StormWarning’s Counterterrorism

The millions of words scattering (littering?) the Internet about the War on
Terrorism, and most recently, the hostage taking (and release) of the
15 British sailors should remind us of what our parents cautioned us,
"don’t believe everything that you read" because you need to consider
the source.

Despite the plethora of blogs (and bloggers) tossing their thoughts, feelings and opinions (often indiscriminately) out on the Internet for worldwide consumption, the first thing to remember is that most bloggers are not journalists.  Now in some (many?) parts of the blogger world, the term "journalist" immediately brings up the image of the often derided "mainstream media" (or as the radio poobah Limbaugh refers to it, the "driveby media").  What’s my point?

I’ve been spending more of my time (as "spare" as my "spare time" is actually sparse) reading, or at least glancing at a wider range of the so-called "political blogs."  Partially, that’s a result of a chance "meeting" with another blogger (Debbie from Right Truth who, while we often hold different opinions or interpretations of situations, I think puts forth a good effort to keep things balanced and, most of all, accurate), and partially its a function of starting to read Real Clear Politics (which in itself has a real clear slant as well).  Before, my blog reading was limited to Counterterrorism Blog, Threatswatch, Fourth Rail, StrataSphere, Homeland Security Watch, In From the Cold and a few other places like that where for "secure" reasons (not to be disclosed) I had some knowledge of the credibility of the sources (this actually reminds me that I need to reorganize my Personal Tool Bar).  So what’s my point?

Last weekend I was confronted with a posting that had a headline ended by a questionmark, and yet which clearly, at least to my reading, supported a Good Friday "sneak attack" on Iran by the United States.  And it cited an article from the Jerusalem Post that in turn repeated reports by Russian "Intelligence" of this impending and publicly proclaimed "sneak attack."

NOTE:  I realized since this morning when I posted this information that I had neglected to add that some of the initial spreading of this rumor was perpetrated by none other than Webster Tarpley.  For those of you who are unfamiliar with Webster, among other things he contends that the events of September 11 were engineered by the GWB administration.

Russian news agency RIA Novosti quoted a security official as saying, "Russian intelligence has information that the US Armed Forces stationed in the Persian Gulf have nearly completed preparations for a missile strike against Iranian territory."

The Russian Defense Ministry rejected the claims of an imminent attack as "myths." There was no immediate response from Washington.

Without addressing the question of whether the Jerusalem Post article was an example of responsible journalism or not, my question is the influence of many blogs perpetuating the life of yellow journalism.

For many months before I starting writing this blog, maybe over a year, I personally fought the quoting of the content of blogs, many of them anonymous (just like this one), as fact.  Clearly, my reasoning went, that without knowing the credibility of the source, how could one judge the content?  Certainly, there is no "bully pulpit here," especially since for business and related political reasons, I write on this blog anonymously…obviously, my parents did not name me Stormwarning.

The outright rejection of diplomacy (seen by some as "negotiating with terrorists"), the blanket damnation of all people who practice the Muslim faith as belonging to the "religion of peace" (this term uttered very derisively by those use it), and even the rather extreme reactions to one of my other recent posts (read the comments to "Just Say No!" to Johnny Taliban), makes me wonder about how many people who read the Internet for their information (supplemented by the radio pundits like Limbaugh) from which they form their opinions.  Given the plethora of "information" sources and the myriad blogs (pseudo)"covering" world events, I doubt that we are collectively better informed.

So, what happened in Iran with those sailors?

For some insight, refer to In From the Cold’s, The Deal (read this and the referenced NY Sun article)
"Yesterday, we speculated about what sort of deal might have ssecured
the release of those 15 British military personnel being held by Iran.
Tehran’s sudden decision to free the captured sailors and Royal Marines
suggested that some sort of agreement had been reached. At that point,
we were awaiting confirmation that a deal had been struck, and the
details of that agreement.

In today’s New York Sun, reporter Eli Lake does an admirable job of filling in the details…"[more]

The Iranian diplomat released Tuesday preceding the
announcement that Iran would free the 15 British sailors it had taken
hostage was being held in a joint Iraqi and American facility, and was
released in part because of a decision at the highest levels of the
American government.
The decision to release Jalal Sharafi on Tuesday was made at the White
House, according to an administration official who asked to be
anonymous because of the sensitivity of the information. The release
took place over the objections of some commanders in the field.

So, if you read "some" blogs, you see a rejection of diplomacy and
backroom dealing, and yet, the apparent facts (and I repeat the word
"apparent") support my contention that negotiating and haggling did
occur.

For more on the situation:

British crew chose not to fight Iranian Guard
The British sailors and marines held captive
for nearly two weeks in Iran were blindfolded, bound and faced constant
psychological pressure, a Royal Navy lieutenant said Friday.

Lt. Felix Carman said the crew faced harsh interrogation by their Iranian captors and slept in stone cells on piles of blankets.

"All of us were kept in isolation. We were
interrogated most nights and presented with two options. If we admitted
that we’d strayed, we’d be on a plane to (Britain) pretty soon," Carman
said. "If we didn’t, we faced up to seven years in prison." [more]

Inclused in this article is,  All sides deny deal freed Britons.

Sailors’ behavior in captivity probed
Fifteen British sailors and marines flew home after 13 days in Iranian
captivity yesterday to a barrage of questions about their behavior
while detained…

Another who said he was troubled by the images was Col. Bob Stewart, a commander of British peacekeeping forces during the Bosnian conflict.
   

"In the old way," Col. Stewart told British Broadcasting Corp. radio, "we didn’t used to say much when we were taken as captive — name, rank, number, date of birth." That is a far cry from current practice, under which British military personnel are advised to cooperate with their captors at their discretion if it can help save them from harm.
   

"I know things have changed, and I know they were not prisoners of war," Col. Stewart said, "but I’m a little disquieted about it."[more]

This entire situation, I believe, exhibits the implications of the extreme positions taken by some people.  Even if the motives are "pure" and the intentions "good," the question must be asked, "How much of American public opinion is being formed as a result of their reading opinionate blogs and bloggers whose insights are perhaps clouded by others’ opinions and by slanted news sources?"

As time goes on, readers of blogs need to scrutinize their sources…and yes, even this one (as it is written anonymously), even though the attempt is made to fully research and document, and with the exception of pure opinion pieces, attempts to avoid extremist positions or language.

"A Sneak Attack on Iran on Good Friday?"  Indeed!

And I repeat a comment that I posted: Foreign policy is a balancing act.  That is fact and reality.  It remains so, even after September 11th. ..or maybe despite September 11th.  Anger has no role or place in the process (yes, Pelosi is an idiot, but so are the three Republican Congressmen who went to Syria three days earlier).

Current Affairs, International Issues, Opinions