Recently in Journalism Category

One of the things writing the U.S. media roundup on IraqSlogger allows me to do is get a high dudgeon up over the crap that passes for analysis on op-ed pages … or sloppy writing in the middle of reporting. (Michael Gordon of the New York Times has been raked over the coals for his indiscriminate use of “al Qaeda” to describe most Iraqis with a Kalashnikov, but thankfully that seems to have been reined in.)

Others have been less careful. On Friday, Leslie Sabbagh of the Christian Science Monitor writes that Petraeus warned of “greatly increased sectarian violence” if the U.S. pulls out too soon. It’s a fairly run-of-the mill story, with stats showing a drop in attacks against civilians and an increase against U.S. troops. Pretty much what you’d expect, but there is some sloppy language in here. Sabbagh writes of a “quick withdrawal,” but few people in Washington are talking about anything hasty. They’re talking about the start of a withdrawal sooner rather than later — one that might take six months, a year, whatever — not a pell-mell rush to the border.

Sabbagh does it again, writing, “The prospect of any hasty removal of US troops has (Petraeus) concerned.” But the general actually said, “If we pull out there will be greatly increased sectarian violence, humanitarian concerns….” Petraeus makes no mention of the speed of the pullout; he questions the wisdom of a pullout altogether. The military command and the Bush White House seem to be envisioning a long-term presence in Iraq that will last years, but reporters are thinking of a evacuation, Saigon style. Those are two very different ideas. Reporters need to let the readers know when Petraeus, Bush, et al. are trying to reframe the debate as a choice between a hasty, unplanned retreat and an indefinite presence. What’s actually being talked about is either an indefinite presence or an orderly withdrawal with proper force-protection over a period of time, but which begins sooner rather than never.

But for an egregious example of high weirdness, check out the Monitor’s publication of an op-ed by Andrew Roberts, author of “A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900.” In this extraordinary op-ed, Roberts argues that “the English-speaking peoples” (ESPs) of the world are the ones best able to stand up to radical, totalitarian Islam because Anglophones have never been invaded or fallen under the sway of fascism or communism. “Countries in which English is the primary language are culturally, politically, and militarily different” — read, “better” — “from the rest of ‘the West,’” he writes. “They stand for modernity, religious and sexual toleration, capitalism, diversity, women’s rights, representative institutions — in a word, the future.” Yeah! Suck it, Germany, Spain and Italy! (Who have all committed troops and suffered casualties in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and elsewhere since 9/11.)

Seriously, this offensively nativist tract must come as a surprise to the those non-English-speaking peoples of the world (poor sods), but maybe they’ll be content to bask in the warm protectorate of the US-Canadian-British-ANZ imperium. There is just so much wrong with this op-ed — such as saying the invasion of South Korea by North Korea was a “surprise” attack for the world’s ESPs when it sounds like it was more a surprise to the South Koreans. And his repetition of the whole ESP phrase is grating. Finally, he just up and ignores the contributions of German soldiers in Afghanistan and the French Navy in patrolling the vital sea lanes throughout the Arabian and Indian oceans. And he trots out the old, “Al Qaeda can’t be appeased because the French would have already done so” trope. WTF? Is this a joke?

There’s much more — so much more. I’m leaving out the pablum from such luminaries as Bill Kristol — “the Bush presidency will be seen as a sucess” — and the Wall Street Journal editorial page. I mean, we all know what’s the score with those guys. But I expected a bit more from the Monitor.

Finally, my latest column for Spot-on.com is available. In it, I take up — what else? — the 1st anniversary of the Israel-Hezbollah war. (Some people call it the July War, but since half of it happened in August, I’ll stick with my appellation, thanks.)

That’s all. More to come!

Thank goodness. After 16 weeks, BBC journalist Alan Johnston has gone free. I can now remove that logo to the right.

