NEW YORK -- After a week back, I've managed to get some sleep in, say "hey" to a few friends, put up some picture pages (part one and part two) and try to take stock of the aftermath of this war. This is difficult, however, as the urban environment of New York City is so alien to the experiences of the past month that it might as well be a different planet. It doesn't help that I'm still stepping gingerly around the East Village (residual fear of landmines), looking for sniper positions on the skyscrapers and marveling that people aren't all carrying AK-47s.
But that's nothing compared to what the Iraqi people have had to go through, and what they're facing. To a certain degree, the same goes for the people of America who, it may be, were lied to about the reasons for this war.
According to the Independent in the U.K., the Bush White House based its case for invading Iraq on a "selective use of intelligence, exaggeration, use of sources known to be discredited and outright fabrication." The weapons of mass destruction that were said to have posed an imminent threat to the United States and the free world have yet to be found, although Bush promises they will be. Again, the Times reported April 27:In northern Iraq, a military chemical-analysis team said today that a cache of barrels and two mobile laboratories found near the village of Bayji were most likely not used for chemical warfare purposes, countering earlier reports from an Army officer at the site.
For New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, this is no biggie. "We do not need to find any weapons of mass destruction to justify this war," he wrote this weekend. "That skull, and the thousands more that will be unearthed, are enough for me." He was referring to a graphic and affecting photo the Times ran on its front page on Friday. This is the same man who wrote on Feb. 19:
I am also very troubled by the way Bush officials have tried to justify this war on the grounds that Saddam is allied with Osama bin Laden or will be soon. There is simply no proof of that, and every time I hear them repeat it I think of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. You don't take the country to war on the wings of a lie. (Emphasis added.)
Friedman wasn't talking so much about WMD in that earlier column, but the point remains the same. In matters of starting wars, you better have the moral high ground, and you don't get there by climbing a ladder of falsehoods.
For people wholly supportive of the war, however, the tonic of triumphalism is sweet indeed. Many are now saying "I told you so" to those of us who opposed it. A reader -- I can't find the email now -- asked some months ago if I would change my mind on the war if it was proven that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. I answered that no, I wouldn't, since I didn't -- and don't -- believe that the war was about WMD or an evil tyrant but about realpolitik plans for projecting American power into the Middle East. My response to this reader is to flip the question: "Do you still think this war was necessary since it may very well turn out that there are no WMD to be found?"
(Mind you, I'm sure the U.S. will find some cache of chemicals or a few warheads, but President Bush repeatedly invoked a clear and present danger to the survival of the United States as a justification for war. A few dozen litres of mustard gas or even VX does not strike me as justification for shredding the U.N. Charter, demolishing NATO, harming further the United States' image abroad and increasing the risk of terrorism at home.)
Still, some very real good occurred from the toppling of Saddam. There is no doubt the future of Iraq will be much, much brighter without him. The war was prosecuted fairly well with relatively low civilian casualties, there was no urban warfare and at least some Iraqis in the Arab parts of the country cheered the U.S's entry into Baghdad. (The Kurds were, naturally, ecstatic, but the warm welcome I received should not be taken as indicative of the mood of the country as a whole. Many, many Arabs are angry over what happened to their country and the Kurds are ready to bolt from Iraq if they get the chance.) But the aftermath of the war could be more damaging to American interests and the Iraqi people. U.S. soldiers today fired into a crowd of civilian protesters at Falluhaj, about 30 miles west of Baghdad. The director of the local hospital said 13 people were killed and 75 injured. This is the third such incident such as this, with the other two occurring in Mosul.
Trigger-happy troops, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's cavalier attitude toward the rape of a nation's cultural history -- with journalists and soldiers taking part -- as well as disturbing but totally unconfirmed stories I was told by troops about atrocities committed by U.S. forces against prisoners all point to one thing: the need for a skeptical and close examination of America's role in a post-war Iraq.
This examination is not going to come from the networks, obviously. CNN's news head Eason Jordan, already facing criticism for the arguably morally bankrupt policy of not reporting Saddam's thuggery in exchange for 12 years of access, revealed to Howard Kurtz on "Reliable Sources" last week that the retired military personnel used on air were all approved by the Pentagon! (L.A. Times, registration req.) "I went to the Pentagon myself several times before the war started and met with important people there and said, for instance, at CNN, 'Here are the generals we're thinking of retaining to advise us on the air and off about the war,'" he said. "And we got a big thumbs-up on all of them. That was important." Cozy arrangement, there.
