Open Letter to a Craven Reporter in Iraq

Dahr Jamail,

I'm an independent reporter in Iraq, on assignment for a U.S. magazine (as well as a Huffingtonpost.com blogger). I've just come off a three-week civilian tour of Anbar Province, living with sheiks and Iraqi civilians, trying to get a feel for the people that will be taking power as the U.S. pulls out (see article). I just read your piece about Sheik Aifan Sadun, the "Teflon Don" of Fallujah. I've researched similar figures, in Haditha, Bagdadi, Hit and Al Qaim, and I saw many of the same things you did. But I've come to very different conclusions. That, I believe, is because you had a pre-existing agenda you were determined to conform evidence to (i.e., war is bad, the U.S. is waging a war, so whatever it's doing in Anbar is bad); and because you're a coward.

The U.S. is an empire and the Iraq debacle is evidence of 21st century imperialism, no doubt. I still don't think we should be here. But that debate became passé six years ago. Now it's a question of how soon the U.S. gets out and what happens before and after it does. I've met too many good and decent people here to write this place off, smart and hard working Iraqis that want and deserve a first-world existence.

As with Sheik Sadun, the man I studied in Haditha--Sheik Mohammed Hussein Shaffir--has foibles and flaws; he's involved in at least one sideline of organized crime, probably several. But I actually took the time to talk to the Marine Corps about their support of him (as well as the citizens of Haditha, its business leaders, the U.S. State Department, Iraqi politicians, the Iraqi police, et al.). What I realized, after some unbiased investigation, is that the players being prepped to take power in Anbar are in the positions they are for some very pragmatic reasons--namely they're still alive and they can kill terrorists (thousands of their counterparts have been assassinated).

You overlook an essential point: this place is still a fucking war zone, you ignorant cur. Fallujah and Anbar are just out of an internecine civil war/insurgency (if it's indeed finished), that's followed a destructive invasion, which came on the heels of 12 years of debilitating international sanctions and 30 years of repressive authoritarian rule. It's not a bastion of fucking Rotary Club nominees. When you pick from an attenuated (and flawed) lot, you take what you get--that's a simple law of nature.

When war comes (and to repeat, we're well beyond the point of talking about whether that war was just or not) anybody with a pot to piss in picks up--with their pot and all their belongings--and moves away; in this case to Syria, Jordan or Saudi Arabia. Those left behind are generally not the richest or the best educated of the lot. They are the fighters and the scrappers--the survivors. When it comes time to put the pieces back together, it's going to be those who stayed--and who are still standing--that lay down the first blocks in the new foundation.

The people with money will eventually come back, with their pots to piss in and all their wealth and education--and will eventually be incorporated back into the social structure (I'm a Marxist, so I figure they'll probably end up running it, as they always do). But they're not going to come back till the violence is gone (and even a couple of years after that). So ironically, it's the plebes--those survivors lacking celebrated family names, abbreviated titles or BMWs--who fought so hard for the security that will afford the patricians their return (men like Mohammed Shaffir and probably Aifan Sadun).

Those scrappers are often brave, but they're survivors first; and in a conflict as dirty as a religion-on-religion civil war, they're often tarnished. It's these characters--and the tribe (I don't care how much the military likes or dislikes a particular front runner, if his tribe is the strongest and he's its sheik, he's going to be the area's leader)--that will control the government until normalcy resumes. How long will that take? Who's to say? I couldn't see it taking less than ten years.

Fallujah was obliterated in 2004 (the way the process was explained to me--from both sides--the U.S. and Iraqi armies evacuated the city before demolishing it, telling anybody that stayed they would be considered combatants), meaning it's five years beyond its cataclysm. The city has come a long way in that time (a contingent of executives from one of its radio stations swore to me it's now one of the safest cities in Iraq). I'm willing to bet that in another five years--progressing at the current rate--it will be considered something close to normal again. In the meantime, things are going to look strange and probably seem hopeless from some points of view (look at the example of Spain's tumultuous transition from totalitarianism to democracy, in the early 1980s).

What is it you expect of the Marine Corps, anyway? Should it be assassinating the existing power figures and replacing them with U.S. minions? Because that's about the only option I see. (I've also studied a case in which the Marines had a bad apple removed in Hit--and they employed a smart, democratic process, involving local leaders). You indicate the Marines are supporting Sheik Sadun, but did they pick him? In the cases I've studied, there have been a limited number of aspirants, players that could actually hold power in their region, and the Corps carefully decided which one to back (based a priori on the player's ability to stay alive and having a lot to do with the strength of his tribe).

