Now I get it...

First, I'd like to reassure all of my faithful and loyal readers (Hi Mom) that I am earning my paycheck. I hope my calls are right. I bet a Coke on one of them. Sure, the Coke is free, but it's the principle.
The other excitement of the evening is that had some power issues last night. Fighting a war without central air is so uncivilized. But we are hardcore so we get our job done anyway.
Now on to the meat...
Someone asked for my impressions of war. I'm not sure I have any. I work at a desk and am fairly removed from what you'd see on TV. Occassionally there have been alerts for mortars. Based on where I am relative to their firing positions, I chose to go back to sleep. I suppose time goes on and I get to observe more and be exposed to more, there will be more to write.
One of the more enlightening issues is the reason for much of the classification. In part I think it accounts for much of the disconnect between military people and the general public. I get to see reports from all over, but to release them would compromise sources and methods. It's the same reason the CIA is such an easy whipping boy for everyone. When they've screwed up, they've screwed up. But when they haven't, they can't defend themselves because to do so would destroy their ability to operate. It does create a bit of a PR paradox, but it doesn't help that we've been incompetent on that end anyway.
I do have some gripes with media coverage. One issue that is bothersome is the lack of context in some of the reporting. After seeing a report on a car bombing, I saw it covered on the news. The news simply listed it as a bomb that went of at a Coalition checkpoint, killing three. The report mentioned that a local national drove his car in to the path of the bomber's vehicle short of the checkpoint in order to stop him. Another local ran over to try and pull the bomber out of his car and prevent the attack. The bomb went off, but not as powerfully as intended and no one at the checkpoint was killed due to the heroics of those locals. Same bombing, two very different stories.
Both in Iraq and Afghanistan, bombings will get the coverage. Fine. Crime leads on the local news too. I guess if you are trying to keep score back home, look for context on targeting. Are Sunni groups targeting Sunnis or Shias? Are the attacks on Coalition Forces or local forces? Checkpoints? Market? Mosque? If it was stopped, was it stopped by locals or by Coalition Forces? Each of these are subtle indicators.
For example, if a Sunni group targets Sunnis, it probably means they are trying to intimidate the population into supporting them because they do not have the tacit support to operate amongst them. A preference for targeting local security forces, schools, etc. is indicative of attempts to undermine the government. Targeting us can mean that they are simply attacking the occupier or attacking whoever is supporting the government that they are trying to undermine. I didn't say it was easy and I'd be happier if there weren't enough attacks to use bombings as a metric. But since I don't see too many more reporters rushing out to be embeds and I don't see us solving our cranial rectal inversion with regards to PR (what we call Information Operations) anytime soon, it is something.
At least use another source than Harry Reid. You conclusions may be the same, but at least do some work before reaching them.
I am actually very impressed with the work being done worldwide and where I am in particular. I was admittedly skeptical before I got here. I do know that we won't be done here before I leave, but hopefully we'll be a little bit closer.
Damn, I might owe that Coke. That is not good.
Oh, and I asked for special MREs and they are looking in to it. Should know soon.