Does your faith need strengthening? Are you confused and wondering if Jesus Christ is really "The Way, the Truth, and the Life?" "Fight for Your Faith" is a blog filled with interesting and thought provoking articles to help you find the answers you are seeking. Jesus said, "Seek and ye shall find." In Jeremiah we read, "Ye shall seek Me, and find Me, when ye shall seek for Me with all your heart." These articles and videos will help you in your search for the Truth.

Monday, October 7, 2013

Analysis: US reliability questioned overseas

By Steven R. Hurst, AP, Oct 5, 2013

An unmistakable sense of unease has been growing in capitals around the world as the U.S. government from afar looks increasingly befuddled—shirking from a military confrontation in Syria, stymied at home by a gridlocked Congress and in danger of defaulting on sovereign debt, which could plunge the world’s financial system into chaos.

While each of the factors may be unrelated to the direct exercise of U.S. foreign policy, taken together they give some allies the sense that Washington is not as firm as it used to be in its resolve and its financial capacity, providing an opening for China or Russia to fill the void, an Asian foreign minister told a group of journalists in New York this week.

Concerns will only deepen now that President Barack Obama canceled travel this weekend to the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum in Bali and the East Asia Summit in Brunei. He pulled out of the gatherings to stay home to deal with the government shutdown and looming fears that Congress will block an increase in U.S. borrowing power, a move that could lead to a U.S. default.

The U.S. is still a pillar of defense for places in Asia like Taiwan and South Korea, providing a vital security umbrella against China. It also still has strong allies in the Middle East, including Israel and the Gulf Arab states arrayed against al-Qaida and Iran.

But in interviews with academics, government leaders and diplomats, faith that the U.S. will always be there is fraying more than a little.

"The paralysis of the American government, where a rump in Congress is holding the whole place to ransom, doesn’t really jibe with the notion of the United States as a global leader," said Michael McKinley, an expert on global relations at the Australian National University.

The political turbulence in Washington and potential economic bombshells still to come over the U.S. government shutdown and a possible debt default this month have sent shivers through Europe. The head of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi, worried about the continent’s rebound from the 2008 economic downturn.

"We view this recovery as weak, as fragile, as uneven," Draghi said at a news conference.

Germany’s influential newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung bemoaned the U.S. political chaos.

"At the moment, Washington is fighting over the budget and nobody knows if the country will still be solvent in three weeks. What is clear, though, is that America is already politically bankrupt," it said.

Obama finds himself at the nexus of a government in chaos at home and a wave of foreign policy challenges.

He has been battered by the upheaval in the Middle East from the Arab Spring revolts after managing to extricate the U.S. from its long, brutal and largely failed attempt to establish democracy in Iraq. He is also drawing down U.S. forces from a more than decade-long war in Afghanistan with no real victory in sight. He leads a country whose people have no interest in taking any more military action abroad.

Global concerns about U.S. policy came to a head with Obama’s handling of the civil war in Syria and the alleged use of chemical weapons by the regime of President Bashar Assad. But, in fact, the worries go far deeper.

"I think there are a lot of broader concerns about the United States. They aren’t triggered simply by Syria. The reaction the United States had from the start to events in Egypt created a great deal of concern among the Gulf and the Arab states," said Anthony Cordesman, a military affairs specialist at the Center for International Studies.

Kings and princes throughout the Persian Gulf were deeply unsettled when Washington turned its back on Egypt’s long-time dictator and U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak during the 2011 uprising in the largest Arab country.(It might be important to note that the fall of Mubarak was necessary for the weakening of the Egyptian/Libyan border and the transporting of terrorist into Libya for the purpose of toppling Qaddafi Qaddafi was the target and Mubarak was just a pawn in the way. The destabilizing of Egypt was the first step in bringing about instability in Libya. It was a case of the end justifies the means. We have been in the business of  toppling undesired leaders. One day we will reap what we have sown.- Dennis)

Now, Arab allies in the Gulf voice dismay over the rapid policy redirection from Obama over Syria, where rebel factions have critical money and weapons channels from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Gulf states. It has stirred a rare public dispute with Washington, whose differences with Gulf allies are often worked out behind closed doors. Last month, Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal warned that the renewed emphasis on diplomacy with Assad would allow the Syrian president to “impose more killing.”

After saying Assad must be removed from power and then threatening military strikes over the regime’s alleged chemical weapons attack, the U.S. is now working with Russia and the U.N. to collect and destroy Damascus’ chemical weapons stockpile. That assures Assad will remain in power for now and perhaps the long term.

The Syrian rebels, who were promised U.S. arms, say they feel deserted by the Americans, adding that they have lost faith and respect for Obama.

The White House contends that its threat of a military strike against Assad was what caused the regime to change course and agree to plan reached by Moscow and Washington to hand its chemical weapons over to international inspectors for destruction. That’s a far better outcome than resorting to military action, Obama administration officials insist.