Thanks to negotiations between Hamas and his kidnappers, Johnston wasn't killed in a cowboy raid. Good to Hamas for that wise tack. While there are many concerns about Hamas' takeover of Gaza, there is no denying the security situation seems to be improving now that Fatah and Hamas aren't shooting at each other. I hear the clans in Gaza, who had run the place for a while and one of which was responsible for Johnston's kidnapping, are running scared now that Hamas is in charge. That may be a good thing.

Hamas says it will protect foreigners and enforce the rule of law. This release should be taken as a sign that perhaps that's not an empty claim. Time will tell.

I'm coming a bit late to this because of server problems, but it's something that's been bugging me about the whole Reid-Pace "competence" imbroglio.

The question nagging at me is not who called whom incompetent or whether Reid was wrong or right to do so. I mean, Pace had just been fired, so Reid's not that far off calling the former chair of the joint chief's abilities into question.

No, what I wonder is why Reid's comments didn't get picked up by the bloggers in the conference call.

Why did the almost all of the liberal bloggers deny he said that Pace was incompetent when from the transcript posted on Talking Points Memo, he did, and it appears pretty clear he's talking about Pace? Did they screw up or are they trying to cover Reid's ass, since he's "on their team," so to speak?

Now, I say this as a blogger with both indy cred -- you're reading it -- and strong ties to the so-called MSM. But if bloggers are supposed to be an alternative/side dish or even an antidote to the excesses and failings of the mainstream press, why did they miss this? It's a genuinely Big Deal, so was it a miss or a willful omission?

If it was a willful omission, it's a horrible one. And it would prove that most liberal blogs -- or conservative ones -- shouldn't be considered credible alternatives to anything if they can't step up to their responsibility and report on newsworthy items even if it might get "their guy" in hot water. The right-wing blogosphere has had this problem for years now. Has it infected the left side as well?

On the other hand, if it's a mistake, it's a doozy. Any reporter who missed that would be tarred and feathered by editors. (And it's significant that mainstream reporters in were the ones who broke this story, even though bloggers had every opportunity to break it.) So, why are the bloggers given a free pass on this lapse?

Indeed, it was Talking Points Memo itself that in 2002 was instrumental in bringing down another Senate majority leader. The mainstream press was heckled and criticized for missing Lott's noxious comments. (And rightly so, in my opinion.)

But shouldn't bloggers -- in a friggin' conference call with the current Senate majority Leader, for crissakes -- need to be held to the same standards of accountability and, dare I say it, competence, that they hold the MSM to? Why the double standard?

A story I wrote appeared Monday in the Newark Star-Ledger, a great smaller paper that cares about foreign news. The story dealt with the plight of the Iraqi refugees in Jordan.

Lives suspended by war
AMMAN, Jordan—Rana crosses her legs on the threadbare carpet in her living room in this poor Palestinian section of town and watches as her three children light a candle. The kids are having a pretend birthday party without a cake or presents, but their faces are painted a magnificent shade of gold by the candlelight.

Across town, Hasa and his family sit in their richly-appointed apartment, with all the modern conveniences and bedrooms for everyone. The kitchen is especially bright and clean.

Rana and Hasa live in separate worlds, but have much in common.

Both families are Iraqi refugees facing an uncertain future in a foreign country. Both want to return to their shattered country. And both agreed to be interviewed and photographed for this story only if their real names would not be used because they fear deportation from Jordan and retribution in Iraq.

Driven from their homes by violence and threats of death, Rana and Hasa also provide rare portraits of the refugee life facing many Iraqis. The two families are among the 750,000 Iraqi refugees estimated to be living in Jordan, a country about the size of Pennsylvania and choking on the staggering burden of its new population. (The Iraqis account for about 15 percent of the people living in Jordan.)

Rana’s family is struggling to fit in and faces discrimination from other Iraqis, Jordanians and Palestinians. Jordanians, Rana says, complain to her that “you’re not wearing a hijab, you’re wearing tight jeans, you’re leaving the house.” Palestinians, meanwhile, say, “You killed Saddam.”

Hasa’s family, while well off, faces difficult circumstances as well. From their plush perch overlooking the local mosque, they made a comfortable life here after arriving in 2003.

