|
thing is, seaver, that in this kind of conflict, there are going to be spaces that are more or less active and times when they will and wont be as well--there's nothing like a consistent battle-line or any type of continuous engagement--so alot of bets are off in terms of assessment of that is happening overall based on anecdotal evidence. without meaning to trivialize anything, its almost like from an old-school military strategy perspective, this war is entirely anecdotal.
so what i think is in that particular sector, the goal of the offensive or "surge" worked, but it's not obvious how--these particular folk might be sitting around alot, but you can't tell if this follows from a "win" in the sense of much meaningful destruction of an enemy the americans can actually find on a consistent basis, or if they simply moved. the writer of the article doesn't know either way and draws no conclusions from this particular situation.
fact is that it's hard to make any global assessments.
casualty rates overall indicate that the fighting is diffuse but continuous, more or less---so that's one.
assessments of what if going on in general that do not originate with the american press pool paint a darker picture than the article you bit above, which does come from the pool. what you rarely get in the america press--fed to the pool--is anything that even appears to be a rational assessment of the overall situation. what the press has become, in the context of the press pool, is a marketing relay system that links pentagon-cleared infotainment to press outlets to a public.
and then you have a contextual change in that turkey appears to be already making forays into kurdish territory in the north and is gearing up for a larger operation maybe, so that'll tank the situation in kurdistan.
but seriously, it's hard to feel as though we as merely the public have information reliable or comprehensive enough to *know* anything--we can assemble information that gives a *sense* of it, but there are always mitigating factors that can be introduced--so it comes down in a strange way to what you want to see. and it's at this point that judgments become difficult: if you opposed the war, is there a level of vindication to be had from assembling a negative image? does that mean then that you are treating violence as a source of pleasure/confirmation? or if you supported the war, does the contrary hold? and if that's the case, do parallel a prior committments cause you to not look at information to the contrary?
i dont say this because i have a secret card to introduce at the end that will reveal all--i say it because i think this is pretty much the position the ongoing informational and political management process has put us in.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|