Gulf rulers also have grown suddenly uneasy over the U.S. outreach to their regional rival Iran.(The rich gulf rulers Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Qatar and their ally Turkey want to stop the Iranian natural gas pipeline through Iraq and Syria to the Mediterranean Sea. Qatar has its own pipeline that it is building through Turkey. So war is always about money, money , money. Besides the Shiite masses that some of these countries want to keep down, so they fear Iran's influence since it, too, is a Shiite nation.- Dennis)

In response to the new U.S. opening to Iran to deal with its suspected nuclear weapons program, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the U.N. General Assembly that his country remained ready to act alone to prevent Tehran from building a bomb. He indicated a willingness to allow some time for further diplomacy but not much. And he excoriated new Iranian President Hassan Rouhani as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

McKinley, the Australian expert, said Syria and the U.S. budget crisis have shaken Australians’ faith in their alliance with Washington.

"It means that those who rely on the alliance as the cornerstone of all Australian foreign policy and particularly security policy are less certain—it’s created an element of uncertainty in their calculations," he said.

Running against the tide of concern, leaders in the Philippines are banking on its most important ally to protect it from China’s assertive claims in the South China Sea. Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin said Manila still views the U.S. as a dependable ally despite the many challenges it is facing.

"We should understand that all nations face some kind of problems, but in terms of our relationship with the United States, she continues to be there when we need her," Gazmin said.

"There’s no change in our feelings," he said. "Our strategic relationship with the U.S. continues to be healthy. They remain a reliable ally."

But as Cordesman said, “The rhetoric of diplomacy is just wonderful but it almost never describes the reality.”

That reality worldwide, he said, “is a real concern about where is the U.S. going. There is a question of trust. And I think there is an increasing feeling that the United States is pulling back, and its internal politics are more isolationist so that they can’t necessarily trust what U.S. officials say, even if the officials mean it.”

The House of Unrepresentatives: Facts About Congress In a Shutdown


By The Globalist, October 4, 2013

The U.S. Congress was unable to pass a budget—one of its primary Constitutional obligations—to keep the federal government open past September 30, the end of the 2013 fiscal year. But while nearly a million federal workers were furloughed without pay, Congress is far less likely to feel the pinch financially.

Why? Because they are, by and large, rich. Here are the facts.

17 of members of Congress in 2013—or about 3% of all 535 members of the current Congress—have an estimated average net worth of more than $50 million each, according to their financial disclosures for the year 2011.

The wealthiest member of Congress today, based on financial disclosures for 2011, was Republican Michael McCaul, who represents Texas’s 10th Congressional district. McCaul and his wife had an estimated wealth of just over $500 million that year.

The combined net worth of the 17 richest members of Congress was almost $2.5 billion in 2011.

Members of Congress are paid an annual salary of $174,000.

Under the rules of the federal government shutdown, they will continue to receive their salaries—even as hundreds of thousands of government workers are furloughed without pay.

A total of 253 members of the U.S. Congress—or about 47% of all members—have an estimated net worth of at least $1 million. In comparison, only about 9% of all U.S. households can be considered “millionaires.”

For the United States as a whole, the Census Bureau estimates that the typical U.S. household had a net worth of just $68,828—including the value of their home, cars and financial investments. Thus, the median Congressman was almost 14 times wealthier than the family he represents.

Killing Christians With Impunity?

By Jerry Newcombe, Christian Post, October 3, 2013

When I was a child, I somehow picked up the notion that persecution against the Christian church basically ended with the collapse of the Roman Empire.

But it turns out that the last century was the worst century ever for the persecution of Christians and martyrdom. Dr. David Barrett, a leading church statistician, says there were more Christians martyred in the 20th century than had been murdered in all previous centuries combined.

Persecution today continues to rear its ugly head in various places around the globe, such as in remnant Communist countries, like Vietnam or North Korea. But anti-Christian persecution is especially found in the Middle East and those places where the philosophy of Islamism—a supremacist form of Islam—prevails.

It’s a cliché by now, but it’s true: The Arab Spring has turned into the Christian Winter.

Dr. Peter Hammond of Frontline Fellowship says that just in the last few years the Christian population in the Middle East has shrunk from about 15 million to 13. Most of these have fled the homes their families have occupied for multiple generations—or perhaps even millennia.

Hundreds of years before Mohammed was born or Islam conquered that region, these families lived basically in peace and safety. Even after the Islamic sword swept over their lands and forced them into dhimmi status (a second class status, not unlike the old Jim Crow laws blacks lived under in the deep South), these families still remained in Iraq and Syria and Egypt.

But in recent years, due to events like the “Arab Sprint” and the war in Iraq, the region has dramatically destabilized for Christians. We need to pray for these hurting fellow Christians. Paul says, “And if one member [of the Body of Christ] suffers, all the members suffer with it…”

More than 100 or so Christian cathedrals, churches, schools have been destroyed in Egypt just in the last couple of months. One Cairo-based church cancelled the Sunday-morning service in August for the first time in 1300 years.

In a recent weekend, Islamists killed dozens of Christians at a Pakistani church service and shoppers at a Kenya mall.

