« So what's really going on. . . (The Interview with Stephen Dupont) | Main | TIME begins to correct the record. . . »
October 21, 2005
Martinkus, Dupont, and The Truth
LATEST UPDATE TO THIS STORY IS HERE
Only two, of the three above, go together. The odd one out is left in a cold dark place when all is said and done.
If you're a little fuzzy on what I'm saying at this point, you might want to take look back at my two previous articles, "Ok, time to elaborate" and "What's really going on. . .(The Interview with Stephen Dupont)".
For those who don't want to click on the links, or for those who repost this in their aggregator sites, I'll give some brief background.
At the beginning of October there was some military action near Gonbaz, Afghanistan. During the course of that action, American forces burned two Taliban Bodies that were rotting in the open and conducted a successful PsyOps operation to draw Taliban fighters out of a village where they were hiding among civilians.
Now here's where things get sticky, but if you hang out and finish this article with me, you'll see it's not really sticky, but something does definately smell.
Embedded with American troops were two Australian Journalists. One was Stephen Dupont, here's his picture, and here's his website, he's a photojournalist for Contact Press Images, he seems to be an excellent photographer; and while I question his "objectivity" in earlier posts, I believe that he's honest, but still susceptible to pre-conceived biases in his reporting. The second reporter is John Martinkus, you may remember Martinkus because he tends to "become the news" rather than simply stick to reporting it.
Martinkus, the reporter, was captured by insurgent forces in Iraq over a year ago. While most hostages in Iraq don't fair so well, Martinkus was able to convince his captors that they should release him. Ya see, Martinkus is an anti-war activist, he's been a featured speaker for "Coalition to Stop the War" events and he's written a highly critical book on the American actions in Iraq. Martinkus convinced his captors that he was of more value to them alive than he was dead. After all, what's the point of cutting off the head of someone who, if you release them, will go out and attack your enemy using their own institutions against them. Martinkus is a friend to the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. He's actually a supporter of their causes and he's sneakily gotten himself embedded with American forces in Afghanistan and been patiently waiting for a series of events that he could mischaracterize, politicize and twist with the intention of hurting the efforts to bring Democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq and peace to the greater Middle East.
All of my statements grow from investigations I undertook, of my own accord, but with a little prodding from Dan Riehl at Riehl World View. Dan got a tip from Richard of HyScience, and passed it on to me for my opinion. On first glance at the info, Dan and I both came to the conclusion that some political chicanery was a afoot, after one or two minutes of googling, we came to Stephen Dupont and based on what we perceived as Duponts bias, we began to deconstruct the emerging story of the Taliban Bodies Burned in Iraq (here's where AP picked up the story).
I've already covered Dupont and come to the conclusion that while Dupont disagrees with American activities and prosecution of the War on Terror, he's reporting honestly what he sees, he has bias, but he understands that and has tried to balance his bias with honesty. Martinkus is a different animal altoghether.
Given the same facts and on the same scene, Martinkus tries to put apples and oranges together repeatedly and count them as the same objects. He makes connections where there are none, and tries to paint innocent (although intense and horrific) events with a sinister and conspiratorial brush.
Despite the facts, Martinkus pens a hit piece on the American military with the intent to further his anti-war aims and incite hatred for Americans among Muslims. Martinkus' report can be found at the Dateline program page, the transcript is a bit difficult to get to, so it's here in .txt format.
So lets look at the "body burning incident":
Dupont makes it clear to the world that it was the Airborne forces conducting operations in the region that burned the two rotting Taliban corpses inside their position, he makes it clear that they burned this corpses because they were out in the open for 24 hours an were beginning to decompose and posed a health risk. Dupont also makes it clear that the solidiers believed that they were burning the corpses for hygenic reasons (whether they were right or wrong on the hygiene issue is immaterial, they are not doctors and morticians, but even a layman knows you try not to remain in close contact with rotting corpses).
Martinkus chooses to disregard the hygenic concerns of the Airborne troops, in fact, he disregards the Airborne troops altoghether, he has bigger fish to fry, he wants to go after American policy and presense in the region, and he finds his weapon when PsyOps operatives arrive on the scene to try and coax, persuade, trick and infuriate the Taliban fighters into engaging the Americans who are reluctant to engage them inside the village.
Martinkus "reports":
At the top of the hills above the village the soldiers have taken the tactics of psychological warfare to a grotesque and disturbing extreme. US soldiers have set fire to the bodies of the two Taliban killed the night before. The burning of the corpses and the fact that they've been laid out facing Mecca is a deliberate desecration of Muslim beliefs.
I offer this photo to show beyond a "shadow of a doubt" (sorry bout that pun) that this "reporting" is actually a "hit piece" to mischaracterize the actions and incite Muslim anger throughout the world.
Simple examination of the photo shows that the corpses WERE NOT laid out facing West, if they were, they would be oriented in line with the shadows on the ground, instead they are oriented perpendicular to the shadows, unless you live at the North or South pole, you can test this for yourself if you go outside with a compass in the morning or afternoon. Face West or East and observe your shadow.
So we know that they were not "laid out facing Mecca" and do not demonstrate a deliberate desecration of Muslim beliefs.
We also know, from the interview with Stephen Dupont who took the picture, that it was NOT the psychological warfare operatives who burned these bodies. The PsyOps operatives arrived on the scene LATER (how later does not matter), and while they DID use the incident as part of their PsyOps plan to draw out the Taliban, they DID NOT burn the corpses as part of the plan. The PsyOps operatives used the fact that the bodies had to be burned for hygenic purposes and twisted the event to suit their PsyOps operational plan. In other words.
