As something of a followup to yesterday’s post, I’m interested to note that Tim Blair says the Good News is fighting back. Tim’s post is a link to Chrenkoff, who leads with the good news about Iraq and democracy:
Traveling overseas can definitely broaden your horizons, not to mention make you appreciate your home even more:
[Spc. Christopher] Bean, 20, of Port Gibson, finished up a year-long stint in Baghdad as a truck driver with the 594th Transportation Co., a 101st Airborne division. His time in the military has given him a different perspective on the Fourth of July.
“In Iraq, we’re not fighting for ourselves,” said Bean, from his home base in Fort Campbell, Ky. “We’re over there fighting so the Iraqis can have their own Fourth of July.”
One of the things that struck Bean most about his time in Iraq was the people themselves. Most of the Iraqis he met were proud to have the Americans there, he said, and watching them go through their daily lives made him appreciate the historic significance of our Independence Day.
“Being there really opens your eyes to what our forefathers went through to get the freedom we have today,” he said.
Nation-building is never quick and never easy; hard-work and heartache are today, and the results often only years if not decades ahead. But the Iraqi people, with the assistance of the Coalition, have commenced their journey, and despite all the hardships, every day is another step forward.
Far be it from me to suggest that Dr Chrenkoff, whose good news is gathered from his trusty computer, should not advocate that travel broadens the mind.
However, someone who’s actually done some travel, and knows a thing or two about international relations aside from what he reads on the web, former US ambassador Peter Galbraith (incidentally the son of the famous economist), reports for the New York Review of Books on what exactly is involved in building freedom and democracy in Iraq:
When President Bush spoke to the nation on June 28, he did not mention Iran’s rising influence with the Shiite-led government in Baghdad. He did not point out that the two leading parties in the Shiite coalition are pursuing an Islamic state in which the rights of women and religious minorities will be sharply curtailed, and that this kind of regime is already being put into place in parts of Iraq controlled by these parties. Nor did he say anything about the almost unanimous desire of Kurdistan’s people for their own independent state.
Galbraith argues that there is in fact no common identity of the “Iraqi people”. The most effective members of the Iraqi forces, the Kurdish peshmerga, have no loyalty to Iraq per se, but to Kurdistan. The Sunni insurgency cannot win, but aren’t likely to be defeated either – for 35 years, Saddam Hussein faced guerilla warfare from Kurds and Shi’ites. And what of the Shi’ites?
SCIRI and Dawa want Iraq to be an Islamic state. They propose to make Islam the principal source of law, which most immediately would affect the status of women. For Muslim women, religious law?Äîrather than Iraq’s relatively progressive civil code?Äîwould govern personal status, including matters relating to marriage, divorce, property, and child custody. A Dawa draft for the Iraqi constitution would limit religious freedom for non-Muslims, and apparently deny such freedom altogether to peoples not “of the book,” such as the Yezidis (a significant minority in Kurdistan), Zoroastrians, and Bahais.
This program is not just theoretical. Since Saddam’s fall, Shiite religious parties have had de facto control over Iraq’s southern cities. There Iranian-style religious police enforce a conservative Islamic code, including dress codes and bans on alcohol and other non-Islamic behavior. In most cases, the religious authorities govern?Äîand legislate?Äîwithout authority from Baghdad, and certainly without any reference to the freedoms incorporated in Iraq’s American-written interim constitution?Äîthe Transitional Administrative Law (TAL).
And strangely, the good news brigade haven’t been highlighting the agreement of another country to train Iraqi forces as good news. In fact, they’ve been completely silent. Why? The country in question is Iran.
On July 7, the Iranian and Iraqi defense ministers signed an agreement on military cooperation that would have Iranians train the Iraqi military. The Iraqi defense minister made a point of saying American views would not count: “Nobody can dictate to Iraq its relations with other countries.” However, even if the training is deferred or derailed, it is only the visible?Äîand very much smaller?Äîcomponent of a stealth Iranian encroachment into Iraq’s national institutions and security services.
Galbraith knows of what he speaks. He also served in a diplomatic capacity in Kurdistan during the 1990s. His career as a US diplomat was derailed in part because of his strong warnings that the INC mob weren’t representative of Iraqi aspirations, despite Ahmed al-Chalabi’s (then) status as a neo-con pinup boy.
I just wanted to bring readers the news of what the Coalition of the Willing is fighting for in Iraq.
Most of the Iraqis he met were proud to have the Americans there, he said, and watching them go through their daily lives made him appreciate the historic significance of our Independence Day.
“Being there really opens your eyes to what our forefathers went through to get the freedom we have today,” he said.