Recently, American attention has been focused on Syria, though it has somewhat subsided as of late, since a US strike has seemingly been averted for the moment.

Clearly, Syria is undergoing terrible developments. Some call it a civil war. Others would say that foreign invaders are taking advantage of the chaos that came in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, especially after the fall of Mubarak in Egypt.

In any event, Islamists are creating more and more havoc throughout the whole region.

Syria played a key role in the start of Christianity. It was in a city of Syria that the famous moniker for believers in Jesus was first created. Luke tells us in the Book of Acts: “the disciples were fist called Christians in Antioch.”

Saul of Tarsus was on the road to Damascus, when Jesus appeared to him and changed him into the greatest missionary ever—Paul the Apostle. He went on to write half the New Testament.

It was out of Antioch, that the early Church sent Barnabas and Paul out on the first missionary enterprise. They were the first we know of to bring the gospel to Europe.

My good friend, Bill Federer, bestselling author and speaker, told my radio audience recently that after Greek (the Koine version of which was the language of the New Testament) and after Latin (the main language for Church writings for more than a millennium), Syriac (a language based in Syria) contained the most amount of Christian writings.

Even now, thousands of Christians still live in Syria, but their lives and future are in jeopardy, as are the lives of many Muslims who do not buy into the Islamist philosophy of the Syrian rebels.

Reports show that our government is funding many of these rebels in Syria or providing them with guns. Most agree that Syrian president Bashar al-Assad is a bad guy. Yet the rebels opposing him include Muslim terrorists committed to the same deadly philosophy of Al-Qaeda, whether directly affiliated or not. Christians in Syria, meanwhile, plead with foreign powers to stay out of the battle and to not support the Muslim rebels.

Saddam Hussein was a bad guy by anybody’s reckoning. But, reflecting the “law of unintended consequences,” the change in government in Iraq has been devastating to Christians—the majority of whom have been killed or driven out by Islamic militants.

Writing for The Daily Beast, columnist Kristin Powers said, “A Global Slaughter of Christians, but America’s Churches Stay Silent.” She also notes, “Christians in the Middle East and Africa are being slaughtered, tortured, raped, kidnapped, beheaded, and forced to flee the birthplace of Christianity. One would think this horror might be consuming the pulpits and pews of American churches. Not so. The silence has been nearly deafening.”

The least we can do is pray.

Good Thoughts for Hard Times - R.G. LeTourneau

By Dale Lunsford, Christian Post, October 3, 2013:

Whether you just entered the working world or you’re multiple rungs up a ladder, career climbs today are steeper and falls are harder. As the head of a college that prepares (and repairs) men and women for that world, I have a little counsel for you from a legend who stepped into the work landscape and proceeded to rewrite the map all the way across.

That man is R.G. LeTourneau. For most of his life, he called himself “a mechanic the Lord blessed,” and that’s where the understatement begins. The thing is that R.G. LeTourneau knew how to learn; as an inventor and innovator, he changed what’s possible in our world by completely upending how earth-movers are made and the very things a machine can accomplish. As a philanthropist, he put new lenses on how Christians look at careers—and built what is now LeTourneau University, a most practical place to see spiritual gifts blur into marketplace skills.

1. Never Let “Unfair” Stop You. When America entered World War I, a prior injury kept R.G. LeTourneau from military service. So he left the auto garage he co-owned and served his country by working in a shipyard. His reward for that altruism? He returned to a bankrupt business that saddled him with serious debt. Unfair? Certainly. But never mind that. Mr. LeTourneau found work using his mechanical skills to repair a land scraper. The machine’s owner asked him to level a 40-acre plot, and Mr. LeTourneau fell into a lifelong passion for the earth-moving business. The moral: “Unfair” may be the open door you didn’t know you wanted.

2. Failure Is an Option … and an Opportunity. The film Apollo 13 popularized the phrase, “Failure is not an option,” but we’ve already seen from R.G. LeTourneau’s life that it was for him. More often than not, failure is opportunity in work clothes. Finding his passion in earth-moving couldn’t prevent the potholes. Twice he almost went bankrupt in that competitive niche of the construction business. And in facing those setbacks, he turned his eye not to moving earth but to the equipment that does it. He became an innovator, inventor and industrialist. The young man “unfit” for World War I manufactured 70 percent of the heavy machinery used by the U.S. to win World War II. Moral: Early failure leads to later opportunity.

3. ‘It Hasn’t’ Doesn’t Mean ‘It Can’t.’ With the exception of 4-year-old boys, people today hardly blink as they pass the massive earth-movers common at construction sites. Some of these machines are the size of small buildings themselves. There was a time, however, when no one conceived of machinery on such a scale. R.G. LeTourneau successfully made earth-moving machines, but why stop there? After he sold one manufacturing firm, he started another—this time to employ game-changing technology in earth-moving equipment that he pioneered. His career decisions shone out a simple truth: just because something hasn’t been done, doesn’t mean it can’t be done.

