Bill Roggio says the troops in Iraq don't have a very high opinion of the press:

While waiting to manifest on the flight to Fallujah, CNN played a news segment of President Bush announcing there would be no “graceful exit” from Iraq, and that we'd stay until the mission was complete. Two sergeants in the room cheered. Loudly. They then scoffed at the reports from Baghdad, and jeered the balcony reporting.

In nearly every conversation, the soldiers, Marines and contractors expressed they were upset with the coverage of the war in Iraq in general, and the public perception of the daily situation on the ground. The felt the media was there to sensationalize the news, and several stated some reporters were only interested in “blood and guts.” They freely admitted the obstacles in front of them in Iraq. Most recognized that while we are winning the war on the battlefield, albeit with difficulties in some areas, we are losing the information war. They felt the media had abandoned them.

During each conversation, I was left in the awkward situation of having to explain that while, yes, I am wearing a press badge, I'm not 'one of them.' I used descriptions like 'independent journalist' or 'blogger' in an attempt to separate myself from the pack.

What a terrible situation to be in, having to defend yourself because of your profession. I've always said that the hardest thing about embedding (besides leaving my family) is wearing the badge that says 'PRESS.' That hasn't changed. I hide the badge whenever I can get away with it.

"Most recognized that while we are winning the war on the battlefield, albeit with difficulties in some areas, we are losing the information war. They felt the media had abandoned them."

To all those who compare Iraq to Vietnam the above is the only direct comparison that is valid. The media now as then is skewing the story to suit them and it doesn't matter how successful we are the press will continue to skew the story.

The MSM didn't abandon the troops, it was always on the other side.

Every week or so, with unfailing regularity, the blame game pins it on the reporting from Iraq.

Or is it that however bad the situation, no one wants to think that what they are doing is meaningless? Clearly Bush doesn't. Perhaps this could explain why the troops in the article can't reconcile their view of things with the news reports.

If I thought my actions were totally futile, would I be able to function? Probably not, so perhaps the same holds for the troops who want to believe in a "mission." This interpretation is that the view of the troops is a necessary psychological adaptation for realizing meaning in their actions.

I can't believe this is yet another vast left wing conspiracy. The hundreds of bodies arriving weekely in the Baghdad morgues with signs of torture are real. This isn't a perception, it's a visually confirmed fact.

If I thought my actions were totally futile, would I be able to function?

Apparently you function just fine, and you do a great job of projection.

I guess the outgoing and incoming SecDef(s) have been reading too much of the MSM. How can someone so far removed from the action state (in Gates' case) state so emphatically that we are "losing the war in Iraq"? To hell with the big picture, to hell with perspective, they should be out cherry-picking comments from individual soldiers before they go mouthing off to Congress, the President and the press!

Toast_n_Tea, Occam's razor suggests that you are incorrect. The simplest explanation is "if it bleeds, it leads". Winning a war isn't news, but losing a war is. So, any chance the media gets to present Iraq as a futile, losing proposition, lands on the front page.

If it Bleeds it Leads, means that the Media companies
will be as happy to show footage of a Cobra Missile
impacting into an Iraqi bunker as footage of an IED
shredding a HMMWV.

Now I suppose Simberg would be happier if there was no
press coverage of Iraq, just as there is no press coverage
of Afghanistan, so the Bush guys could lose with nobody
watching.

Iraq has gone as long as WW2, longer then WW1, the
spanish american war, the revolutionary war.

The only war's longer have been Vietnam and the Civil War.
Neither of which were popular or well-regarded as good
ideas in this country.

There are good reasons why war's are short.

I'm sure Puckett believes the century of Ill-Will
engendered by General Sherman in Georgia
is just the kind of thing we need in Iraq.

> Iraq has gone as long as WW2, longer then WW1, the
spanish american war, the revolutionary war.

Since anonymous thinks that the Iraq war has been fought too violently, he doesn't get to complain about how long it takes.

"I'm sure Puckett believes the century of Ill-Will
engendered by General Sherman in Georgia
is just the kind of thing we need in Iraq."

If Iraq was formerly a part of the US and we were tryiing to re-integrate it into the US as a whole, I would agree that what Sherman did was heavy handed and ham fisted.

However, we are hardly cutting swaths of devistation thru Iraq as we march to the sea, anything but that.

"Iraq has gone as long as WW2"

We are still in Germany and Japan.

Iraq has gone as long as WW2

Are you using new math are something, because not by any measure has Iraq gone on longer than WW2. The closest claim you can make is if you go back to the 1991 Persian Gulf War, but if that's your idea, then your start date for WW2 isn't December 7th 1941.

As Mike points out, we are still in Germany and Japan. We are still in Korea. I suggest renting the movie, "The Last Days of Patton", to get an idea of what Germany was like after VE day.

And isn't this a side corollary to Godwin's Law?

I think anonymous would do better to quit pondering WWI and WWII and just stick to WII.