Things have changed, though.

Hasa now complains government regulations make it impossible for him to run his businesses here or in Iraq, and his life savings is being bled dry.

At the same time, he rages at the U.S. government.

“We are in such a state that we who welcomed America now hate it, and hate the people as much as we hate the politics,” he says. “This isn’t the freedom we expected. This isn’t what we wanted.”

Two families in a country where they don’t want to be.

Two families in a country that really doesn’t want them. ...

Please read the whole thing. It should be noted that two days after the story appeared, the UNHCR raised the number of Iraqis who are displaced or refugees to 4.4 million -- almost twice the numbers that were available to me at the time of my reporting. That's 16 percent of the entire Iraqi population, making it the largest human catastrophe to hit the Middle East in recorded history. It dwarfs the Palestinian displacements in 1948 and 1967. If something isn't done about this, it will further destabilize an already volatile region.

By the way, can someone recommend a good server host? Yahoo! is terrible and I keep getting 500 Server Errors preventing me from getting into the blog, rebuilding it, etc.

BEIRUT -- Taking a break from all the news, I'd like to throw something out there and see what gets picked up.

Would you like to be part of the B2I team? (Which, at the moment, is me.) Would you like to blog on Iraq, Syria, Egypt and the rest of the Middle East? Would you like to make some cash while you're doing it? (Assuming people donate, of course.)

I'm looking for one or two people who can help me out here with covering Iraq, Syria and Egypt, although I'll entertain other locales or if you move around. Someone to blog from Washington or New York about how news in the Middle East is playing would be great, too.

The ideal candidates should be energetic, hungry and have some journalism training. Fluency in English is a must, as well as the ability to look at things as objectively as possible. I want to continue to give observations and news as it's seen, not as how most people want it to be seen. No left- or right-wing true believers need apply.

If you're a freelance journalist in the region and want to have a wider outlet than some of the trade journals might offer, please consider signing up. I'm working out out a donations-sharing system, by which you would reap rewards for your work. It's not much, but it can help.

Best of all, you get to be part of a blog that single-handedly started the the idea of reader-funded conflict reporting. B2I is still a strong brand and people in the journalism world know it. It's still read at newspapers and magazines in New York, Washington and elsewhere. Here's your chance to get some exposure, if you need it.

If you're interested, please email me with a CV, a cover letter and three writing samples.

Thanks very much,
The Management

BEIRUT -- Well, the situation up north has settled into a standoff, despite a bout of gunfire on Monday. The various Palestinian factions are trying to negotiate an end to this crisis, and the Lebanese government has given them time to get the job done. But while several politicians, such as Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, have said the military option is off the table, we may very well see more violence before this is over. Lebanon simply can't allow these guys to walk away, as I've mentioned before.

The group continues to refuse to hand over any of its fighters. "This is impossible," said Fatah al-Islam spokesman Abu Salim Taha via telephone from inside Nahr el-Bared.

I'll be heading back up, probably Tuesday, to monitor the situation. In the meantime, here are some of the stories I filed over the last week:

• Lebanon, Syria Point Fingers in Recent Violence (Washington Times)
• Lebanese army assault cheered, but raises fears (San Francisco Chronicle)
• Bodies piling up in assault on camp (San Francisco Chronicle)

Another one on the foreign fighters in Fatah al-Islam is due out tomorrow morning.

UPDATE 5/30/07 2:13:53 AM: And here it is! Sorry for the delay. Been busy here taking care of daily life that got put on hold while the North caught fire. Right now, things are more or less quiet, with the occasional exchange of fire. We'll see how long it holds.

Here's the story I filed for the San Francisco Chronicle last night,giving you a sense of the scene up around the Nahr el-Bared camp. It's grim:

Across the street, black smog billowed over the camp while half a dozen buildings blazed. Sniper fire crackled in the air as the army pounded the camp with 120mm mortar and tank shells. Fatah al-Islam militants responded with rocket propelled grenade launchers and machine-gun fire.

