Absolutely worth the read

My Dogs will not be the first blog to link this incredibly compelling post by embedded reporter Michael Yon who writes a lengthy piece about a close encounter between American soldiers and terrorists in Mosul, Iraq. Michael's story has been hailed all over the blogosphere, so I can hardly take credit for an original find or spin on it.

But for those who haven't run across it, please take a look because it is without a doubt worthy of the time investment. It is the kind of anecdote that won't make the nightly news, which is rather odd when you think about it. It's a micro-level story involving a handful of terrorists and soldiers. So in that sense, it is neither different in size nor scope than the micro-level anecdotes we hear about an IED killing four in Nasariyah, etc. What is different, is that the soldiers are ultimately successful in capturing their target. They are brave and heroic, which is to say that they were also scared. They are skillful in applying lessons-learned in battling the insurgents. They shoot to kill, but they also show intelligence and restraint during their pursuit of the enemy. Yes, we occassionally hear the faint praise of the "great job" the troops are doing, but rarely do we hear or read the anecdotes which bear this out and three-dimensionalize the effort.

As I've written this, I guess that is my spin on this thing. If the media believes the appropriate way to report the war is on an anecdotal level (and frankly, that is the only option currently available to them), why is it that we generally receive only one type of anecdote? And is it fair to draw sweeping policy-level conclusions from them? As I have argued before, it is impossible for anyone; be it Rumsfeld, Sistani, Zarqawi, Bush, Blair, or even Juan Cole and Cindy Sheehan, to really have an aggregate view of how the conflict is "trending." It can only be viewed through an aggregation of anecdotes to build a "mosaic". And as such, when you read and listen to the mainstream media, you typically only get one type of anecdotal story, and it inevitably involves dead Americans and Iraqi civilians, weeping Iraqi mothers, exploitable ethnic strife, and rare mission success.

I would argue that there are other types of anecdotes out there. There must be. Read Yon's account of this shootout in Mosul and let me know if it is the kind of thing you ever come across in the mainstream media. Ever. And if it isn't, ask yourself why. Part of the answer lies in most correspondents' unwillingness to go out on dangerous ops. Another part lies in editorial biases about what constitutes news in Iraq. That's a pretty lethal combination when you consider the implications that media reporting and public opinion have on our policies. This is an important post for a number of reasons. But among them are the questions: Why don't we see more like it and should we really base our opinion of the war and policy options on that which we do see?