This is apparently the mantra of the MSM nowadays in Iraq. Over at the sublime NYT, they post up that bureaus have moved on. What they are light on, is WHY?
Quietly, as the United States presidential election and its aftermath have dominated the news, America’s three broadcast network news divisions have stopped sending full-time correspondents to Iraq.
Notice, they post that the THREE BROADCAST networks have stopped sending. Methinks this is more a dig on them to enlighten us that the NYT still has a bureau there and is reporting 'from the ground'. While they posit that budgets are the primary reason for the cuts, I'm more inclined to believe that there are fewer 'bleeding is leading' stories for them to cover. I mean, gosh, who wants to cover Iraqi's leading a normal life?
In my mind, covering the 'reawakening' of Iraq post-Saddam would be a major series to cover. Also, covering the feeble attempts by the remnants of the insurgency to attack this new 'nomalcy' and show the miscreants that attempt it for what they are would be good stuff. Heck, given that they could base it as a BHO 'win' under his admin should make it more palatable. But no, I don't think they are going to do that. Not enough body bags involved.
Who do you think will cover the first soldiers to patrol WITHOUT their heavy armor? Keep a watch here on Blackfive. We've got some stuff coming up- people going in, and we want to maintain the coverage as our troops continue to help the Iraqi's security progress to even lower levels of violence. Recall that Iraq even passed the US in murders earlier.
Could a COIN strategy work in Detroit or DC? Should it? Heck, should we be putting up walls and compounds there to reduce violence? Seems to have worked in Baghdad...
As the article says, you will be seeing much more from the Afghanistan front in the coming months. As the weather clears in the spring, more emphasis will go to that area, and the new surge of troops (I don't care- it is what it is) will further help to stabilize the western regions.
I also believe that the 'cover' of Paks moving troops away from the border is more to do, in reality, with opening up a front for the Coalition to do missions than the Paks wanting to fill the Indan border with troops. Lack of Pak troops along Afghanistan = more room for the Coalition to work.