Dense orange groves surrounding the camp were scorched from explosions while the army seemed to methodically lob shells on a specific sector of the camp, setting a number of buildings on fire before moving on.

Conditions in the camp -- a miserable warren of alleyways and cinderblock homes housing between 30,000 and 40,000 people -- are grim. A source at the U.N. Relief and Works Agency in New York said it was impossible for camp medical workers to get to the dead and wounded. Water and electricty have been cut off and about 50 foreigners -- many of the Westerners -- are hunkered down as their embassies work to get a cease fire in place so they can be evacuated.

I'm heading up in a couple of hours. Word is a UN convoy is going to try to get into the camp.

One of the commenters in the post about Dmitry below wanted to know how many journalists who had died in Iraq were foreign and how many were Iraqi. Well, the Committee to Protect Journalists has just such a list.

Of the 101 journalists killed in Iraq, 79 were Iraqi. The others included 12 Europeans, three from other Arab countries, two from the United States and five from all other countries.

That the vast majority of journalists killed -- as well as the 38 media workers, which includes translators and the like -- are Iraqi is significant. Like the Iraqi civilians, the local journalists there are the ones who are most affected by the violence that permeates their country.

Fourteen journalists died in 2003, the year of the invasion and the trajectory has been mostly pointing up in the number of deaths each year: 24 in 2004, 23 in 2005, 32 in 2006 and now 8 in 2007.

For a capsule account of each journalist who was killed, here are the links:

• for 2007
• for 2006
• for 2005
• for 2004
• for 2003

(Note, the links include journalists killed in places other than Iraq as well.)

It's been a fatal weekend for foreign correspondents.

On Sunday, the day the plane carrying Anthony Mitchell of AP was found, Dmitry Chebotayev, a Russian photographer for EPA and Russian Newsweek was killed in Diyala province along with six U.S. soldiers, with whom he was embedded.

As the Committee to Project Journalists said in a statement,

The Committee to Protect Journalists mourns the death on Sunday of Dmitry Chebotayev, the first Russian journalist to be killed in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. Chebotayev, a freelance photographer embedded with U.S. forces, was killed along with six American soldiers when a roadside bomb struck a U.S. military vehicle in Diyala province, northeast of Baghdad.

Chebotayev was on assignment for the Russian edition of Newsweek magazine, reporting on the efforts of U.S. forces to control roads in Diyala province, Leonid Parfyonov, editor of the magazine's Russian edition, told CPJ. Chebotayev had been in Iraq for more than two months.

...

Chebotayev, 29, had freelanced for several news agencies, including the German-based European Pressphoto Agency and the independent Moscow daily Kommersant. A sampling of his photos can be viewed on his Lightstalkers profile page. Lightstalkers is an online network of photographers and other visual journalists that serves as a directory, database, and resource center.

At least 101 journalists and 38 media support staffers have been killed in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, making Iraq the deadliest conflict for the press in CPJ's 26-year history. Seven embedded journalists have been killed since the war began.

He last logged into Lightstalkers five days ago. His location is listed as Baqoubah, Iraq, and his travel log shows that he worked in Russia, Ukraine, Lebanon, Syria, Chechnya and Iraq. My friend Bill Putnam, another photographer, offered advice to him regarding embedding in Iraq. It's another sad day for journalists in the tight-knit world of Middle East coverage, after the loss of Anthony on Saturday.

Six soldiers and a journalist killed in one blast makes me suspect it was an awfully big IED that hit a Bradley fighting vehicle, rather than a humvee, which holds five guys, tops. I'm just speculating, though.

I hope I don't have to do any more posts like this. Rest in peace, Dmitry and Anthony. You will be missed.

Me and Anthony in a Djibouti bar in March -- much better times.It just not bloody fair.

Earlier tonight, I found out that Anthony Mitchell, a reporter for the AP based in Nairobi and one of the most interesting and funny guys I've met in a long time, was on a plane that crashed in Cameroon on Saturday. In all, the Kenyan Airways flight was carrying 114 people.