Spc. Bean needs to bone up on his US history. His forefathers fought against Imperialism for freedom.
Since EP was missing in action from most of yesterday’s stoush (hope the dental stuff isn’t giving him trouble again), I’ll take the liberty of linking again to some actual good news.
Since physical prtoximity is now regarded as the sole basis of valid knowledge at Larvatus Prodeo, I expect that all future posts will only deal with happenings in the inner suburbs of Brisbane.
Missed the point, EP, I was comparing Galbraith’s knowledge gained from first hand experience to Chrenkoff’s gleaned from biassed sources on the web. But personal experience is not the only way to acquire insight. It’s just that you need to be critical, and look at the overall picture.
Having said that, I’d be more than happy to update you with happenings in the inner suburbs of Brisbane.
But is Galbraith’s first hand experience of parts of Iraq in the 1990s really relevant to the Iraq of 2005?
And what of the first hand experience of those who Chrenkoff quotes — people who really are there right now?
I think your point was pointless.
Chrenkoff relies on isolated data from a variety of pro-US sources. Galbraith is talking about what’s going on in Iraq overall. And that’s not the secular, liberal democracy that Bush envisioned. Deal with the issues, EP – do you think Iraq’s signing a defence agreement with Iran is a good thing? Do you thing that imposing Iranian-style religious police on people in the Shi’ite South is a good thing? And how do you square all this with the beacon of freedom that Iraq supposedly represents according to Bush?
EP, undoubtedly Galbraith’s experience as a US diplomat enabled him to get an understanding of what was going on in Iraqi politics and what is at stake – with all respect to Spc. Bean – experience that can contribute to a greater analytical grasp of the situation now.
In any case, what of Kim’s point? Is an Iraq split between Kurds and Iranian style religious leaders with a zone of insurgency and chaos in the Sunni triangle what the Coalition of the Willing is fighting for?
And how does Bush reconcile the imposition of a harsh regime on ordinary Iraqis with his rhetoric about “freedom”?
The whole issue around Chrenkoff’s series is that it seeks to provide an antidote to the relentlessly biased negative coverage of Iraq that we get in the mainstream media. He has never claimed it is a balanced or complete report — only a report that collects the good news stories that the mainstream leaves out.
For this, Chrenkoff has been relentlessly attacked by the hive-mind of the leftish blogosphere and other left-wing outlets like Media Watch. Suich a reaction is a sign that his efforts have struck a nerve — that the Left realises it must paint a picture of Iraq that is uniformly dark and pessimistic in order to achieve its goals.
This hysterical defence of the media/left’s preferred picture is evident also in the mobbing of American journalist Mark Yost for daring to step out of line with the hive-mind.
The real point here is not to get lost in an interminable argument over details, but to analyse the political forces shaping the reporting of Iraq.
Alright, EP. I’d agree that it’s important to “to analyse the political forces shaping the reporting of Iraq” but I’m more interested at the moment in whether what the Coalition of the Willing is fighting for in Iraq bears any resemblance to “freedom or democracy” or whether, as in fact it appears to be, it’s a mess with the unintended consequence of bringing a pro-Iranian theocratic regime to power.
Chrenkoff did travel from and was – as it were – an asylum-seeker from the old Eastern Europe. Galbraith’s son probably had it a little softer.
A lot of the negative reporting about Iraq is indicative of the reflexive left-wing bias that David Marr was kind enough to explain to us. I tend to think, though, that a lot of it is the even more reflexive journalistic preference for bad news. The oldest journalistic axiom is that bad news makes for a good story and good news isn’t a story at all. Remember the totally confected ‘scandal’ about SOCOG just before the Sydney Olympics? Tellling big stories about bad news is what modern journalism is all about, IMO. Not but what it doesn’t do a hell of a lot of damage.
Ok, I’m willing to stand corrected on Chrenkoff if someone can point me to a statement by him of his aims as characterised by EP made before the Media Watch story. My understanding is that he significantly shifted the way he described his mission in response to criticism.
But I’m really not that interested in Chrenkoff. Nevertheless, show me the evidence and I’ll re-appraise my view.
The bigger point remains – he presents an amalgam of factoids largely derived directly and indirectly from US military and government sources.
Clearly he embeds these in a larger analytical context – note his text quoted above:
This can only be read as a claim that things are trending towards “freedom and democracy” in Iraq.
Cheney says all is rosy now, Bush seems to agree on June 27, while Rumsfeld and Armitage say it’s going to take years.
The US military are even more pessimistic.
Who’s right?
