Keith Devens .com

Back on the air bud- sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Yeah, executive decision--there were Iraqi children in the building...

PS--I'm sad that Brian reads your blog and not mine. ...not really--I have no feelings, I'm a calculating machine, biatch.

The TV network really had no military value, as anyone could moniter it, you can't pass important information secretely.

As for keeping the public informed or using it for propaganda... well it's Iraq. By all reports they broadcasted fluff pieces, music and the occasional bit of distorted war news. Not really useful to anyone. However when US troops enter, I am willing to bet we make gaining control of broadcasting facilities fairly high on the list. That way we can update the average Iraqi, try our best to soothe scared people, etc etc. Makes more sense imho.

You never mentioned why it was important to take out, what where your thoughts?

I'd see Iraqi officials going on TV and spewing propaganda - that we were retreating, they were winning, etc. It was kind of funny, but I thought "Why are we letting them go on TV and propagandize?". They've been on TV shooting into the water and claiming that it was a downed pilot, etc. etc. While the TV didn't have military purposes, per se, it's been a major tool in their propaganda war.

You may be right about wanting to use the TV after we "take over", but I had heard that we were going to broadcast ourselves. I don't know if we'd really have to use their television infrastructure.

Weren't we were broadcasting radio (and TV?) from a plane flying overhead or something?

Radio we already broadcast. TV, I dunno. I honestly think in the end it's a minor point considering all the other complexities of the war.

It is a minor point. Which is why I was wondering why we didn't just take it out early on, and why we had to have a presidential-level decision to approve it.

The bombing of the Iraqi TV station was a breach of the Geneva Convention. That may be why it took so long to happen.

In this conflict, both Iraq and the US have breached the Geneva Convention. Both have shown POWs on TV.

Also, please don't think that the Iraqis are the only ones spinning propaganda. Remember the early claims of mass iraqi defections made by the Pentagon and US press? Propaganda.

Great blog BTW.

I'm not so sure about whether the bombing of the TV station was a violation of the Geneva Convention, so I'm not going to argue it either way.

But about showing POW's on TV... there's a big difference between showing soldiers you've executed and those being interrogated than having embedded reporters happen to catch some surrenders on TV, before the people are even POW's. I really don't think we've come close to doing anything wrong in that respect.

Of course both sides put forth propaganda, that's what happens in war. But our propaganda was to save lives rather than take them. Another difference is that we didn't lie about anything, while Iraqi TV has been totally dishonest. They even staged events like the shooting of a downed pilot in the water. Furthermore, Saddam Hussein used TV to give out what could arguably be military orders, which one could argue made it a military target. Anyway, it seems to be common sense that a state-run TV station like that should be taken out, but whether it's technically in violation of the Geneva Convention, I don't know for sure.

Anyway, it's a little irritating when people (I'm not necessarily talking about you) try to make a comparison between anything we've done and what Iraq does.

Oops, missed something... mass Iraqi defections: In the first few days we had 3500 surrenders, AFAIK. They were surrendering as fast as we could handle them. A lot we just sent home. Others just deserted without surrendering. One company even shot their officers to avoid having to fight.

"we didn't lie about anything,"

Your joking right? It's fairly easy to catch BS spewed from the whitehouse on a daily basis. No where near as much as the Iraqi BS but BS none the less. The stray missle that killed 15 was initially called "staged by saddam" then later it was "unconfirmed". In all likely hood it was a stray US bomb. Makes the most sense since we were shooting at them at the time. I would have respected them much more if they had simply said "we think it was ours, we're sorry it happened, we're doing our best" rather then pussyfooting around.

http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2450798

I did a quick search and there is some indication that destroying the TV station was a violation of the geneva convention. Now I think we know why it had to be made at a presidential level right?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30713-2003Mar26.html

Those mass defections proved to be um... partly incorrect. Just saw it on the news. I'm sure it's happening but it's not as overwhelming as previously thought. The Iraqis are fighting tough, some out of insane loyalty, others because their wifes and children's are at gunpoint. Reports also indicate that many people are being killed for trying to leave the area.

"it's a little irritating when people (I'm not necessarily talking about you) try to make a comparison between anything we've done and what Iraq does."

Fair enough, but then wouldn't the argument that it's okay to kill roughly 200-300 civilians because we are doing "good" be undermined? I'm the old fashioned type these days. Killing non-combatants just doesn't sit right. It doesn't make me feel better that Saddam doesn't give a damn, or it's collateral damage. Our country isn't like Iraq, Americans shouldn't be like Saddam, even if it's only a little.

The stray missle that killed 15 was initially called "staged by saddam" then later it was "unconfirmed". In all likely hood it was a stray US bomb.

It was always unconfirmed, because we just didn't know. And then we accounted for every single missle we shot that day and it wasn't one of ours. It very likely could have been an Iraqi surface to air missle that came back down, or, given Saddam's history, it just as well could have been something he did intentionally.

I would have respected them much more if they had simply said "we think it was ours, we're sorry it happened, we're doing our best" rather then pussyfooting around.

No, that doesn't make sense. Why say, "yeah, it was probably ours" if they didn't know one way or the other? We later found out that it certainly wasn't one of ours.

Keep in mind they didn't even give the impression that it wasn't one of ours, they simply said they couldn't be sure yet. It doesn't make sense to make conjectures one way or the other if you have no information yet.

TV station: I'm still not sure that it was, but it's a possibility. I'll have to do some research (but not now), so that's all I'll say for now.

but then wouldn't the argument that it's okay to kill roughly 200-300 civilians because we are doing "good" be undermined

Huh?

Sorry about that last paragraph, I was tired and it was hard to put into words. Basically killing innocent people is inexcusable, period. It's not less bad because its war.

"Keep in mind they didn't even give the impression that it wasn't one of ours, they simply said they couldn't be sure yet"
Yes, but then they heavily implied it was probably Saddam before knowing either way.

I can't seem to find any new sites which confirm that the missle wasn't ours. Can you provide a link? All I can find is "best guess" that it was american from most major news sites. There is so much coverage it's becoming hard to sort through it. I'm really looking for non-us sites for confirmation as well as US.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L26428561.htm
http://www.sabcnews.com/world/the_middle_east/0,1009,55805,00.html
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=564...

Yes, but then they heavily implied it was probably Saddam before knowing either way.

I don't see it that way. I never got that impression while watching the news.

I can't seem to find any new sites which confirm that the missle wasn't ours. Can you provide a link?

I wish. I looked, but I'm not even sure what keywords to search for. I heard on the news a few days ago that we'd since accounted for everything.

By the way, regarding the impression that our officials implied that it was Saddam's: I just clicked on that third link you gave to the Reuters story. Even though Reuters is typically anti-American, pro-palestinian, etc., the quotes they had from officials were the following:

"We're seeing those same reports. We're looking into it," said one U.S. official at American military headquarters in Doha.

The official, who asked not to be named, said the United States took extreme caution to avoid civilian casualties, but accidents sometimes happened. "In this case, we're not sure," the official said.

http://www.command-post.org/archives/002694.html

Yup I read that article. I watched the interview live. They also implied it wasn't there very heavily when more detailed questions where asked. I'll chalk that up to my own personal interpretation. Thanks for the link. I had a heck of a time finding out more. I'll concede the point