By and large, the television reports were uniformly awful, in my opinion, with a rah-rah patriotism that television excels at. Print reporters were better, however, with critical reports and unfiltered quotes from troops, including New York Times reporter Dexter Filkins quoting a sergeant as saying he shot an Iraqi woman because "the chick got in the way."
This criticism is not to take away from the courage of the reporters in the field. I was a chicken and mainly stayed away from the rough stuff so I don't include myself in that previous sentence. Twelve journalists died in this war, out of about 1,500 covering it. None of those 12 people had to be there; they chose to be there. Their motivations, I'm sure, ranged from the noble dedication to the story and the people of Iraq to the base lust for glory and a collection of war stories. Most likely it was a combination of both. I am including myself here and speaking from personal experience.
So what comes next? For Iraq, no one knows. President Bush says the U.S. will install democracy but that doesn't include a Shi'a-led Islamic state -- a wise choice, even if it does leave the United States open to hypocrisy. We'll see to what degree democracy really does come to the new Iraq. But I know this: The American people, in whose name this war was waged, need to hold this administration's feet to the fire. It's obviously too late to stop this war, but we as a democratic nation still have a responsibility to make the aftermath as beneficial to the Iraqi people as possible now that it's over. That means that corporate cronyism that seems to be the preferred method for awarding lucrative rebuilding contracts needs to be protested -- loudly. Any backsliding on democratic actions or a disconnect between administration actions and rhetoric have to be combatted as vigorously possible.
The anti-war crowd would be criminally irresponsible if it just washes its hands of the matter and considers the battle to halt military action in Iraq a failed cause and moves onto the next cause celebre. And if the pro-war people think they now have a right to say, "We told you this war would go well," they damn well also have a responsibility to hold the people they supported to their word. It's time for them, the "winners" in the "Should we go to war or shouldn't we?" debate, to put up or shut up.
I personally don't plan on sitting back and letting things just happen, on letting Iraq slip from the consciousness of an easily distracted people. I'm working on a book proposal examining the three acts of this drama -- build up, the war itself and its aftermath. I'll be returning to Iraq as soon as possible to research the rebuilding and to explore those disturbing stories I heard. Most important, I'll be keeping the voices of the Iraqi people front and center, something the mainstream media tend not to do.
Do keep in touch. Things are getting complicated -- and interesting.Some statistics on B2I Number of donors: 316
Total amount raised: $13,834.16
Largest donation: $2,500 (anonymous)
Smallest donation: $1
Average donation: $43.78
Median donation: $20
Total number of unique visitors since Jan. 16, 2003: 462,036
Peak day: March 27, 2003 with 23,328 unique visitors
Number of countries represented: 140, including almost every country in the Middle East. Who's reading?
B2I has been accessed by every branch of the U.S. military as well as Central Command, Pacific Command, Southern Command and European Command. It was also accessed from the CIA, the House of Representatives, NASA and the United States Supreme Court. It has been mentioned in the Boston Globe, Jim Lehrer's NewsHour, Time Out New York, Reuters, NPR, CNN and many other media outlets.
God bless you, Chris. I am a loyal reader of yours since this all began and intend to stay the course. I’m greatly looking forward to the book you mentioned, and more reports of the building efforts of Iraq…
…oh, and by the way…
AMAZING photos, Chris! They really give a sense of the stories you covered…
Chris,
welcome back to the city! I thank God you had the guts and determination to get yourself out there and thank you for the marvellous quality of your prose and pictures. Time after time, as I flip from one page to another, trying to get some actual news from our newest colony, I wish (selfishly) that were still out there on the ground, in Sadr City, in Al Kut, in Falluja. I look forward to the book greatly and will be delighted to help fund your next trip when the time comes.
Yikes! Saw Tom Ridge give his speech today & he mentioned monitoring the internet. Dollars to doughnuts the people who visit your site are ‘surveyed’ as well.
