0
   

The UN, US and Iraq IV

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Nov, 2003 06:11 am
Timber wrote:
I expect the push to re-energize the Interim Governing Council will bear fruit, and that the current Coalition offensive will do likewise.


So what, we make Chalabi President by order of King George II? Yeah, that'll wow 'em in Baghdad.

If, as is very likely, the Army gets a grip on this and begins to put the the Ba'ahtists out of business, it'll be despite Rummy and Co., not because of them.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Nov, 2003 06:23 am
Wilso asked
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ge, the rest of the world don't want the keys. Why should they pay to clean up the US' mess?




Because of all the reasons Bush epoused and ignored.
Because we **** on the worlds door step and are incapable of cleaning up.
Because evil cannot be allowed to triumph.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Nov, 2003 06:49 am
Quote:
The Green Zone Blues
by Sridhar Pappu



In the seven months since Saddam Hussein's statue toppled in Firdaus Square in Baghdad, the Bush administration has been busy winning the country for democracy. But to competitive reporters used to exploiting the chaos of war to get the big story, the rigid control of the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority and its press arm, the Office of Strategic Communications, has made winning during the peace more difficult than winning during the war.

"They've taken the Bush model and applied it to Baghdad," one correspondent said.

The C.P.A., according to several reporters based in Baghdad?-many of whom requested anonymity?-has severely limited access to key officials in the provisional government. In an effort to stanch the flow of reporting on small-scale terrorist activity and the resulting injuries to U.S. troops, sources said, morgues and hospitals in Baghdad have become impenetrable to reporters. Reporters have found their access to police stations cut off. When access is granted, reporters said, the C.P.A. often assigns "minders" to accompany them.

But even the good-news stories the Bush administration has chastised the press for ignoring?-reopening schools and hospitals, building power plants and infrastructure and factories?-can be hard to get, unless you are content to rely upon a C.P.A.-engineered press junket to do your reporting. Contractors working on rebuilding projects, sources said, have been told not to speak to journalists without prior C.P.A. approval. The same is true for groups like the Army Corps of Engineers.

And the C.P.A. has bypassed the Baghdad bureaus of the major media outlets, pitching stories or interviews directly to local network affiliates stateside, and organizing junkets for editorial writers to show off how very far Iraq has come, leaving major-market newspapers to fight through a web of red tape even to get the news?-good or bad?-out.

Following a less-than-positive story, reporters often find their phone calls go completely unanswered. There have even been charges that reporters whose work is viewed as unfavorable or unflattering to the ongoing operations in Iraq have been blackballed at the Republican Palace.

"People joke that it's just like the old days," one Baghdad-based reporter said. The source was remembering what it was like before the C.P.A. started issuing sunny press releases about the minting of new, Saddam-free currency for the country, or opening schools and hospitals that reporters have had difficulty obtaining clearance to visit; before it had established its stronghold in the old Republican Palace on the Tigris, once occupied by Saddam and his sidekick press secretary, Muhammad Saeed al-Sahaf, known to Americans as Baghdad Bob.

"We saw this kind of treatment [of the press] during Saddam," a correspondent said. "And it makes me sick that my own government is doing it now."

Staffed mostly by young Republican campaigners and former Capitol Hill functionaries with varied levels of experience in the media, the C.P.A., reporters told The Observer, feels more like a public-relations agency for the Bush administration than a field operation for the American press in wartime.

"It's been difficult to get consistent access to the C.P.A.," Time's Brian Bennett said, "in terms of getting responses to interview requests in a timely manner. It seems like they're understaffed. They have more requests than they can handle."

Correspondents have been frustrated with the C.P.A.'s reliance on a network of largely ineffective mobile phones (with 914 area codes!); the organization has yet to begin credentialing working reporters, meaning that a one-hour press conference can often mean a lost half-day as reporters are searched, then searched again. And even when you're in, you're not necessarily in.

In May, venerable Washington Post military correspondent Tom Ricks was in Baghdad for an 11 a.m. appointment to meet a member of the C.P.A. "I hauled my ass across Baghdad," Mr. Ricks recalled. "We went through the checkpoint.Igot searched; my driver got searched. We get in and check in with the soldier. A guy comes out, and I tell him I'm here for my 11 o'clock interview. He comes back and says he's not here. I say I had an appointment. He says sorry. I say, ?'O.K., can I interview the deputy?' He says, ?'We don't do drop-ins.' I was like, ?'Thanks, guys.' A lot of that sort of thing goes on."