Sheik Mohammed Shaffir is also a Colonel, in charge of the Provisional Security Force (PSF) in Haditha, and he's been shot seven times on three different occasions. I've walked through the rubble of the five houses he used to own, which Al Quaeda bombed to bits. I didn't get to meet his dead brother; nor the dozens of fathers, sons, uncles and cousins of his PSF soldiers that have been killed by Al Quaeda. These people, as I'm sure is the case with the sheik you've excoriated so bravely in print, have sacrificed in ways you and I will probably never understand (did you talk so disparagingly to the sheik's face, or when he was feeding you or providing for the security that kept your head attached to your shoulders?).

If you talked to the military you'd find they have a very simple plan: security before all else. And talking to a Corporal or Sergeant as you indicated you did (to get your clever Teflon Don lede) was something like talking to the plumber at City Hall for an understanding of the mayor's new financial policy. As a journalist, criticizing military policy without talking to the military is completely incompetent. But with you, it goes deeper. You hide behind political artifice to lob your mines of pre-conclusion, like a craven wretch. And really, I think that goes to the solid core of the dregs of the problem. You're not a coward merely because you're afraid to seek the truth when it might not conform to your views ... rather your chickenshit views are shaped by the fact you're a coward.

I bet you were one of those kids in high school who got the shit kicked out of him by bullies. You probably developed some deeply seated complex for power and aggression by the time you were a sophomore, and now you rail out blindly against all exhibitions of it. The irony here is that you and I probably agree on some overarching premises. This war has ultimately been waged for the same reasons all wars are waged--natural resources and geopolitical advantage; we probably see eye-to-eye there. But grow some balls, Dahr; be more honest--and brave--in the future.

Nearly every American soldier on the ground--no matter how misguided vis-à-vis the underlying motivations that brought the U.S. to Iraq--is here because of a sincere and genuine desire to help; none of them, I wager, have come to further an empire. Whether it be to fight against terrorism so people back home feel a little safer in skyscrapers, or to relieve a weary Iraqi population of a dictator, they're here for honorable reasons; just as is the case with the majority of those Iraqi soldiers (who still have targets on their foreheads). Which makes your fink agenda a slap in the face to about a million people who have fought and died and lost legs, brothers, and lots of blood in the hope of making something as simple as a secure place to live.

The military has been surprisingly forthcoming with me and all I had to do was ask. Marine Corps Colonel Patrick Malay sat with me on three different occasions, for long discussions about security in his area of operation in Anbar. One thing I learned quickly is that the military's officer corps is filled with the best of America's minds--kids that aced their college entrance exams, were the captains of their ball teams, and had to be nominated by senators to go to the schools they did. These are the guys (along with their much more experienced superiors) that are deciding strategy--and they're fucking smart. I was allowed to sit in on a couple of their high level briefings--again, all I had to do was show some kind of aptitude for objectivity--and I can tell you their comprehension of the situation on the ground is apt, their thinking clever, and their intentions centrally wrapped up with the Iraqi people.

At the heart of it all, they're smart enough to be pragmatic. The first thing Malay told me is that we need to drop bullshit Eurocentric pretenses. Iraq is not America, nor even Europe, and it never will be. It will have a democracy, he said, but it will be an Arab one, likely Muslim, and the tribe will be a central component. Realpolitik is at the crux of the Marines' policy. The Corps knows that to win a modern guerrilla conflict, it has to win the hearts and minds of the people. To do that, it needs to clear an area of combatants, hold it (keeping the area clean) and build (i.e. give the people viable options for work and self support).

As part of that thinking, the Corps considers GDP--its term for an area's traditional sources of revenue--a crucial piece of the puzzle. As Malay pointed out, in northern, eastern, and southern Iraq, the GDP has traditionally been oil. In western Iraq there is no oil. For eons, the GDP there has had something to do with smuggling (largely the oil that's been pulled out of the ground in other parts of the country). Malay doesn't strike me as a fan of smuggling or smugglers (in fact, given his stern bearing and Colonel-like thinking, he probably abhors it more than most). But he knows that a war torn country isn't going to be reconfigured on the rosy, utopian fantasia of liberals and "independent" journalists still trying to work through the ass-whoopings they suffered in high school.