4. Your Mission Field? You’re working in It. R.G. LeTourneau moved the earth in many ways. Another case in point: He pioneered the idea that a “mission” field goes way outside the borders of church work or foreign service. What about the workplace? R.G. LeTourneau, in fact, often was called “God’s businessman.”

5. Some Things Never Move. R.G. LeTourneau in his day moved a lot of dirt, but never forgot that both work and personal life have everything to do with that real estate that does not shift: where a person stands with God. Through bottomed-out economies, personal catastrophe, bad business partners, short deadlines, breakdowns, hard decisions—and repeatedly facing off against real mountains—he knew who God was, so he knew who he was.

Dr. Dale Lunsford is president of LeTourneau University.

Maturity Is the Result of Learning to Feed the Right Emotions

By John C. Maxwell, Leadership Wired, October 4, 2013

Many years ago I came across a verse that I feel accurately describes the human condition. It says,

Two natures beat within my breast.
The one is foul, the other blessed.
The one I love, the other I hate,
The one I feed will dominate.

I believe both positive and negative emotions are contained within each of us. There are people who teach that we should try to eliminate all negative feelings from our lives, but I have never been able to do that. I have tried, but I found that I simply can’t. However, what I can do is feed the positive thoughts until they become dominant over the negative ones.

It’s said that General George Patton, a fearless warrior of the U.S. Army during World War II, thought of himself as anything but brave. When an official praised his acts of heroism, Patton’s response was,

"Sir, I am not a brave man. The truth of the matter is I am usually a coward at heart. I have never been in the sound of gunshot or sight of battle in my whole life that I was not afraid. I constantly have sweat on my palms and a lump in my throat." How was someone so afraid able to be so brave? He fed the right emotions. Or as Patton put it himself: "I learned very early in life not to take counsel of my fears."

I try to feed the right emotions within myself by acting on the emotion that I want to win. “Do something every day that you don’t want to do,” advised author Mark Twain. “This is the golden rule for acquiring the habit of doing your duty without pain.” Acting on the right emotion will lift you to success. Acting on the wrong emotion will lower you to failure.

I once had lunch with Dom Capers, the successful NFL coach. One of the things he said during our conversation was, “Maturity is doing what you are supposed to be doing, when you’re supposed to be doing it, no matter how you feel.” That’s true. The key to success is action. Too often we want to feel our way into acting, when instead we need to act our way into feeling. If we do the right thing, we will eventually feel the right feelings.

What has 75 Trillion Cells!

By Tom Hignell:

Did you know that the body has over 75 trillion cells? When God forms the body in the womb He makes two sets of 23 chromosomes come together with all the DNA information to make a human being. There are only about 1 million seconds in eleven day and a trillion seconds in 32,000 years, but the body has over 15 trillion cell divisions with each one having meaning and purpose. How could something like this evolve? There is an estimated one oct-trillion (1 and 27 zeros) of atoms in the average human body. If covered the earth with peas 4 feet deep and then do that to 250,000 other planets of the same size, you would reach one oct-trillion.

From a tape by Tom Hignell quoted in "Doubts About Creation? Not After This!" by Brian Young

In Thee … I Hope

Jesus, speaking in prophecy

Audio length: 8:15
Download Audio (7.5MB)

For everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith.—1 John 5:41

*

My spiritual principles are not difficult: I am God. I am the power of the universe. I am in you. Call on Me and you can win. Praise and you can have victory. Pray and it will change things. Have faith and you will overcome the world. My words are spirit and life. These aren’t just fancy words and pretty promises; they are statements of power. By applying any of these statements, by standing on them in faith, you can access greater power than anything of this world or in hell.

You must believe that no matter how difficult your spiritual battles become, no matter how wearying or oppressive the spiritual battles that those you are ministering to face, these basics of My Spirit are able to conquer. They will work for you as you use them and believe them. My Spirit holds greater power, wisdom, ability, and strength than the most intense attack the Enemy could possibly throw at you.

So, when faced with something spiritually taxing, look to Me and know that I will overcome—and thus you can overcome. Look at your faith as the coinage of the heavenly realm it is. Remind yourself of My promise that faith is the victory that overcomes the world.2 Realize that faith in Me makes you one with Me, and when we are one, then all things are possible to you. Make some firm statements of faith that you can quote, hold on to, and remind yourself of. Realize the full power of My Word.

As you focus on My promises, it will create a direct link to Me, to My Spirit, which will channel My power to you—My overcoming power—that will enable you to overcome, defeat, conquer, and be victorious. I am all power and in Me you can overcome all things. You just have to believe.

*

Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.—Ephesians 6:163

*

Faith is able to quench all the fiery darts of the Enemy.4 When you make the decision to hang on to Me no matter what, that is a very potent conscious decision. It is an act of your will. It is a conscious, deliberate choice that you’ve made to hang on to Me no matter what.

You’ve decided you aren’t going to listen to other thoughts. You are going to reject any thought that attempts to pry you away from your choice. You will consider any thought that tries to remove you from Me as an affront to your personal choice. Your personal choice is inviolable. It is sacred.