He did mention fighting ‘terrorism in any form’…does that mean if they don’t agree with your writing that you are a ‘terrorist’?
I absolutely agree that it is now time for the Anti and Pro-war types to unite to hold the Administration’s ‘feet to the fire’ and get it right for once. It does appear interesting that although many seem to complain that the Administration doesn’t have a clue about rebuilding Iraq, things seem to be moving along in a constructive fashion.
The situation in Afghanistan seems to have taken a backseat now and that is most definitely bad news even though the Administration swore that would not be the case. So a question comes to mind, and that is, why isn’t there a group like Jay Garner’s in Afghanistan to help Karzi like there is in Iraq? And if there is, is the resource allocation the same or lopsided towards Iraq?
Cheers,
Don B.
Wow - amazing photos! “Chicken” be demmed, I’m glad you were not one of the twelve unfortunates. Your analysis is squarely on point. Seems like we have more questions and responsibilities now than ever. Thanks once again, Chris.
Well, I’m glad you’re back from going back, and I found all of your writing, except this piece very interesting. This piece is an opinion piece, but like many opinion pieces, it mentions some facts but not others. Your missives from the reality of Iraq were much better then those from the surreality of New York.
There were 3 reasons to go into Iraq: the potential for WMD, terrorism, and freedom. The first two were the real reason we went into Iraq, the last one is why we were successful. The media has concentrated on the first and last, but the second has always been one of the main reasons the administration went into Iraq. Something to remember always when analyzing foreign policy: The media’s focus is on entertainment, while the administration’s focus may be something entirely different. Our intervention in Iraq has already been more effective at rounding up terrorists then anything we’ve done in Afghanistan so far.
You yourself talked about terrorist training camps in Iraq and the joy of the locals as they were destroyed. While you were in transit, there has been lots of information coming forward. You might want to catch up.
Pierce
Hi, Pierce. Thanks for writing. I think you have my site confused with another, as I honestly don’t recall writing about the training camps (except for pieces on Ansar al-Islam.) I did a search for “training camps” on my own site, and only one piece comes up from Feb. 10.
Yes, it’s an opinion piece. I don’t believe, as others on this site have commented, that op-eds aren’t “journalism.” (It seems that if one agrees with an op-ed, it’s journalism but if one doesn’t, it’s “opinion” and can thus be breezily dismissed.) This epilogue is a fact-based piece that puts forward an opinion. Many of these “facts” you don’t mention haven’t been proven to be facts at all, but instead charges put out by the Bush administration.
Ansar was a nasty bunch, yes. They got money from Baghdad, most likely. They espoused an al Qa’ida-like theology. But they also got money from Iran and even Turkey. They shrewdly used Baghdad as a source of funding while despising its secular government. (The Kurdish parties’ secularism was the group’s raison d’etre.)
I have been keeping up with the news since I’ve been back, and so far, based on my experience there this time and last year, I’ve not seen convincing evidence that conquering Iraq will do an iota of good in combating terrorism. But that’s just my opinion.
Thank you, you blog has been a refreshing change from wholly pro-Bush media. I especially enjoyed the personalization of the peoples there.
Good luck and be well
Where is Saddam Hussein?
http://ghostofsaddam.com
Extremely well written, Chris. It is so refreshing to read the commentary from a journalist who obviously has a mind as well as a heart. I’ve been with you on this journey since the second week of March and now am captivated. I look forward to your book. I also support your opinions wholeheartedly and believe that not only the American people were lied to about the need for war. Australians and Britons were also. As you so clearly state, now is not the time to say “oh well, it’s over” and simply move on. Now we must hold our political pretenders to account, in all aspects of their actions regarding Iraq.
thank chris for letting us know the way it really was over there. so hard to find news without a slant.
look forward to your book.
Chris,
Allow me to add my voice to the chorus of thank-yous. You carried out a bold journalistic experiment with courage, integrity, and grace. I’ve had high hopes for this project ever since I first heard about it three months ago. You didn’t let us down. Goodonya!
Oh yeah, and thanks, too, for not being afraid to state your opinions. Like many of your other readers, I’m sick and tired of the mainstream American media pretending to be objective. I’ll take the BBC, the Guardian, and B2I over the NY Times (and American TV is so bad it’s hardly worth mentioning) any day of the week.