The PsyOps operative lied to the Taliban soldiers in the village in the hope it would infuriate them and drive them into the open.
Guess what Mr. Martinkus? That's their job. PsyOps is not the practice of telling your enemy the truth, it's telling the enemy what you think will disturb them, it's telling your enemy what you think will enrage them and cause them to make mistakes and engage in poor tactical descisions that you can take advantage of.
MR. MARTINKUS IS ENGAGING IN PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE AGAINST THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA AND HER ARMED FORCES!!!!
MR. MARTINKUS IS ENGAGING IN PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE DESIGNED TO ALSO INFURIATE THE MUSLIM WORLD AGAINST AMERICA!!!!
That's right, you heard it here. Mr. Martinkus has taken events, twisted them out of proportion and then broadcast that psychological warfare element back at the people of America and the world. Just as the PsyOps operatives wished to enrage the Taliban and get them out into the open where they could be destroyed, Mr. Martinkus is trying to get the American people to become enraged at the actions of our own military. But we know the facts now Mr. Martinkus! You can't twist them anymore, we've got Stephen Dupont's pictures to disprove your words. We've got your history in the anti-war movement and your own words supporting the actions of terrorists and insurgents to prove that you sir, are on the other side. Mr. Martinkus is fighing of behalf of the Taliban through the use of psychological weapons of his own
The counter to Psychological Warfare is knowing the truth. We now know the truth, it's right there in Mr. Dupont's pictures. Now the challenge is to spread the truth among our forces and people of the world that Mr. Martinkus is attacking us with his psychological weapon of a hit piece. We, the bloggers, and hopefully the American Mass Media, need to counter Mr. Martinkus' warping of these events with the truth of the events. The truth must be heard. It's not a pretty truth, PsyOps isn't designed to make you feel good about things, it's designed to make you unstable, weak and easy to break. Our boys did the right thing in burning the corpses for hygenic reasons, and our boys also did the right thing by using WORDS INSTEAD OF BOMBS to get the Taliban out of Gonbaz.
So which of the three did not belong??? Martinkus!
--Jason
NOTE: Thank you for taking the time with me to look at the events objectively, I encourage you to read my earlier posts, "Ok, it's time to elaborate" and "So what's really going on. . . (The Interview with Stephen Dupont)". If you have information to share, I encourage you to send a trackback or leave a comment. I've been overwhelmed with supportive emails and positive encouragement to continue my examination of this event and the greater context, so I'll continue to do that. Please come back for more. The media is going to continue to spread Martinkus' own PsyOps attack if it's not countered with the truth. Spread that photo around and point out that the "desecration" did not take place, and if any of you are a physician with information about how corpses decay and why they must be removed from the area to prevent disease, I encourage you to email me at Jason-at-JasonColeman-dot-com. There are still a few loose ends to tie up, but they just loose ends that people are unclear on, they don't amount to intentional desecration and I want to get that out. Thanks again, and I'll see ya round the 'sphere.
-JC
UPDATE: Linked at:
The Political Teen who has a funny Chris Matthews doing the Karl Rove Scooter Libby boogie video on his Main Page.
My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy who was the first to trackback my "Ok, time to elaborate post" with this post on MVRWC.
Mudville Gazette
Indepundit
Two Babes and a Brain
Wizbang
California Conservative
Stop the ACLU
**Comments are closed for this entry, if you'd like to add something, contact me via email.**
Posted by JasonColeman at October 21, 2005 12:50 PM
Comments
While I don't agree with all your conclusions - especially the idea that the psy-ops "stunt" was beneficial in the big picture - you did some good digging here. Even so, while the focus on what our troops actually did is reassuring to an American citizen, the cat - e.g. the rumors of corpse desecration - is miles out of the bag and the damage is done. Sadly, the counts more in the grand scheme.
And for all the bagging on the mainstream media your work has inspired, I'd argue that this is basically following a very normal media trajectory: the story breaks and the information sucks only to improve as actual reporting is done. Put another way, if you're looking for bias, you'll find it. But alternate explanations are not only possible, but also more plausible.
Incidentally, you also got the separation between Dupont and Martinkus correct; the latter's report was hack-tacular. I thought Dupont played it pretty straight - besides, who's in a position to genuinely second guess him? As to the whole "facing west" thing that so outraged Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, that doesn't point to lying or pre-conceived biases. Think of the obvious: Dupont heard the psy-ops guy say that and didn't think it through. Makes more sense, really.
Anyway, again, good work. I borrowed it and critiqued it on my site.
Posted by: Jeff Bull at October 21, 2005 6:16 PM
With Martinkus's obvious in-your-face anti-war attitude, should he even be embedded? He can't be that good for the soldier's moral.
Posted by: Christine at October 23, 2005 7:41 PM
"With Martinkus's obvious in-your-face anti-war attitude, should he even be embedded? He can't be that good for the soldier's moral."
Yes, and that's why when my unit got one of these sh!tbag reporters who was obviously biased against us, I'd go out of my way to lie to him or her. They always distort what you say anyway, so why not have a little fun?
Posted by: File Closer at October 23, 2005 9:07 PM
As I suggested to 2Slick, with tongue barely in cheek, but now firmly clenched between my teeth, I suggest that Martinkus be labeled an enemy combatant, and Australia placed upon the governments supporting terrorists list unless they hand him over hog-tied to Guantanamo Bay authorities (or at least revoke his passport)...
Posted by: epador at October 27, 2005 8:35 AM