I have given you the power of freedom of choice. That means that your power or ability to choose what you are going to believe and what you are going to put your faith in and what you are going to hang on to is more powerful than any possible attempt to pry you away from that choice. If your faith in Me is rock solid, then nothing can change that, without your decision to let it change.

So once you choose to hang on to Me, you have cast your anchor onto the Rock, and nothing can move you from that point on—if you choose to not let it. The choice is yours.

*

“Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”—Matthew 17:205

*

I said that even a tiny mustard seed of faith can move mountains, because faith is just that strong.6 It is powerful, and anything that would try to move your faith against your will meets defeat. On the contrary, those things that try to move you will instead be moved by the stance of your rock-solid faith.

If you choose to maintain your trust in Me, any attack or obstacle is doomed to be quenched, to be moved out of its place by your faith, not the opposite.

When you choose to cast your faith on Me, like Job, I will eventually come through for you and make you better off than before. If you love Me enough to stand by Me no matter what, I consider that stand one of the most precious things in My sight.

Although I may allow you to be strengthened through the tests you endure in this life, as long as your eyes continue to gaze into Mine, the time will come when I will say, “Game is over! You won, My bride.”

*

Look at what King David said in the Psalms: “I am feeble and sore broken.… My heart pants, my strength fails me. ... My lovers and my friends stand aloof from my sore; and my kinsmen stand afar off.” But then look at his conclusion: “In Thee, O Lord, do I hope: Thou wilt hear, O Lord my God.”7 And yes, because he hung on to Me even in the sorest of troubles, I did hear and I brought him to victory. “For in the time of trouble He shall hide me in His pavilion: in the secret of His tabernacle shall He hide me; He shall set me up upon a rock.”8

When you experience great and sore troubles, you can always turn to Me. This is the measure of your faith. Where does your faith run out? Is there a point where it will weaken and stop? And if you come to that point, will you then examine your faith, strengthen it, fortify it, and reassert it?

Holding on to Me is faith, even when you think you don’t have it. The Devil may try to convince you that you don’t, but your holding on to Me proves that you do. I never fail that faith.

*

I have given you power over all the power of the Enemy. I told My disciples this before they went out on a road trip, and they came back rejoicing that even the devils were subject unto them!9 And that was 2,000 years ago. My power hasn’t diminished or abated. It is as alive and strong as ever.

I am the very life of creation. It is Me. I keep the universe running. I cause time to pass moment by moment. I am aware of all thoughts at all times. I love you. I will not leave you comfortless.

Published on Anchor October 2013. Read by Jon Marc.
Music by Daniel Sozzi.


1 NIV.

2 1 John 5:4.

3 KJV.

4 Ephesians 6:16.

5 NIV.

6 Matthew 17:20.

7 Psalm 38.

8 Psalm 27:5.

9 Luke 10:17.

Sunday, October 6, 2013

Diary

Patrick Cockburn, London Review of Books, Oct. 3, 2013

The four wars fought in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria over the past 12 years have all involved overt or covert foreign intervention in deeply divided countries. In each case the involvement of the West exacerbated existing differences and pushed hostile parties towards civil war. In each country, all or part of the opposition have been hard-core jihadi fighters. Whatever the real issues at stake, the interventions have been presented as primarily humanitarian, in support of popular forces against dictators and police states. Despite apparent military successes, in none of these cases have the local opposition and their backers succeeded in consolidating power and establishing stable states.

More than most armed struggles, the conflicts have been propaganda wars in which newspaper, television and radio journalists played a central role. In all wars there is a difference between reported news and what really happened, but during these four campaigns the outside world has been left with misconceptions even about the identity of the victors and the defeated. In 2001 reports of the Afghan war gave the impression that the Taliban had been beaten decisively even though there had been very little fighting. In 2003 there was a belief in the West that Saddam Hussein’s forces had been crushed when in fact the Iraqi army, including the units of the elite Special Republican Guard, had simply disbanded and gone home. In Libya in 2011 the rebel militiamen, so often shown on television firing truck-mounted heavy machine-guns in the general direction of the enemy, had only a limited role in the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi, which was mostly brought about by Nato air strikes. In Syria in 2011 and 2012 foreign leaders and journalists repeatedly and vainly predicted the imminent defeat of Bashar al-Assad.

These misperceptions explain why there have been so many surprises and unexpected reversals of fortune. The Taliban rose again in 2006 because it hadn’t been beaten as comprehensively as the rest of the world imagined. At the end of 2001 I was able to drive—nervously but safely—from Kabul to Kandahar, but when I tried to make the same journey in 2011 I could go no further south on the main road than the last police station on the outskirts of Kabul. In Tripoli two years ago hotels were filled to capacity with journalists covering Gaddafi’s fall and the triumph of the rebel militias. But state authority still hasn’t been restored. This summer Libya almost stopped exporting oil because the main ports on the Mediterranean had been seized by mutinying militiamen, and the prime minister, Ali Zeidan, threatened to bomb ‘from the air and the sea’ the oil tankers the militiamen were using to sell oil on the black market.