Cheers!
Christopher,
You should check out the article on how Britain freed Iraq from the Ottoman Empire in the early 1900’s in the current issue of the Smithsonian magazine. It is so familiar, it’s chilling.
Hi Chris. So, it sounds like that you plan to keeping writing at B2I. Which is good news if it’s true. I thought that B2I was dead, already many people have stopped visiting, hopefully they will come back. Maybe you could cover the Palestinian/Israeli conflict and the peace process. But, there never truly be peace there. Keep an eye out for Russia! Take care.
Great post, I’ll be back for more later.
One quick thing, here’s that Smithsonian article for anyone who is interested. It’s a PDF.
http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues03/may03/pdf/smithsonianmay2003iraqunruly_century.pdf
Keep up the good work.
Great post, I’ll be back for more later.
One quick thing, here’s that Smithsonian article for anyone who is interested. It’s a PDF.
http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues03/may03/pdf/smithsonianmay2003iraqunruly_century.pdf
Keep up the good work.
I understand your sentiments…becareful not to get too heated. I agree, we have to hold the administration to a solid follow through on the whole deal. I have no problem with the WMD issue per say I think a program was definetly in place…there is enough circumstantial evidence for that. I support the real politik of placing ourselves into the Middle East the region needs to be transformed and in the long run the elimination of the real grievences against the West will be the result…eventual democratic evolution of regimes…economic development and opportunities and a Palestinian State. We are the global policeman…we pay for it with our money and blood and the payback is growing global stability. We take care of the loose cannons on the deck. That’s the reality of US foreign policy for the next 15-25 years.
Peace
“Keep an eye out for Russia!”
Yes, watch out for the Russians. For they will invade Israel sometime within the next few years. These are the end times, the signs are out there. Just watch TV, the signs are there. Jesus is coming.
—
A half century of strife and violence between Israel and Arabic nations will drive the international community to demand a peaceful solution to the Mideast problem.
An internationally brokered peace agreement will give Israel a false sense of security.
Russia will then lead a massive coalition of multinational forces to invade Israel in the wake of the “peace” agreement.
In defense of Israel, God will miraculously destroy Russian allied forces.
The reaction across the world will include both true and false professions of faith from Gentiles and Jews, and recognition from nations that Israel’s God has acted.
Unbelievers, motivated by fear rather than faith, will “know that [God] is the Lord (Ezekial 38:28). With this same “knowledge” of the Lord through his fearful judgment of the Russian forces, the Antichrist will muster the world’s support and demand that peace be made for Israel and the her Temple be rebuilt on its original site. Furthermore, the decimation of the Muslim nations as a result of their participation in the Russian invasion will render them impotent regarding any opposition to the rebuilding of the Temple on the site now occupied by the Dome of the Rock.
The Antichrist will then rise to his moment of destiny and proclaim the divine right of the Jews to rebuild the third Temple. He will give false acknowledgement to God’s intervention on behalf of Israel. He will then strike a seven-year “peace” covenant and order the rebuilding of the Temple.
god bless the nukes!!!!!!
Chris…interesting piece…but I think your argument concerning U.S. fears of Europe and Japan re-arming and going into the Middle East to take control of the oil for themselves sounds a bit hyperbolic, and somewhat of a reality stretch. Two other (admittedly minor) points: The Independent? Do you really consider them to be a credible voice of unbiased political reporting? Also, I don’t think cheesy oil paintings of Uday and some guns lifted by a couple of journalists and soldiers qualifies as a “rape” of Iraq’s cultural identity, do you?
I know its selfish, but I find myself much more concerned with what’s happening in this country than Iraq. With the Bush administration congratulating themselves and declaring victory “in a war that began on September 11th” while the media largely rubber-stamps that concept, it seems the political ploy behind this war has played out as planned. Yet I fear that we’ve all lost this war, despite what I hope will lead to a better life for many Iraqis.
Chris,
What you have done is truely an historic event in journalism. You (and the wider blog world) have restored much of my faith in the purpose and power of journalists to inform. I look forward to reading your work in the future.