A people has to be able to sustain itself, that's crucial to military strategy. And like it or not--and the Marines I talked with (especially the junior Marines) don't like it at all--Anbar is going to have smuggling in its future; just as it did in its past (and if a homegrown repressive dictator couldn't staunch it, why should we think a foreign superpower can ... or that it would even want to re-write the region's ethical code). The Marine brass has incorporated that bit of realpolitik into its policy in Western Iraq--it knows there will be less than palatable characters in Anbar who will necessarily be a part of the re-emerging political scene. And part of the relationship with them will involve money--as have the millions (perhaps billions) of dollars in micro-grants and micro-loans I've seen distributed to woman's groups, trade groups, small business owners, schools, libraries, mechanics, shepherds and on and on.

The military's policy is designed from the bottom-up on security. The plan is simple--so simple (in theory), it can't fail. Security will bring outside investment, which will thereby enhance existing security, which will bring more investment, further enhancing security, and so on. It's uncomplicated and it's already working. The lynchpin is security. The people of Anbar want it desperately (I lived with these people for most of the past month, and I can't tell you how desperately they want it) and they need it to be able to rebuild. Men like Shaffir (and probably sheik Sadun) can bring that security. They are part of a small cast of men that can take on the military's grand contract (i.e. "I will bring peace") and guarantee delivery.

I'm not saying Shaffir should be Prime Minister. And the Marine brass I talked to didn't think he would be a leader in Anbar, forever. The progression is, in fact, very natural. Security is achieved by men like Shaffir and then, through the democratic process (and ironically, he's the only shot they have at a democratic process in the first place), society can decide to keep him around with his foibles, tell him to clean them up, or just find another leader. First comes the security--and if you want security in a world where the good people are all scarred or dead--you don't hire Alex fucking Keaton.

You hire somebody who can stand up against an enemy that's become the enemy of the people, as Al Quaeda has (the debate over who is and isn't a terrorist is for another time and place). The fact is, men like Shaffir and the sheik you lampooned stood up at a parlous time (for whatever motivations, honorable or venal) and went toe to toe with a baleful brood of characters (foreigners, fanatics, decapitators and the virulently uneducated)--and the people haven't forgotten all that they've given.

Are they criminals? Yes, they are. Should they be scrutinized? Of course. But they're also heroes to many, and widely viewed as the saviors of their small towns and neighborhoods. And, perhaps more importantly, they continue to kill terrorists--men Iraq has listed as Al Quaeda operatives. The fact you, a sniveling coward and ankle-biter hiding preconceived intentions behind putative journalism, are taking pot shots at them appalls me.

Due in part to them, mothers are no longer worried their daughters will be unwillingly pimped out to the unsightly foreign reprobates that came here with criminal networks, in the name of Islam, toting guns and all the vagaries of death. People are building houses (tons of them), sharing chai in neighbor's diwans, and getting down to the brass tacks of figuring out how the hell to rebuild infrastructure that was already neglected and miserably dilapidated before it was bombed to pieces. In a way, Anbar is exactly where it should be upon waking from the nightmare of civil war--fucked up.

The crucial fact is the state of fucked-up is moving in a positive direction and doing it rapidly. Just two years ago, the country's top politicians were worried about making it to work alive. Today, they're setting up anti-corruption networks and guilty politicos are nervously looking over their shoulders, realizing that as the violence drops off, so too does their cover. The people of Anbar are leaving their houses again and the markets are full. I've shopped in them.

The heart of the problem in all of this isn't only with the people of Iraq, it's also with Americans in this age of rapid and uncensored hydra-headed media--and the fact anybody can print anything. The threat there lies in the fact that 80-percent of people in society are grazers (and you can check Chomsky on this, Colonel Malay, or anybody who's served time); non-thinkers that only want to be herded and told what to do. It's those people who read your half-truths online and don't realize you're "independent" for a reason.

I'm phobically allergic to the conservative Republican types the military is rife with, but I've only been in country four months and already I hate liberals. There's plenty of ugliness to report in Iraq (as there are thousands of stories of hope and headway)--and the U.S. military certainly isn't beyond reproach. Nobody's telling you to report on one side or the other. But manipulating the truth because of your own personal biases is wretched and works in the face of progress. The other end of the political spectrum disregards you, Dahr, and now I know why. I thought it was because you're a liar--but you aren't. You don't have enough backbone to be a liar. You're a craven obfuscationist, intent on promoting your agenda at the cost of a menagerie of much braver men and women.

