that by his heavy-handed reaction, Mr Bush turned an outrage by 19 suicidal hijackers into a calamity for the democratic world?"

Britain's most anti-war newspaper - The Independent - chooses to attack a "disgraceful and cynical surge of self-interest".  General Petraeus is caricatured within a cartoon on its editorial pages.  He is seen as a small figure, in the jacket pocket of President Bush.  He is saluting saying: "Sir! Yessir!!! The surge goes on."  The cartoon can be accessed from this page.

Most positive about the General's report is The Times.  'Listen to Petraeus' it urges:

"Piecemeal successes do not make headlines. But to pull the rug from under a potentially winning strategy would be insane. Iraqis have by no means fallen in love with foreign occupation. But they do see America as their necessary ally against the enemies within. The message is that steadfastness yields results. To rush to the exit would be to betray Iraqis and principle."

The Sun, Britain's best-selling newspaper, chose 'US to start Iraq exit 'in weeks'' as its headline.

Comments

[Steevo]

If people have been against this endeavor its very obvious it doesn't matter what progress is being made.

You cannot understand it unless you are on the ground, in the red zone, for a long time. Nobody working in the BBC, Guardian or Daily Mail are qualified. They do not have this experience and knowledge necessary. They are not reporters in any true sense concerning this war. They are opinionated and opinion-makers, with an agenda.

Of course their 'answer' is not an answer. It will bring utter disaster. Genocide, and terrorist bases like never before.

Who knows how the BBC got this poll? And even if it was true wouldn't one who was humane, and cared about the Iraqis hope the Americans stayed? And made the surge continue?

What I read about the people and from the people is by and large they are glad the Americans are there. They know they need them. Actually a growing sentiment is they genuinely like and want to befriend the Americans, especially young Iraqis. They can trust them. And they know... who the bad guys are. There is uncertainty if the Americans will see this through but really... the BBC, Guardian, our Democrats and so on are part of the blame along with non-surge policy in the past. If the troops have it their way they will stay and see it through, unless the Iraqis just give up.

"Isn't it becoming increasingly clear that by his heavy-handed reaction, Mr Bush turned an outrage by 19 suicidal hijackers into a calamity for the democratic world?"

This is the kind of statement that is being used to 'justify' that we what... leave? Give it up? Go home and hang our heads in shame? Its like saying even now... the same old mantra, "no WMD"... so, hang it up.

These people are cheap sleazes. They are willing to have a country of 24 million forsaken because they don't wanna see an American victory of any sorts.

This news from Petraeus is bad news for the elites.

[Steve]

"Nobody working in the BBC, Guardian or Daily Mail are qualified."

You should bear in mind that the BBC, Guardian, and the Daily Mail have more un"embedded" reporters in Iraq than the entire press contingent in the States. Why then are they not "qualified" to report? Because unlike their American counterparts they raised legitimate opposistion to the war?

We've already seen how the British have withdrawn successfully from Basra and surprise, surprise, the region hasn't collapsed.

Whether or not the American forces and their "Shock and Awe" startegy have led to instability in the regions under their command such that they cannot scale back successfully is debatable.

A top US commander in charge of operations in Baghdad was asked "you would think that with the amount of children happily waving as we go by you have the support of the populous?"

He replied "our intelligence sources tell us that they wave because they're afraid if they don't they'll be shot." That tells you about all you need to know.

[Steevo]

"You should bear in mind that the BBC, Guardian, and the Daily Mail have more un"embedded" reporters in Iraq than the entire press contingent in the States. Why then are they not "qualified" to report?

I'm talking about what's happening on the ground, period. Do you understand what that means? You can only report on it if you are there. If you are in the red zone: in FOB operations. I won't define that any further for you except to say if one is not there and for a long enough time, one cannot know what is happening. But I don't think you care to understand the implications. Oh, but you've already implied(?) that you care about the children, so you must care about what's really important here?

My point: only true reporting (eye-witness and first-hand testimony in the field) of its ongoing history to the present, and being honest if one has a 'solution'. Ah your point... only trust your Beeb and Guardian and um, a different strategy and solution to Petraeus'?

I'm interested?

As far as the rest of your comments... with a pathetic and meaningless mock of "Shock and Awe" you're totally ignorant of the current dynamics at play. Simply put you have no clue what's going on. And I can assure you (not that you care for any assurance regarding the welfare of the Iraqi people) that regardless of whoever this "top" commander is from what ever source you want to believe in, I can go to first-hand sources in every place now I have been reading about where young Iraqis are, and they are showing the farthest sentiment from what you've stated and want believed.

This is first-hand from Baghdad very recently, cutting through a 100 'stories' from your only qualified British major media:

"Iraqi kids are plentiful, and unabashed by the presence of American
military. Back home, only 1 percent of the population serves in the armed
forces. In some places, like Manhattan, New York, where I live, it's
possible to never meet someone who has served in the military. The typical
Iraqi has had far greater contact with the U.S. military than the everyday
American citizen. The military, for better or worse, will leave an
impression on the Iraqi people, especially the young ones who eagerly want
to talk to Americans. Some kids want footballs, others will insist on
chocolate, but what is striking is how unafraid the children are of
towering soldiers in complete body armor, dark glasses and imposing
weaponry.

"Despite it being a time of war, paradoxically the Fertile Crescent is
still vibrant, and the proof of rejuvenation is in the abundant presence
of young kids at all levels of society. Children in Iraq laugh a lot and
entertain themselves with the simplest of toys – but all activity stops
when the Americans come to town.

"The kids especially like to pose for cameras, so I've had no shortage of
young children asking me to take their picture. They pose with their
friends and ask questions that I mostly don't understand, but that doesn't
seem to bother them. One sign of how the Iraqis see their future: Older
children will hold up their sibling toddlers for a photo – picture
perfect.

"On one block, the 1-4 Cav is such a frequent guest that the children
follow them around. Despite the heat, heavy body armor and the constant
threat of enemy attack, I have never seen a member of the military lose
his or her temper – even when the kids on occasion can be annoying,
they'll just walk away."

Finally I just have to add this...

"Why then are they not "qualified" to report? Because unlike their American counterparts they raised legitimate opposistion to the war?"

LOL you really are so in the dark.