It doesn't look good, and my heart is heavy tonight. As the report says:

Among the passengers of the Boeing 737-800 was a Nairobi-based Associated Press correspondent, Anthony Mitchell, one of five Britons on a passenger list released by the airline. Mitchell had been on assignment in the region.

Most of the passengers were apparently en route to Nairobi to transfer to other flights.

I met Anthony, who is 39, in March in Djibouti, when we both were onboard the FGS Bremen, a German frigate, for a story on maritime security operations in the area. Anthony was full of funny, self-deprecating stories about himself and Africa, stories that contained no small amount of hard-won wisdom, too. He talked about the clans of Somalia, the US military's actions in the Horn of Africa and constantly took the piss out of our military escort in the most good-natured way possible. (Anthony's from London while LCDR "Grassy" Meadows of the Royal Navy is from the north of England.)

I didn't know him long, but in the few days I knew him, he was a reporter's reporter, working constantly, cell phone seemingly glued to his head as he chased down reports of the kidnapped Britons in Ethiopia and set up an interview with the president of Djibouti.

He was kicked out of Ethiopia last year, he said, because he upset the government there. Apparently, they didn't like his reports on corruption and he was given just 24 hours to leave the country. While that was no doubt a huge inconvenience, I can't help but have a soft spot for reporters who tweak the powers-that-be as much as he did.

He loved Africa, he said. He liked small towns and eschewed most of the "mod-cons," as he called air conditioning and the like. He also carried around in his wallet a photo of his wife, Catherine, and his kids, Tom and Rose. They looked like a really nice family.

I wish the outlook looked better, but right now I'm left with hoping for the best for Anthony's family -- and for all the families of the people on that plane. For while this post is about Anthony -- only because I know him -- I know that he was just one person and that 114 families are anxiously awaiting word.

UPDATE 5/7/07 12:38:20 PM +0200 GMT: A grim update. Cameroon officials say there is "no chance" of survivors.

BEIRUT -- A response is in order to the Jeruasalem Post's story today, in which Michael Totten is interviewed and my name comes up in the article.

The Post says, "Chris Allbritton, who sometimes works for Time Magazine, briefly mentioned on his blog during the war that several journalists he knows were threatened by Hizbullah because of what they were writing."

Let's look at what I actually wrote:

To the south, along the curve of the coast, Hezbollah is launching Katyushas, but I'm loathe to say too much about them. The Party of God has a copy of every journalist's passport, and they've already hassled a number of us and threatened one.

The beginning of my response was this:

Let's set aside that the Lebanese Internal Security also has photocopies of our passports. The reason for the hassling and the threat was that a reporter had filmed or described either a launching site or Hezbollah positions. (I'm not sure which.) To the best of my knowledge, that's been the extent of the hassling. I'm going to get in trouble for this, but I think it's a reasonable restriction. This is the exact same restrictions placed on journalists by the Israeli army and by the Americans in Iraq. I don't think threatening journalists is cool at all, and it certainly doesn't endear me to them, but that has been the extent of Hezbollah's interference in our coverage.

You can read the rest of it, and I hope you do, here.

A sea of protesters wave Lebanese flags in Riadh el Solh square in Beirut on Friday in a bid to topple the government. ©2006 Christopher Allbritton

BEIRUT -- In a massive show of force, Lebanon's protestors loyal to Hezbollah and its political allies poured into the streets of downtown Beirut by the hundreds of thousands, dwarfing last weeks show of support for the government and delivering a sweeping rebuke to Lebanon's political establishment.

The streets, squares and bridges of several neighborhoods were a sea of red and white Lebanese flags as supporters of the Shi'ite groups Hezbollah and Amal, as well as the Christian groups Marida and the Free Patriotic Movement, took to the streets in an attempt to topple the U.S.-backed government.