A lot of it depends on whom you're seeking out. As the Bush administration decries the press' morbid fascination with stories about death and conflict, government sources that could provide information about terrorist activity and casualties are among the most tightly controlled.

"The police stations are completely shut off," one reporter told The Observer. "You can go around to 10 police stations in Baghdad and you can't get in the door. You have to go through the C.P.A. They're trying to centrally control the message."

"Places like hospital emergency rooms and the Baghdad morgue are off-limits," another source said. "To visit, you have to file a ton of paperwork. It's very similar to the old days. They've made a very conscious decision not to facilitate interviews and give access to stories that are not going to be positive. It's just that simple."

"Every now and then I hear that a reporter has gone to a hospital and they won't let him through, saying you have to go through the C.P.A.," said Charles Heatly, a spokesperson for the authority. "That's certainly not our policy. You will have an Iraqi police officer or hospital employee who still thinks they're working in the old days, or you'll have an overly enthusiastic soldier who might not let someone through. That sort of thing does happen. It's certainly not our policy."

Washington Post foreign correspondent and Baghdad bureau chief Rajiv Chandrasekaran said the C.P.A. was in a "tough position."

"They're trying to do civil reconstruction of a country in the midst of a very intense conflict," Mr. Chandrasekaran said. "It's hard to keep the attention of journalists on reconstruction issues when you have helicopter crashes and daily ambushes of troops and multiple car bombings. These days, for better or worse, violence is driving the story. Security issues are paramount."

It's easy to see why they might think that way, as reporters outfit their houses-turned-bureaus with guards and sandbags and plastic to shield windows from shrapnel.

Nicholas Lemann, the dean of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and former New Yorker Washington correspondent, said it was "too much to ask of the press to downplay the terrorist attacks in Iraq.

"As long as terrorists are pulling off these attacks regularly, it will be a big story," Mr. Lemann said. "There's no way around it. It's news."

But there is something else at play as well, sources said: When the dance steps required by the C.P.A. become too complex, there's always a reserve of Iraqis in the provisional government not terribly thrilled with orders to keep silent that have been handed down by what they see as an occupying force. Interviews with them are not vetted through the C.P.A.

"It is clear the administration is being damaged," said Marvin Kalb, a lecturer in public policy and senior fellow at Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press. "Though everyone says Iraq is not Vietnam, and I agree it isn't, nevertheless, this kind of activity?-the daily loss of life, the inability so far to contain the anti-American operation?-all of this has an effect on American public opinion."

The Bush administration has demonstrated that it's not missing that point, appealing directly to the public to see beyond the story being written by major media outlets around the world. After all, this is the President who, before the war, stood before the White House press corps choosing questions from a pre-selected group of reporters while ignoring veteran White House correspondents. And during the war, while former Vietnam correspondent turnedfilmwriter Bernard Weinraub and New York Post movie reviewer Jonathan Foreman filed dispatches for their papers as embeds, reportersattheU.S. Central Command in Doha, Qatar, openly fumed at the treatment they received at the hands of their handlers.

In past wars, the military operation may have placed side constraints on the press to ensure that its military objectives could be met. In Baghdad, another model is emerging: a political operation putting side constraints on the press to ensure its political objectives. While the C.P.A. must rebuild Iraq, it must also be a cheerleader for that rebuilding?-and the current administration's handling of it.

To do that, the C.P.A. has brought the right Republican pompoms to the Green Zone. The staff, mostly quite young, is made up largely of young Republican functionaries from Capitol Hill. Their mission is explicit.

On Aug. 9, the Tulsa World ran a story about Oklahoma native Jared Young, a spokesman for Republican Senator James Inhofe on a local Superfund site, who was headed out for Baghdad to work with C.P.A. head Paul Bremer as one of a half-dozen press contacts.

"Most of the media are covering the military side of things, but haven't plugged into the rebuilding efforts that much," the 25-year-old Mr. Young told the paper. "When Ambassador Bremer was back here last week, he said they have a great story to tell that hasn't quite made it out there."

