That war time reporting is inaccurate is a truism, and I don't see any need to presume that inevitable inaccuracies reflect anything else than the difficult conditions. Why I should hold the information coming from a soldier and an author of "New Glory: Expanding America's Global Supremacy." in higher regard than say BBC reporting is a mystery to me. The press over here is debating what exactly is the criteria of civil war and the concencus is that for the moment it is close but there is still genuine will for politics. The Finnish press has no agenda that I can see, as far as we are concerned Iraq is just one bloody mess among others. An objective proxy for the situation would be the refuge flows. I'll believe things are getting better when substansial number of refugees start to return, the current trend unfortunately seems the opposite even if any accurate numbers do not exist. Cheers, Teemu Helsinki, Finland --- Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/03/myths_of_iraq.html > > > > > I retired Army Officer returns from Iraq with some > comments about the > situation there. Most interesting to me was his > theory about why the Media > reporters get it wrong. > > > > Lawrence > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html