"The real problem with this government is that they did not stand with us during the war," said Muhammad Obaid, 40, a Hezbollah supporter, echoing a common complaint of the opposition, which is also called the March 8 coalition.

Hezbollah, which is supported and armed by both Syria and Iran, captured two Israeli soldiers on July 12, prompting a massive retaliation by the Jewish state that turned into a 34-day war. More than 1,000 Lebanese died -- mostly civilians -- and the country's infrastructure and industries were devastated. Hezbollah feels that the government in Beirut, which is led by Sunni politician Fuad Siniora, didn't support it enough and even quietly hoped for it to lose the war so that the Shi'ite group would no longer be a viable political opponent.

Hezbollah emerged stronger than ever, however, and demanded more power in the government for itself and its allies in the March 8 coalition. After six cabinet ministers from their political bloc resigned, and Christian industry minister Pierre Gemayel was murdered, the March 8 forces hope to force the resignation of the Siniora government so that new elections can be held -- which they feel they will win.

"The government will fall today," Obaid said confidently.

Obaid comes from a small town in the Bekaa Valley east of Beirut, a stronghold for Hezbollah. He said that the group had paid him to drive his bus to ferry protestors to Beirut. From his village alone, he said there were four large buses and 15 minibuses.

By any count, the crowd was massive, easily topping 1 million people. It was unclear how many people were in the streets because of the sheer numbers, but today's protest may have surpassed the original 2005 protest that gave Siniora's bloc its name -- the March 14 movement. That protest, coming exactly a month after the assassination of former premier Rafik Hariri, led to the end of Syria's 29-year occupation of Lebanon, a defeat the regime in Damascus would like to undo with its allies in Lebanon, such as Hezbollah.

Packed and partying crowds of mostly young people stretched from the Christian neighborhood of Gemayze to the east, to the government buildings ringed by concertina wire on the other side of downtown toward the west, and from the site of Hariri's grave near the port up to Sodeco Square in the Christian enclave of Achrafiye. They filled alleyways and overpasses, and all seemed to carry a flag of some sort.

Most carried the Lebanese flag, its red and white stripes framing a green cedar, but becoming a dramatic sweep when thousands upon thousands of the banners waved. But the Lebanese could not resist putting their own party's stamp on their outfits, with Hezbollah members draping the milita's flag about their shoulders and Michel Aoun's Free Patriot Movement supporters wearing orange sweatshirts or baseball caps.

The crowd for the most part was friendly and respectful of the call by Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah not to damage property or resort to violence, but a group of young toughs did celebrate the murder of Pierre Gemayel, by saying, "Congratulations to Pierre, when is Geagea next?" Samir Geagea is the leader of another Christian political party called the Lebanese Forces and is particularly hated by the Shi'ites of Lebanon. "We want your wife, Hakim," they chanted referring to Geagea's nickname and his wife, considered one of the more beautiful women in Lebanon. Their jibe was an ugly, sexist chant.

They called the interior minister a Jew while Hezbollah security stood by, watching impassively. It was only after I asked the youths why they were chanting such things -- and their violent reaction when I said "I'm a reporter" in my badly accented Arabic -- that the Hezbollah security guard intervened.

"They are not polite," the guard said as he pushed me away roughly. "I don't want you talking to people who aren't polite."

The March 8 movement has vowed to stay in the streets, staging sit-ins until the government resigns. As night fell, trucks carrying portable toilets and water tanks arrived while tents were being set up in Martyrs' Square.

"If they don't step down, we will stay here," said Hayan Ismael, 22, a physics student from the Bekaa village of Bednayel and a supporter of another Christian group. He said protest organizers had timed the protests for Friday afternoon before the weekend to minimize the economic impact of shutting down the heart of Beirut, indicating that March 8 may be expecting a resolution by Monday morning. Downtown merchants have been complaining for months since the war about all the disruptions to business.

"Every day the government stays and doesn't step down, it makes the economy suffer," said Ismael.

Siniora, however, vowed last night not to step down.