Another C.P.A. staffer, Thomas Basile, got his chops as a young volunteer for George W. Bush's 2000 campaign. Fresh out of college and working on a law degree at Fordham University, this Westchester native's enthusiasm was such that he was entrusted with planning George and Laura Bush's motorcades during the 2000 Republican National Convention in Philadelphia, before joining the Pataki administration as a press liaison.

C.P.A. chief administrator Dan Senor, a senior adviser to Mr. Bremer who also worked as the director of the Coalition Information Center in Qatar, was a press secretary and communications director for former U.S. Senator Spencer Abraham.

Getting along with these guys is important for reporters in Baghdad. Mr. Heatly, who came to the C.P.A. from the British Foreign Service, said that the C.P.A. didn't single out reporters for special treatment based on their reporting, but on their attitude.

"Some journalists are frankly better at getting access than others," Mr. Heatly said. "If you're loud or overly aggressive, you're not going to be the favorite person in the compound. Having said that, we don't try and not give access deliberately. There's no C.P.A. plot to do that."

But can the C.P.A. tell the difference between a loud, aggressive person and a person who's trying to get past them to a story?

"They certainly have favorites," one Baghdad reporter complained. "They'll return Fox News' call. They'll fall over themselves for Fox."

For their part, said Mr. Heatly, the C.P.A. has given reporters "as much access as we can. There's somewhere in excess of 500 journalists in Iraq, and we have a small organization. We're not talking about the kinds of numbers in government back in Washington or where I come from in London. The staff we have is small, and if we spent all our time giving interviews, we wouldn't get any work done.

"I can understand the frustrations of journalists," Mr. Heatly added. "But we're doing a difficult job in difficult circumstances. The sheer pace of change is incomparable to any situation."

You may reach Sridhar Pappu via email at: [email protected].


SOURCE
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Nov, 2003 07:44 am
Setanta, this in response to your post: (I've added a link below which may or may not be password protected.)

...Here are some excerpts from:
The Sabotage of Democracy By REUEL MARC GERECHT
.....
...In sum, the administration that waged a war for democracy now wants an exit strategy that is not at all dependent upon Iraq's democratic progress.

Most important, the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, far and away the most respected person in Iraq, has issued a legal judgment that unequivocally rejects an unelected constitutional assembly. "The occupying forces do not have in any way the legal competence to select members of a constitutional assembly," he wrote, insisting it should happen only "through the means of an open election."

Some in the administration are now advising that the coalition sidestep the grand ayatollah by creating a "hybrid" assembly that would include both elected and non-elected members. And they would want even the "elected" participants to receive their mandates from local and regional associations of city and tribal elders, not from a general election. These American officials feel this this would guarantee a more liberal and expeditious outcome to constitutional deliberations. To some extent this is reasonable: the proponents are sympathetic to Iraq's many minority groups and the exile political organizations, which would lose influence in a Shiite-dominated, popularly elected convention.
...

In addition, this plan seems to be based on the idea that Grand Ayatollah Sistani, who is known for his strong aversion to mixing politics and faith, will not rally the faithful if his wishes are ignored. However, his past actions may not be a guide to the future. It is worth noting that his juridical opinion on the constitutional assembly made no allusion whatsoever to Holy Law. Rather, it was explicitly secular ?- he considers the question to be of paramount importance to the nation rather than simply another textual analysis of divine law and tradition. Iraqis familiar with Grand Ayatollah Sistani's temperament and pronouncements are already referring to the statement as a hukm, which is a peremptory ruling not to be trifled with.

Until now, the Coalition Authority has been very wise to avoid a collision with senior Iraqi clerics. In fact, the success it has had in corralling radical Shiite forces loyal to the young cleric Moktada al-Sadr have come in large part because Grand Ayatollah Sistani and the traditional clergy have calmed the Shiite masses and, behind the scenes, encouraged them to provide intelligence and aid to the Americans.......

Grand Ayatollah Sistani has warned the United States that the democratic process must begin in earnest in Iraq or else American troops will be viewed as occupiers. Unfortunately, its new plans indicate that the White House does not seem to be listening.

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former Central Intelligence Agency officer, is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Sabotage of Democracy
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Nov, 2003 07:53 am
I know I'm talking too much this morning, but I feel so strongly about the subject of this editorial by Andrew Rosenthal in today's NYTimes that I had to patch in part of it here. If anyone wants a link, I'll add it.