... s.d. liddick

For more observations from Iraq, go to sdliddick1.shutterfly.com/

Comments

[Hipployta]

Excellent post.

Hipployta
A service member in Afghanistan

[RightBrain]

Hats off to Mr. Liddick!!

[USMCDem]

Bravo. This was one of the most passionate and brave pieces I've read in quite a long while.

[Pablo]

Dude!

That, my friend, is a righteous smackdown. No, it isn't going to be perfect. And no, it isn't going to look like America, nor should it. But if things continue on the course they're on, Iraq is going to look better than it has in a long, long time...may­be ever. And it will be those Devil Doge and grunts, along with the Iraqis whose trust they've gained and with whom they've bled that will be to thank for it.

The Iraqis seem to recognize that. Will America? Ever?

Nicely done.

[AChicagogirl]

Sir -

I just want to thank you for this.

I may not agree with everything you say but I'm open to what you are saying.

One of the biggest problems we on the left have had is our complete unwillingness to look at what was going on in Iraq and acknowledge that the vast majority of the problems did NOT start with our invasion of the country.

We seem to expect perfection when we ourselves do not live in perfection (and THAT is an understatement!). Few of us have the foggiest idea of what the Iraqis have endured over the past 30 years.

I have hope for them. I really do. I wish all of us who were so upset over the invasion had been equally upset about how Iraqis were forced to live before the invasion.

It would at least be a little more honest.

[huffposanity]

I wonder if anyone will highlight and swell with pride at the mention of the heroic job the men and women of our armed forces are doing in Iraq. The comments thus far reflect a sad state of the new media that all you people can harp on is the writer's opinion about how wrong and liberally-inept Dahr is/was/could be, all the while completely neglecting the honest and brave reporting (especially for the Huffington Post!) about the US Armed Forces.

skylights: "There are many realistic, pragmatic, truth-seeking liberals -- including, thankfully, our President," please take a moment and explain the pragmatism behind rushing the people's elected representatives to pass a bill that has absolutely zero chance of stimulating anything besides the President's already self-inflated ego (where are my five days to review the bill the Messiah promised?)

Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them,” the Obama-Biden campaign website states. “As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvnwOjDjnH4

All this does is serve to further the "people's" misguided view of him as the all-knowing, merciful Messiah who one day will buy them a kitchen/house if they whine hard enough. Maybe they'd be better off hugging an Iraqi.

Still waiting for my change....­..........­........

[skylights]

huffposanity: This has been on the White House web site for four days. What's your excuse?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/02/13/ARRA-for-comment/

"Friday, February 13th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
ARRA for comment
Yesterday, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 passed through conference and is now on its way back to the House and Senate for full votes.
Take a look at the legislation and send us your thoughts, comments, and ideas."

As for your contention that the ARRA has zero chance of stimulating the economy, you're in the minority view. Most economists think the recovery package is an important first step in stimulating the economy, though we need to do much more. There is a growing opinion that we need to pass another spending bill, since too much spending was cut from the first bill by Republicans. It is the spending, not the tax cuts, that will stimulate the economy.

As to Obama's pragmatism, he has shown himself flexible and willing to engage with Republicans. As he said about the bill, "Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the essential.­"

[huffposanity]

ahhh skylights.­...
I've read 642 pages of it and am physically ill. I guess my excuse is that I can't stand the arrogance of people mortgaging my future all in the name of furthering one (ok, three if we throw in Ninnie Nancy and Hop-a-long Harry) man's warped ideological viewpoint.

I don't know if I'm in the minority, but I guess the minority to you is anyone who didn't vote for the Messiah or buys any of the perfume he is selling.

http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf

Please take a moment and point out the percentages of this porkulous package that will be spent on small business (according to the Messiah, they are the backbone of this great country).

The only say Republicans had in the creation of this bill was being told that they lost and the Messiah won. Bipartisanship at its best (unless of course you count Specter, Snowe and Collins as Republicans)

Engagement isn't telling someone what to do, it's listening and adapting to points of view that aren't your own. Try it sometime.

[clearwaterrevival]

As many top economists warn that the Stimulus Bill will not stimulate the economy as say it will. The claim that "most economists" are for massive government spending is eroneous, and just repeating what you have been told by the people you yearn to believe.