"We will not allow a democratic government to be toppled or its institutions," Siniora said in a televised address. "Nor will we allow a state within a state. We are the legitimate government and responsible for all Lebanese."

BEIRUT -- In the Times' story about yesterday's attack, which killed two CBS crewmen, a U.S. soldier and an Iraqi interpreter, as well as gravely wounded the correspondent and six other soldiers, U.S. ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad was quoted as saying:

"These brave journalists risked their lives to tell the world the story of a courageous people and a proud nation," he said. "The terrorists who committed this evil crime have shown themselves for who they are. They do not want the world to see the truth of what is happening in Iraq, where a determined people are fighting for freedom and liberty." "That story must and will be told," he said.

Please. Dozier, Brolan and Douglas were doing a Memorial Day story on the troops, which probably came down from their editor as one of those perennial stories journalists have to do whenever the holiday rolls around. (Pity the poor editor who assigned that story. Every editor has to live with the knowledge that their story assignments could be placing people they know and care about in danger. Speaking from experience, I would much rather be the reporter on the ground than the assignment editor. The guilt if something goes wrong is almost unbearable.)

But back to Zal. I know the embassy has to stay on message, but not a single journalist in Baghdad believes that they're telling the story of "a determined people ... fighting for freedom and liberty." Everyone I know thinks the place is disintegrating and heading for a hell on earth. Nir Rosen's "Republic of Fear" op-ed is spot on. Read it. I've run across almost every thing he says in his article, and most other journalists have as well. Our local staff have to live this day in and day out, so we get to hear just how awful it is. Relatives disappearing, multiple ID cards, massacres one street over.

Yeah, sounds like a determined people fighting for liberty to me. Not. More like a frightened people just trying to keep their heads down and stay alive while saving up enough money to flee the country. (Times' firewall, sorry.)

BEIRUT -- Things are moving along, albeit slowly, for my Iranian trip. I've discovered that I can't just get a tourist visa and then write, although some people do that. Instead, I need to get a journalistic visa because if I go the tourist route, and I publish articles, the Iranians will likely not let me back in the country. This is unacceptable to me, as I don't think you can do very good journalism with a one-off, parachute trip. You have to get to know the place, return many times, etc.

So, going the official route, with my hands raised and showing the Iranian information ministry that I mean no harm is the best route for me.

Many of you have already been exceedingly generous, and the fund is up to almost $1,600 now. I reckon about $4,000 is needed for a good two-week excursion to the Islamic Republic, as I'll have to hire fixers, cars, hotels, etc. So if you want to contribute, please feel free to hit the tip jar, donation fund, whatever you want to call it.

Things here in Beirut, however, have entered a weird stasis. The National Reconciliation Council, which has been billed as the first time all the leaders of the various political factions have sat down together, seems intent on institutionalizing itself into a feckless club house in which Michel Aoun, the former Army general stamps his feet to become president and Hizbollah's General-Secretary backs him up on the conditions that they don't have to disarm. This is, needless to say, unacceptable to the March 14 coalition that includes Walid Jumblatt, the Druze leader, and Saad Hariri, the son of the slain former prime minister whose assassination Feb. 14, 2005 started this whole thing.

People in Beirut are pretty fed up, but at least the security forces aren't shutting down all of downtown every time the Council meets now, pissing off all the merchants there. There's a real sense of disappointment among the young people I talk to that the so-called Cedar Revolution, which looked great on television and succeeded in getting the Syrian Army out of Lebanon (mostly), has run out of steam and has been hijacked by the same old families that have run this place (some would say into the ground) for decades.

One of my friends, the scion of a powerful Shi'ite political family opposed to Syrian influence, has pretty much thrown in the towel. The Syrian Army has left, but the influence is still there, he says, and Émile Lahoud, Lebanon's president and Syrian protégé, will serve out his term and the same old politics of old will prevail. Syrian President Basher Assad will wait out the Bush administration and things will return to the bad old days of the 1990s. He does allow that it won't be quite as bad, but the days of total Lebanese sovereignty seem far away still.