And – what sort of “democracy” and “freedom” is being built in Iraq? The Iraqi-Iranian defence agreement and the imposition of religious law in Southern Iraq – are they just blips? Or is – as is much more likely – a regime which stands for anything but freedom being ushered into being by the Coalition of the Willing?
I’m almost prepared to stake money on the US pulling out of Iraq by 07, except for military bases near the oilfields. If that comes to pass, it’s then that the blowback from releasing the genii of Shi’ite theocracy in Iraq will begin. It’ll be interesting to see how that’s spun.
That sounds like a regime that might need to be white-anted by the CIA, Mark.
Democracy is a loan: use it wisely, or we repossess.
PS I lean towards your view, Mark, but those bases they’ve built are so enormous any ‘pullout’ will be in name only. Iraq is now viewed as a permanent base to keep Iran on its toes.
Chrenkoff, leads with his head in the sand as I quickly posted this morning, he is selective in his news gathering.
Duh. Of course he’s selective in his news gathering — that’s why the segment is called “Good News From Iraq”, not “All the news from Iraq”.
Chrenkoff’s collection is, as it always has been, a corrective supplement to the negative reporting in the mainstream. To quote from the very first installment of this now-massively-popular column:
Note particularly the last sentence. This sums up the purpose of the column, which has remained unchanged despite its increasing length and popularity over time. Chrenkoff simply provides the content that mainstream media neglect.
So, Mark, who is Peter W. Galbraith?
Well, for a start, he’s an an Ambassador endorsing Kerry-Edwards 2004.
So he has all the hard-hitting, non-partisan credibility of other former-foreign-service-hacks-turned-academics like Australia’s very own Broinowski, Kevin and Woolcott.
Now, I can’t figure out if Galbraith is supposed to have been in Iraq before during or after his stint in Croatia (a link might help). But I reckon I can see where his influences have come from. You see, he’s a man with a pet theory. It appears as though he’s pretty big on splitting Iraq into three states, and creating a “loose federation” that allows each of Iraq’s main groups–the Shiites, Kurds, and Sunnis–to build “the system it wants.” Ah, just like the states of the former Yugoslavia, eh Peter?
But it’s interesting to note that Galbraith doesn’t see Hussein as some sort of Tito father figure. Hell no, Peter has had plenty to say about the bad news in Iraq:
“Saddam Hussein systematically destroyed nearly every village in Kurdistan, deported and executed more than 100,000 civilians, and bombarded more than 200 villages with chemical weapons.”
But Galbraith knows that war was wrong, and that Bush was a dead man walking electorally speaking during the run-up to the 2004 election. (From that same link above):
“The provisions of the UN Charter on the use of force turn out not only to be a legal nicety but also a critical step to success. Thanks to a UN resolution (1441) combined with a U.S. military deployment to the region, Saddam Hussein readmitted UN inspectors who were on the verge of discovering that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction.”
Damn, if only Bush had given 1441 and the diplomats just a few more weeks/months/years (take your pick)…
“his Iraq policy would have been seen as a brilliant example of coercive diplomacy, and he would likely have coasted to a second term.”
Oh, wait.
But, perhaps most interesting of all, is that one of Galbraith’s detractors should describe him as a “guru of the Democratic neo-cons”, and he reckons that “The Democratic Party’s neo-con vampires are a lot worse than the current ones”.
At least, unlike the majority of the Left, Galbraith has a plan in his idea for a “negotiated confederation”. But, as Youssef M. Ibrahim, former Middle East correspondent for the New York Times and former energy editor of the Wall Street Journal, said in the link above, there are a few rough edges that might need sorting out before that one’s going to fly. I’m not going to take sides on that argument.
But it would seem to me that Galbraith has some history on this topic, and has just as much, if not more, of an interest in highlighting the current setbacks in Iraq then Chrenkoff has in highlighting the good news.
Well, Al, I suppose you think that the “news” emanating from the Bush administration is non-partisan and objective?
That Galbraith is a Democrat is hardly a revelation. Particularly if you assume he’s inherited something of his dad’s worldview. And as to his approach to Iraq, as you say, he does have a proposal (“pet theory” – whatever) which recognises facts that many others have highlighted (including Condoleeza Rice and others in the Administration urging more Sunni political participation on the largely Shi’ite government) – that is, that Iraq hardly has the sort of political unity required for the emergence of a democracy at the moment.
As to Galbraith opposing Saddam, that’s only relevant if you assume that Lefties don’t. They do.
I actually highlighted Galbraith in this post because he’s more constructive and has a better overall view of the situation than those who make comparisons with Vietnam or just point to the continuing and daily atrocities going on. That seems to have escaped your notice.