Charlie Rose debriefs John Burns

Occasionally a combination of the New York Times and PBS produces something positive. Some Charlie Rose programs are available on Google Video online.  A very interesting edition is his debriefing of the New York Times Baghdad correspondent John Burns on his January 24, 2007 program.  Burns was on "for the hour" so it is a commitment of time for the viewer, but a worthwhile one.

Notwithstanding his affiliation with the New York Times, Burns is a respected observer of the scene in Iraq in all its complexity.  The interesting thing that I got from the Charlie Rose interview is that while Burns is very grave about the outlook in Iraq, he is not despairing - meaning that he believes that while the outcome is likely to be negative, it can still go either way. 

Using this interview, but putting my interpretation on it - i.e., these are points I am making, not necessarily ones that he made, but ones that are reasonable conclusions from what he said - American troops are effective in Baghdad.  That does not answer the question of whether we will have enough troops to reverse the situation, but the subtext of his comments was a positive assessment of the impact of American forces.  I think this is important. 

It is going to be necessary for each of us to assemble our own mosaic on Iraq since so much of the MSM is invested in our defeat - the way I think of this is that we are in a fight for our lives and the MSM wants us to lose (I do not include Burns in that assessment). 

Burns said that whatever one's assessment of the links between Saddam and terrorism before the war, there is no question but that now organized terrorism in the form principally of Al Qaeda has staked its claim in Iraq and sees this as its central battle in the war with the West.  This is an important observation on his part and puts him, like it or not, in the same camp as Bush on this point.  To me, this is a critical aspect of the Iraq War.  By going on the offensive, Bush has forced the opposition to take a stand in Iraq.  Better for us to fight them there than here (a point I was extremely surprised seems to be lost on a military man like Senator Webb).

A very interesting conversation, a very interesting tile in the Iraq mosaic.  Highly recommended.
Occasionally a combination of the New York Times and PBS produces something positive. Some Charlie Rose programs are available on Google Video online.  A very interesting edition is his debriefing of the New York Times Baghdad correspondent John Burns on his January 24, 2007 program.  Burns was on "for the hour" so it is a commitment of time for the viewer, but a worthwhile one.

Notwithstanding his affiliation with the New York Times, Burns is a respected observer of the scene in Iraq in all its complexity.  The interesting thing that I got from the Charlie Rose interview is that while Burns is very grave about the outlook in Iraq, he is not despairing - meaning that he believes that while the outcome is likely to be negative, it can still go either way. 

Using this interview, but putting my interpretation on it - i.e., these are points I am making, not necessarily ones that he made, but ones that are reasonable conclusions from what he said - American troops are effective in Baghdad.  That does not answer the question of whether we will have enough troops to reverse the situation, but the subtext of his comments was a positive assessment of the impact of American forces.  I think this is important. 

It is going to be necessary for each of us to assemble our own mosaic on Iraq since so much of the MSM is invested in our defeat - the way I think of this is that we are in a fight for our lives and the MSM wants us to lose (I do not include Burns in that assessment). 

Burns said that whatever one's assessment of the links between Saddam and terrorism before the war, there is no question but that now organized terrorism in the form principally of Al Qaeda has staked its claim in Iraq and sees this as its central battle in the war with the West.  This is an important observation on his part and puts him, like it or not, in the same camp as Bush on this point.  To me, this is a critical aspect of the Iraq War.  By going on the offensive, Bush has forced the opposition to take a stand in Iraq.  Better for us to fight them there than here (a point I was extremely surprised seems to be lost on a military man like Senator Webb).

A very interesting conversation, a very interesting tile in the Iraq mosaic.  Highly recommended.