I am sure that he was not the first to say this, but the Anarchist writer/activist Michael Bakunin wrote in “God and the State” that the natural inclination of humanity is to ” to think and to rebel” The forces of the state use all of their power to negate this desire and keep us falsely happy and stupid. Often they succeed as evidenced by “unknown” poster who said
“These are the end times, the signs are out there. Just watch TV,”
It is the purpose of writers and journalists to give us the tools to “think and rebel” and Chris, you are certainly holding up your part of the bargain. Bravo!
Go on!. You are on the wave and, if you get lost among the foam, then, get back!, because the ministers of the Truth can not die without to revival as Osiris forever.
The man takes the wagon, but the time says where the mules will water finally.
The universe has its own laws, though the human governments pawn in supporting in Academy that from the sky stones can not fall down, if before someone has not thrown them towards the sky.
North America is not necessarily - I’m sorry - a part of the humanity chosen to direct the destiny of the Humanity. In the universe they do not exist parts, it is a quite coherent one, though the Academy pawn in supporting that from the sky stones can not fall down, if before someone has not thrown them towards the sky.
So that, North America -and all the other countries- must support theirs weapons closed at home, because nobody knows of where the gunman will come out, but from Hell. And this is not good for North America.
The intelligence does the peace. The war is the loss of the intelligence.
I don’t know to speak english very well, I use a web translater. Please, listen to me again: «Intelligence builds peace, war destroy it. If you build war, what is your intelligence?»
I probably will not post in this weblogger again, but do you Know where is Salam Pax? (http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/)
The eyes of Goliath
A parable of the 21st century
When the future King David realised that he must champion his people in a fight to the death against the Philistines, the slightly built shepherd boy sat down on a rock and pondered. He could win the battle only if he alone could defeat the Philistine champion, the gigantic and merciless warrior Goliath.
Already the lad was an expert with his slingshot, his one weapon to protect his flock from ravaging by wolves. He was confident that with a little more practice he could smite Goliath with a large rock in the precise spot between the eyes, for the bridge of the nose was the only point at which the giant’s helmet offered no protection.
And so David slew his enemy that day.
Thus many centuries later did the tactical leader of El Qaeda, the Egyptian el Zawahiri, a master of the game of chess, also ponder how a small group of resourceful fanatics might bring about the downfall of the most powerful and richest nation the world had ever seen.
If they could lure the United States of America into a never-ending war, two consequences would surely follow: first, a huge expenditure from the well-filled treasury of the great nation and second, a massive depletion of the flow of that nation’s lifeblood - oil and petroleum - without which the nation’s economy would wither and die.
To accomplish their aim they used the tools of deception and fear and bigotry and the promise of salvation and eternal life. These tactics have been employed throughout history by human beings who wish to exercise power over others. Soon fervent groups of hundreds of thousands of dispossessed and unhappy people from all over the world, united only in real or imagined grievances against America, flocked to join the cause of El Qaeda, totally unafraid of death and willing to outdo each other in both courage and brutality.
And so came September 11, 2001. The Twin Towers of New York City that day became the eyes of Goliath. Not unexpectedly, the tactics adopted by the United States in its retaliation were not unlike those of El Qaeda. The invasion and destruction of Afghanistan and the invasion and destruction of Iraq quickly followed.
The world’s watched in alarm as oil prices doubled in the space of one year and the flow of the precious liquid from the bosom of the earth began to slow. By exactly 2.09.33 a.m. GMT on October 12, 1904, the day when this tale was written, the cost of the war over the previous two years had increased the national debt of the United States to $7,426, 821, 651, 038 and 19 cents, financed by the sale of US Treasury Bonds. The debt was continuing to grow at an average rate of $1.71 billion per day. Simple mathematical logic showed that the longer the war against the terrorists lasted the sooner the USA would not be able redeem its Treasury Bonds.
To meet the run on its bonds, the nation’s Treasury might need to print excess supplies of its currency and increase the taxes paid by its citizens. The dollar, the world’s principal currency, would fall in value. Depression would spread like a disease throughout the Western world, leaving in its wake unheard of inflation, poverty, starvation, civil war and incalculable destruction and death.
Since this has been the story of the beginning of an endless war, no more can be said.
Indeed, if there is ever to be an ending there will be no one to write it.