Libya’s descent into anarchy was scarcely covered by the international media since they had long since moved on to Syria, and more recently Egypt. Iraq, home a few years ago to so many foreign news bureaux, has also dropped off the media map although up to a thousand Iraqis are killed each month, mostly as a result of the bombing of civilian targets. When it rained for a few days in Baghdad in January the sewer system, supposedly restored at a cost of $7 billion, couldn’t cope: some streets were knee-deep in dirty water and sewage. In Syria, many opposition fighters who had fought to defend their communities turned into licensed bandits and racketeers when they took power in rebel-held enclaves.

It wasn’t that reporters were factually incorrect in their descriptions of what they had seen. But the very term ‘war reporter’, though not often used by journalists themselves, helps explain what went wrong. Leaving aside its macho overtones, it gives the misleading impression that war can be adequately described by focusing on military combat. But irregular or guerrilla wars are always intensely political, and none more so than the strange stop-go conflicts that followed from 9/11. This doesn’t mean that what happened on the battlefield was insignificant, but that it requires interpretation. In 2003 television showed columns of Iraqi tanks smashed and on fire after US air strikes on the main highway north of Baghdad. If it hadn’t been for the desert background, viewers could have been watching pictures of the defeated German army in Normandy in 1944. But I climbed into some of the tanks and could see that they had been abandoned long before they were hit. This mattered because it showed that the Iraqi army wasn’t prepared to fight and die for Saddam. It was a pointer too to the likely future of the allied occupation. Iraqi soldiers, who didn’t see themselves as having been defeated, expected to keep their jobs in post-Saddam Iraq, and were enraged when the Americans dissolved their army. Well-trained officers flooded into the resistance, with devastating consequences for the occupying forces: a year later the Americans controlled only islands of territory in Iraq.

War reporting is easier than other types of journalism in one respect because the melodrama of events drives the story and attracts an audience. It may be risky at times, but the correspondent talking to camera, with exploding shells and blazing military vehicles behind him, knows his report will feature high up in any newscast. ‘If it bleeds it leads,’ is an old American media adage. The drama of battle inevitably dominates the news, but oversimplifies it by disclosing only part of what is happening. These oversimplifications were more than usually gross and deceptive in Afghanistan and Iraq, when they dovetailed with political propaganda that demonised the Taliban and later Saddam as evil incarnate, casting the conflict—particularly easy in the US in the hysterical atmosphere after 9/11—as a black and white struggle between good and evil. The crippling inadequacies of the opposition were ignored.

By 2011 the complexity of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan was evident to journalists in Baghdad and Kabul if not necessarily to editors in London and New York. But by then the reporting of the wars in Libya and Syria was demonstrating a different though equally potent form of naivety. A version of the spirit of 1968 prevailed: antagonisms that predated the Arab Spring were suddenly said to be obsolete; a brave new world was being created at hectic speed. Commentators optimistically suggested that, in the age of satellite television and the internet, traditional forms of repression—censorship, imprisonment, torture, execution—could no longer secure a police state in power; they might even be counter-productive. State control of information and communication had been subverted by blogs, satellite phones and even the mobile phone; YouTube provided the means to expose in the most graphic and immediate way the crimes and violence of security forces.

In March 2011 mass arrests and torture effortlessly crushed the pro-democracy movement in Bahrain. Innovations in information technology may have changed the odds marginally in favour of the opposition, but not enough to prevent counter-revolution—as the military coup in Egypt on 3 July showed. The initial success of street demonstrations led to over-confidence and excessive reliance on spontaneous action; the need for leadership, organisation, unity, and policies that amounted to more than a vague humanitarian agenda—all that was ignored. History—including the histories of their own countries—had nothing to teach this generation of radicals and would-be revolutionaries. They drew no lessons from what happened in Egypt when Nasser seized power in 1952, and didn’t ask whether the Arab uprisings of 2011 might have parallels with the European revolutions of 1848, when easy victories were swiftly reversed. Many members of the intelligentsia in Libya and Syria seemed to live and think within the echo chamber of the internet and had few practical thoughts about the way forward.

Conviction that a toxic government is the root of all evil is the public position of most oppositions, but it’s damaging to trust one’s own propaganda. The Iraqi opposition genuinely believed that Iraq’s sectarian and ethnic problems stemmed from Saddam and that once he was gone all would be well. The opposition in Libya and Syria believed that the regimes of Gaddafi and Assad were so demonstrably bad that it was counter-revolutionary to question whether what came after them would be much better. Foreign reporters have by and large shared these opinions. I mentioned some of the failings of the Libyan militiamen to a Western journalist and she replied reprovingly: ‘Just remember who the good guys are.’ Good guys they may have been but there was something troubling about the ease with which they provided media-friendly locations, whether in Tahrir Square or at the frontline in Libya. Protesters in Benghazi would hold up placards written in perfect English, which they mostly could not read themselves, for the benefit of television viewers. At Ajdabiya, two hours’ drive along the main coast road south of Benghazi, foreign journalists often outnumbered opposition fighters, and cameramen had to manoeuvre their correspondents so that it didn’t become evident to the audience. The main danger there was being run over by a pick-up truck fitted with a heavy machine-gun: the drivers often panicked when a shell exploded in the distance. The Libyan militiamen were effective when they were fighting for their own cities and towns, but without an air umbrella they wouldn’t have lasted more than a few weeks. Media focus on colourful skirmishes diverted attention from the central fact that Gaddafi was overthrown by military intervention by the US, Britain and France.