...As the toll nears 400, the casualties remain largely invisible. Apart from a flurry of ceremonies on Veterans Day, this White House has done everything it can to keep Mr. Bush away from the families of the dead, at least when there might be a camera around.
The wounded, thousands of them, are even more carefully screened from the public. And the Pentagon has continued its ban on media coverage of the return of flag-draped coffins to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, denying the dead soldiers and their loved ones even that simple public recognition of sacrifice. Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained rather lamely that the ban had been in place since 1991 ?- when another President Bush wanted to avoid the juxtaposition of his face and words with pictures of soldiers' coffins.

Some Republicans say it would take up too much of the president's time to attend military funerals or meet the coffins returning from Iraq. "They're coming back continually," the conservative commentator Bay Buchanan said on CNN on Tuesday. "The president cannot be flying up there every single week." [Emphasis mine.]

But someone of rank from the White House could and should be at each and every military funeral. Ideally, Mr. Bush would shake the hand of someone who loved every person who dies in uniform ?- a small demand on his time in a war in which the casualties are still relatively small. And he has more than enough advisers, cabinet secretaries and other officials so attending funerals should not be such an inconvenience.

The White House talks about preserving the privacy and dignity of the families of the war dead. But if this was really about the families, the president or Vice President Dick Cheney or Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld would be handing flags to widows and mothers in the time-honored way. And if protecting the privacy of Americans who are suffering was such a priority, the White House wouldn't call in the cameras to watch Mr. Bush embracing victims of every hurricane, earthquake or suburban California wildfire.

The piece ends this way:

The Bush administration hates comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam, and many are a stretch. But there is a lesson that this president seems not to have learned from Vietnam. You cannot hide casualties. Indeed, trying to do so probably does more to undermine public confidence than any display of a flag-draped coffin. And there is at least one direct parallel. Thirty-five years ago, at the height of the Vietnam War, the Pentagon took to shipping bodies into the United States in the dead of night to avoid news coverage.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Nov, 2003 08:02 am
I don't think that Bush is thinking, "Hey, the public don't know soldiers are being killed." I'ts more likey the media is upset it can't get it's lenses on everything it wants to. I'm sure the returning dead and their families are being justly acknowledged, just not the way media wants it.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Nov, 2003 08:34 am
We have to remind ourselves now and then that many of those who are under fire in Iraq are the private contractors -- military, not Halliburton -- which the Pentagon hires to do its dirty work internationally (see stories on Dyncorp et al) and because the deaths of mercenaries do NOT have to be reported.

If you were to inquire how many American soldiers/personnel have been killed in Iraq, you would not be given names or numbers of private contractors/mercenaries.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Nov, 2003 08:36 am
Kara say's

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know I'm talking too much this morning, but I feel so strongly about the subject of this editorial by Andrew Rosenthal in today's NYTimes that I had to patch in part of it here. If anyone wants a link, I'll add it.


Hey ... you go girl Cool
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Nov, 2003 08:38 am
The vote is being taken on cspan
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Nov, 2003 08:52 am
Kara (oh vision of radiant beauty....see its not just Gautam Very Happy ) you make an excellent point

Quote:
It takes time and patience, if it is to work at all. How does one march for that?


and I acknowledge it's a weakness in my argument. I guess its partly out of frustration I feel I have to do something. You talk about time an patience..I agree. But how much time? And God knows we've been patient.

I'll try and answer the obvious question...What would I do? Its probably a bit easier for me to answer as a Brit than it is for an American. But I would announce that British troops are to be withdrawn fully by the new year and in the meantime will stay in compound. The Americans should do something similar perhaps over a longer time scale. In the meantime a crash programme of handing real power to the IGC should be initiated.

Can civil war be avoided if the coalition forces withdraw? Big question. Perhaps they need a strong man back like Saddam to keep them all in check. Crying or Very sad
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Nov, 2003 09:03 am
But its all (my above sentiments) pie in the sky anyway. The Americans were never in Iraq to find WMD nor to build democracy. Its pure imperialism, and imperial might is not going to be deflected by a few body bags coming home.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Nov, 2003 10:33 am
Set wrote:
So what, we make Chalabi President

While it could happen, I doubt it ... Its my impression Chalabi hauls too much domestic baggage to haul himself aboard the coming constitutional government, let alone to its top. He's not real popular even among the Interim Council, which itself is one of the key difficulties confronting the Council.