Obama's "pragmatism" "flexibility" and "willing to engage" consists of socializing with the Republicans, not negotiating with them or listening to them. It is great media hype, but there is no substance. It also includes next to nothing of the recommendations of the small business organizations that create 90% of the jobs who need credit availability help factoring receivables and leasing equipment, and zero of the recommendations of the non-profit organizations that are experiencing the same cash flow problems and want simple things like the same income tax deduction for volunteers using their cars for charitable work as employees get for using them for business. The #1 way to jump start the economy is to build and sell new construction homes, which also raises home values and fixes the mortgage banking problem which fixes the credit problem which fixes the cash flow problem. Ask any economist.

It is charming though, that people cheerfully accept the present campaign rhetoric of a President trying to sell his "package" both spoken and digitally transmitted with not an instant of critical thinking or skepticism or acknowledgement of the political jockeying and public manipulation at play.

What's the old expression? "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

[gnostic19]

good post. we need/deserve alternative views around here.

[weed]

Thank you, there aren't enough on the left willing to try to be accurate rather than push their own or rather 'group think' agenda. You will no doubt be pilloried for it.

[dualdiagnosis]

'SNusbaumer says "Time for a little R&R." '

I think you mean re-education.

[skylights]

socraticgadfly: I think his argument was lost on you. He's saying these corrupt criminals are the best they got right now. They're strong and they kill terrorists, i.e., they bring security, which is all the people are looking for and which is necessary for further improvement in other areas. He also said that as the violence decreases and normal life slowly returns, the people may decide they want a new leader, or the government may force them to change their ways. As he said, you can't force a Eurocentric framework on these people. They've always done it a certain way and they always will, unless THEY decide to change. We're in no position to say a certain leader isn't "pure" enough, particularly when they're embraced by the people, and all the better candidates have been killed.

So, it's a good post by S.D. Liddick, and I hope the author will reconsider his hatred of liberals. There are many realistic, pragmatic, truth-seeking liberals -- including, thankfully, our President.

[JohnBravo]

skylights - I agree with most of your comment above, basically the entire first paragraph. But I'm a little confused by the last bit there. When you say "the author" are you referring to Mr. Liddick? 'Cause I'm seriously doubting that he holds much "hatred of liberals." The man self-describes as a Marxist, and repeatedly accuses the U.S. of being an empire. He seems about as liberal as one can get.

[skylights]

JohnBravo, your comment tells me two things. First, you didn't read Mr. Liddick's entire open letter. The first sentence of the last paragraph is, "I'm phobically allergic to the conservative Republican types the military is rife with, but I've only been in country four months and already I hate liberals." Maybe he's just blowing off steam, but he couldn't be clearer.

Second, you must not have met many Marxists. I've met a few, and they're quite prone to saying things like "I hate liberals" in their less temperate moments. Marxists are not the same thing as liberals. Marxists are closer to Nate Silver's term "radical progressive," while liberals are closer to his term "rational progressiv­e." He describes the differences here: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/two-progressivisms.html

[socraticgadfly]

I agree with the one poster above, including speaking here as a newspaper editor in the States. You've lost a certain amount of objectivity.

You also seem to have too much attachment to the centerpiece of your previous interview without looking at the idea that you seem to be, in essence, saying, let's support the Iraqi equivalent of mobsters as "better than al Qaeda."

And, per an observation Chris Hedges made in his book a few years back, are you sure you're not addicted to war zones? Sure sounds like it to me.

And, in your other story, the one you link here, you sound awfully naive in believing Iraqis that every bit of their internecine warmongering was imported from outside.

[JohnBravo]

socraticgadfly said: "I agree with the one poster above, including speaking here as a newspaper editor in the States. You've lost a certain amount of objectivit­y."

That's great stuff! Gold, Jerry, gold!

"...as a newspaper editor in the States. You've lost a certain amount of objectivit­y." Ha!!! You, socraticgadfly, you are a satirical genius! I love how you've casually dropped in the fact that you're a newspaper editor, and then followed it up by calling Mr. Liddick out for losing objectivity! Perfect! The irony is spot on! Kudos!

Oh, wait - were you serious?

[peterg76]

Not exactly an example of objective journalism either.

[SNusbaumer]

Time for a little R&R.