There is nothing surprising about all this. Public appearances by Western leaders with smiling children or cheering soldiers are invariably contrived to show them to television viewers in a sympathetic light. Why shouldn’t Arab rebels have the same public relations skills? The problem was the way war reporters so quickly accepted and publicised opposition atrocity stories. In Libya one of the most influential stories described the mass rape of women in rebel areas by government troops acting on orders from above. A Libyan psychologist claimed to have distributed seventy thousand questionnaires in rebel-controlled areas of which sixty thousand were returned. Some 259 women volunteered that they had been raped; the psychologist said she had interviewed 140 of them. That such precise statistics could have been collected in the anarchy of eastern Libya was implausible, but her story was uncritically repeated, doing much to turn Gaddafi into a pariah. Largely ignored were reports a few weeks later from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and a UN commission saying that there was no evidence for the story. It appears to have been a highly successful propaganda ploy. On another occasion, the rebels showed off the bodies of eight government soldiers: they claimed the men had been executed by their own side for trying to defect to the opposition. Later, Amnesty unearthed a video showing the eight men alive after being captured by the rebels: clearly, they had been killed soon afterwards and their deaths blamed on pro-Gaddafi forces.

The essential ingredients of a good atrocity story are that it should be shocking and not immediately refutable. In 1990 it was widely reported that Kuwaiti babies had been tipped from their hospital incubators by invading Iraqi soldiers and left to die on the floor. Immensely influential at the time, the story was only discredited when the person who claimed to have witnessed it turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to Washington; she had not been in the hospital at the time. Reporters may have their suspicions but they can seldom disprove such tales straightaway. They also know that news editors don’t welcome being told that a colourful news story, which their competitors will unquestionably run, is probably false. It’s easy to put the blame on the ‘fog of war’ and it’s true that fighting involves confusing and fast-moving events, reports of which can’t be checked. Everybody in a war has a more than usually strong motive for misrepresenting their achievements and failures, and it’s usually difficult to disprove their claims. This is scarcely new. ‘Did it ever occur to you, sir, what an opportunity a battlefield affords liars?’ the Confederate general Stonewall Jackson once remarked to an aide.

It is of course dangerous when people are shooting at one another to hang around long enough to establish what’s really going on. In Syria in June I was interviewing the governor of Homs when he unexpectedly claimed that the Syrian army had taken over a town on the Lebanese border called Tal Kalakh previously held by the opposition. He suggested I go there to see for myself. The opposition was saying that fierce fighting was still going on and al-Jazeera reported that smoke was rising from the town. I spent three hours driving around Tal Kalakh, which was certainly under full government control, and didn’t hear a shot fired or smell or see any smoke. Part of the town had been badly damaged by shelling and the streets were empty—though a government sympathiser claimed this was because ‘people are taking their siesta.’

While in Damascus I stayed in the Christian district of Bab Touma, which was being hit by mortar bombs fired from rebel-held districts. A friend rang to say that four people had been killed by a suicide bomber a few hundred yards away. I went there at once and saw a body under a white sheet; on the other side of the street was a small crater that looked as if it had been made by an exploding mortar round. Syrian state television kept claiming that the dead man was a suicide bomber who had been targeting a Christian church; they even named him. For once, it was possible to know exactly what had happened: CCTV footage taken from the street showed a falling mortar bomb outlined for an instant against the white shirt of a passer-by. He was killed instantly and wrongly identified as the bomber. Syrian TV later apologised for its mistake.

In each of these cases political bias and simple error combined to produce a misleading version of events, but it has little to do with the ‘fog of war’. All it really establishes is that there is no alternative to first-hand reporting. Journalists rarely fully admit to themselves or others the degree to which they rely on secondary and self-interested sources. The problem is compounded because people caught up in newsworthy events often convince themselves that they know more than they do. Survivors of suicide bombings in Baghdad would describe to me in minute detail the bomber’s facial expression moments before he detonated his explosives, forgetting that if they had been that close they would be dead. The best witnesses were small boys selling cigarettes, who were always on the look-out for customers.

In reality, war isn’t much foggier than peace, sometimes less so. Serious developments are difficult to hide because thousands are affected by them—soldiers, guerrillas and civilians—and once the fighting has started the authorities become less and less able to check on and impede an enterprising journalist’s movements. Secrets about who holds what territory and who is winning and losing become difficult to keep. Informants become easy to find. In times of danger, whether in Belfast, Basra or Damascus, people become acutely aware of any potential threat in their neighbourhood: it can be as small as a new face or as large as the arrival of a military unit. A government or an army can try to maintain secrecy by banning reporters but they will pay the price as the vacuum of news is filled with information supplied by their enemies. The Syrian government put itself at a political disadvantage by denying visas to most foreign journalists, a policy it has only recently begun to reverse.