Quote:
If, as is very likely, the Army gets a grip on this and begins to put the the Ba'ahtists out of business, it'll be despite Rummy and Co., not because of them.

Kinda sorta, but that's pretty much the deal with any military endeavor. The civilian leadership lays out the mission, the military accomplishes it despite the meddling, misdirection, and obstructionism of the civilian leadership. One thing which significantly differentiates the military conduct of affairs in Iraq from that of Vietnam is that the on-scene military in Iraq, from Command Staff on down, has far more discretion and lattitude than ever was allowed in Vietnam. Abizaid's relocation to Doha will only enhance this. The addition of highly mobile light armored assets, as with the so-called "Stryker Brigade" about to be deployed in-theater, the employment of AC-130s and drones, greater empowerment of and integration with indiginous forces, and an ability to act and react without waiting hours or days for Pentagon approval will, IMO, have a most beneficial impact.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Nov, 2003 10:49 am
"iron hammer" will (in the Israel traditon) most likely result in increased civilian deaths which, in turn, result in increased sympathy for the "insurgents" but thats just my opinion.
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Nov, 2003 12:22 pm
Steve, civil war is indeed what would happen if the coalition pulls out.

There is no way we can hand the governing of Iraq over to the Council. They are disagreeing amonst themselves, and they seem to be moving very slowly with the work they have set out to do, which may be cultural. Perhaps they are just traditionally not inclined toward hurry up, hurry up, the American way of doing things.

The Grand Ayatollah Sistani (see article above) might accept appointment as interim leader or administrator of the country, but then again, he probably wouldn't compromise his integrity. With his knowledge of the culture, he could advise on appointments. He would have real power, whether given it or not, because of the respect he commands. The problem is, he's probably smarter than Bremer which might cause trouble.

Steve, I disagree with you about imperialism as the only motive. I think the admininstration had a number of motives: Getting rid of Saddam, a convenient and hated target; the influence of the neo-cons who have a glorified vision of American's destiny as Enforcer of all things good and beautiful (probably what you mean by imperialism...LOL); the desire for a Middle East stronghold, from which the US can influence the area and from which they can protect the oil supply. I think they knew all along there were no WMDs, but that really got the populace behind the war, that and the hoked-up connection with 9-11.

O vision of radiant beauty, eh? I should post a photo of myself which would bring you to your knees (not in homage but in laughter.) Then, again, I won't. This is more fun. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Nov, 2003 12:54 pm
Kara, you gorgeous morsel, your last paragraph I can completely agree with. It's all about economic interest, we're not in the humanitarian business per se, definitely more than a few reasons for being there. The sales pitch was the political wrapper that you have peeled away.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Nov, 2003 01:17 pm
Dubya, Rumsfeld and Company have their work cut our for them. The Japanese won't send troops, the Corporations who will send workers over for the reconstruction are vacillating and in general it's not looking good unless they can squelch this guerilla warfare now. I don't see them having much change of doing that.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Nov, 2003 01:19 pm
Kara: The entire Middle East is gearing up for what amounts to a civil war (and some would characterize it as such right now).
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Nov, 2003 01:27 pm
The generals keep saying they don't need any more troops, could be propaganda though. I think if the insurgents keep hitting targets not related to Iraq, it will backfire on them and make other coalition types to get involved.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Nov, 2003 01:28 pm
I expect that if the recent adjustments of The Current Administration's Iraq policy prove efficacious (as I expect will prove to be the case), international reluctance to support and participate in stabilization will be supplanted by international eagerness to reap the benefits gained therefrom. Fewer ever wish to take part in the baking of the cake than subsequently clammer to participate in the eating of it.
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Nov, 2003 02:13 pm
Quote:
The generals keep saying they don't need any more troops, could be propaganda though.


BrandX, some generals have said that, and the administration insists it is true, or rather Rumsfeld does. It is difficult to believe them -- impossible, in fact -- in light of the worsening situation. The problem is that we don't HAVE troops to send to Iraq, and the administration just won't admit it. We are spread too thin already, and there is no way we could send the 30,000-40,000 soldiers that might put paid to this whole thing in a month or two. If we'd had 200,000 troops in the country at the end of the first phase of the war, Iraq would look entirely different right now.

What information are you privy to, Timber, that leads you to believe that the changes that are planned will help the situation there or are you just being ungroundedly and persistently optimistic ?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/05/2026 at 02:22:22