As the danger increased in Iraq after 2003, a rumour spread that foreign reporters weren’t really eyewitnesses because they had been reduced to ‘hotel journalism’, never leaving three or four well-fortified hotels. This was never true, quite apart from the fact that these hotels were repeatedly targeted by suicide bombers. Journalists who were frightened of leaving their hotel took the sensible precaution of not going to Baghdad in the first place. I used to think that the reporters most likely to be killed or kidnapped were the inexperienced ones who were trying to make a name for themselves by taking outrageous risks. But the war reporters I knew best who died, such as David Blundy in El Salvador in 1989 and Marie Colvin in Syria in 2012, were highly experienced. Their only mistake was to go to dangerous places so frequently that there was a high chance that they would one day be hit by a bullet or a bomb. Messy guerrilla fighting and sporadic artillery bombardments in wars with no clear front-lines are particularly dangerous. In 2004 I was nearly killed outside Kufa on the Euphrates by Shia militiamen who had been rattled by fighting with US Marines earlier in the day. Suspicious of the local headdress I was wearing, they half-decided I was a spy. But I had put the headdress on as a basic disguise, in order to travel through Sunni-held villages on the road between Kufa and Baghdad.

The idea that foreign journalists just lurk in their hotels in Damascus, Baghdad or Kabul is absurd. A more substantive charge is that they write too much about firefights and skirmishes, the fireworks of war, while neglecting the broader picture that might determine the outcome. ‘My newspaper doesn’t do what it calls “bang-bang” journalism,’ one correspondent said grandly, explaining why none of his colleagues was covering the fighting in Syria first-hand. But the ‘bang-bang’ matters: war may not be explicable without the politics, but the politics can’t be understood without the war. Early on in the occupation of Iraq I went to al-Dohra power station in Baghdad after one American soldier was shot dead there and another wounded. This was the small change of incipient guerrilla war, but the approval of local people as they stood around the pool of dried blood on the pavement was significant. ‘We are very poor but we will celebrate by cooking a chicken,’ one man said. ‘God willing, there will be more actions like this.’

Embedding with the American and British armies had the disadvantage that the journalists ended up having the same experiences as the soldiers and thinking many of the same thoughts. It’s difficult not to bond with people who are important to one’s safety and with whom one shares common dangers. Armies like the embedding system in part because they can favour sympathetic reporters and exclude the more critical. For journalists, counterintuitively, it often means missing crucial parts of a war, since an experienced guerrilla commander will naturally attack wherever the enemy forces are absent or weak. Anybody embedded with the army will tend to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. In 2004 when the US Marines stormed the city of Fallujah, killing many insurgents, they were accompanied by most of Baghdad’s press corps. It was a famous and well-publicised victory, but largely ignored by the media at the time was the insurgent counter-stroke: the capture of the much larger city of Mosul in northern Iraq, from which US soldiers had withdrawn.

The most sinister change in the way war is perceived springs from what two years ago seemed to be a wholly positive development. Satellite television and the use of information supplied by YouTube, bloggers and social media were portrayed as liberating innovations. The monopoly on information imposed by police states from Syria to Egypt and Bahrain to Tunisia had been broken. But as the course of the uprising in Syria has shown, satellite television and the internet also spread propaganda and hate. Fraudulent atrocity stories have an effect on a war: a Libyan militiaman who believes that the government soldiers he is fighting are under orders to rape his wife and daughters isn’t going to take many prisoners.

The situation has grown worse since Libya. The ‘YouTube war’ showing atrocities on both sides has outpaced the actual war in Syria as an influence on both rebels and government supporters. Satellite channels such as al-Jazeera depend on these propaganda clips. Many of the atrocities are real. Rebels can see film of mass graves of people killed by poison gas or children writhing in pain from napalm burns. In government-held parts of Damascus people don’t go out much in the evening but sit at home watching footage of captured government soldiers being decapitated or Christian priests and Alawite soldiers having their throats cut. Much of this footage is real—but not all. A correspondent in south-east Turkey recently visited a Syrian refugee camp where he found ten-year-old children watching a YouTube clip of two men being executed with a chainsaw. The commentary claimed that the victims were Syrian Sunnis and the killers were Alawites: in fact the film was from Mexico and the murders had been carried out by a drug lord to intimidate his rivals.

The diet of snuff movies helps explain the ferocity of the conflict in Syria and the degree of hatred and terror on both sides. It also explains why the two sides find it so difficult to talk to each other. How would Union soldiers in the American Civil War have reacted if they had repeatedly watched film of a Confederate commander cutting open the body of a dead private in the Union army and eating his heart?

Copyright © Fight for Your Faith