PDA

View Full Version : Letter from Baghdad


West
10-02-2004, 01:04 PM
WSJ reporter Fassihi's e-mail to friends
9/29/2004 2:58:10 PM

From: [Wall Street Journal reporter] Farnaz Fassihi
Subject: From Baghdad

Being a foreign correspondent in Baghdad these days is like being under virtual house arrest. Forget about the reasons that lured me to this job: a chance to see the world, explore the exotic, meet new people in far away lands, discover their ways and tell stories that could make a difference.

Little by little, day-by-day, being based in Iraq has defied all those reasons. I am house bound. I leave when I have a very good reason to and a scheduled interview. I avoid going to people's homes and never walk in the streets. I can't go grocery shopping any more, can't eat in restaurants, can't strike a conversation with strangers, can't look for stories, can't drive in any thing but a full armored car, can't go to scenes of breaking news stories, can't be stuck in traffic, can't speak English outside, can't take a road trip, can't say I'm an American, can't linger at checkpoints, can't be curious about what people are saying, doing, feeling. And can't and can't. There has been one too many close calls, including a car bomb so near our house that it blew out all the windows. So now my most pressing concern every day is not to write a kick-ass story but to stay alive and make sure our Iraqi employees stay alive. In Baghdad I am a security personnel first, a reporter second.

It's hard to pinpoint when the 'turning point' exactly began. Was it April when the Fallujah fell out of the grasp of the Americans? Was it when Moqtada and Jish Mahdi declared war on the U.S. military? Was it when Sadr City, home to ten percent of Iraq's population, became a nightly battlefield for the Americans? Or was it when the insurgency began spreading from isolated pockets in the Sunni triangle to include most of Iraq? Despite President Bush's rosy assessments, Iraq remains a disaster. If under Saddam it was a 'potential' threat, under the Americans it has been transformed to 'imminent and active threat,' a
foreign policy failure bound to haunt the United States for decades to come.

Iraqis like to call this mess 'the situation.' When asked 'how are thing?' they reply: 'the situation is very bad."

What they mean by situation is this: the Iraqi government doesn't control most Iraqi cities, there are several car bombs going off each day around the country killing and injuring scores of innocent people, the country's roads are becoming impassable and littered by hundreds of landmines and explosive devices aimed to kill American soldiers, there are assassinations, kidnappings and beheadings. The situation, basically, means a raging barbaric guerilla war. In four days, 110 people died and over 300 got injured in Baghdad alone. The numbers are so shocking that the ministry of health -- which was attempting an exercise of public transparency by releasing the numbers -- has now stopped disclosing them.

Insurgents now attack Americans 87 times a day.

A friend drove thru the Shiite slum of Sadr City yesterday. He said young men were openly placing improvised explosive devices into the ground. They melt a shallow hole into the asphalt, dig the explosive, cover it with dirt and put an old tire or plastic can over it to signal to the locals this is booby-trapped. He said on the main roads of Sadr City, there were a dozen landmines per every ten yards. His car snaked and swirled to avoid driving over them. Behind the walls sits an angry Iraqi ready to detonate them as soon as an American convoy gets near. This is in Shiite land, the population that was supposed to love America for liberating Iraq.

For journalists the significant turning point came with the wave of abduction and kidnappings. Only two weeks ago we felt safe around Baghdad because foreigners were being abducted on the roads and highways between towns. Then came a frantic phone call from a journalist female friend at 11 p.m. telling me two Italian women had been abducted from their homes in broad daylight. Then the two Americans, who got beheaded this week and the Brit, were abducted from their homes in a residential neighborhood. They were supplying the entire block with round the clock electricity from their generator to win friends. The abductors grabbed one of them at 6 a.m. when he came out to switch on the generator; his beheaded body was thrown back near the neighborhoods.

The insurgency, we are told, is rampant with no signs of calming down. If any thing, it is growing stronger, organized and more sophisticated every day. The various elements within it-baathists, criminals, nationalists and Al Qaeda-are cooperating and coordinating.

I went to an emergency meeting for foreign correspondents with the military and embassy to discuss the kidnappings. We were somberly told our fate would largely depend on where we were in the kidnapping chain once it was determined we were missing. Here is how it goes: criminal gangs grab you and sell you up to Baathists in Fallujah, who will in turn sell you to Al Qaeda. In turn, cash and weapons flow the other way from Al Qaeda to the Baathisst to the criminals. My friend Georges, the French journalist snatched on the road to Najaf, has been missing for a month with no word on release or whether he is still alive.

America's last hope for a quick exit? The Iraqi police and National Guard units we are spending billions of dollars to train. The cops are being murdered by the dozens every day-over 700 to date -- and the insurgents are infiltrating their ranks. The problem is so serious that the U.S. military has allocated $6 million dollars to buy out 30,000 cops they just trained to get rid of them quietly.

As for reconstruction: firstly it's so unsafe for foreigners to operate that almost all projects have come to a halt. After two years, of the $18 billion Congress appropriated for Iraq reconstruction only about $1 billion or so has been spent and a chuck has now been reallocated for improving security, a sign of just how bad things are going here.

Oil dreams? Insurgents disrupt oil flow routinely as a result of sabotage and oil prices have hit record high of $49 a barrel. Who did this war exactly benefit? Was it worth it? Are we safer because Saddam is holed up and Al Qaeda is running around in Iraq?

Iraqis say that thanks to America they got freedom in exchange for insecurity. Guess what? They say they'd take security over freedom any day, even if it means having a dictator ruler.

I heard an educated Iraqi say today that if Saddam Hussein were allowed to run for elections he would get the majority of the vote. This is truly sad.

Then I went to see an Iraqi scholar this week to talk to him about elections here. He has been trying to educate the public on the importance of voting. He said, "President Bush wanted to turn Iraq into a democracy that would be an example for the Middle East. Forget about democracy, forget about being a model for the region, we have to salvage Iraq before all is lost."

One could argue that Iraq is already lost beyond salvation. For those of us on the ground it's hard to imagine what if any thing could salvage it from its violent downward spiral. The genie of terrorism, chaos and mayhem has been unleashed onto this country as a result of American mistakes and it can't be put back into a bottle.

The Iraqi government is talking about having elections in three months while half of the country remains a 'no go zone'-out of the hands of the government and the Americans and out of reach of journalists. In the other half, the disenchanted population is too terrified to show up at polling stations. The Sunnis have already said they'd boycott elections, leaving the stage open for polarized government of Kurds and Shiites that will not be deemed as legitimate and will most certainly lead to civil war.

I asked a 28-year-old engineer if he and his family would participate in the Iraqi elections since it was the first time Iraqis could to some degree elect a leadership. His response summed it all: "Go and vote and risk being blown into pieces or followed by the insurgents and murdered for cooperating with the Americans? For what? To practice democracy? Are you joking?"

-Farnaz

Felix_Nietsche
10-02-2004, 06:00 PM
Yes, the occupation is a disaster. Don't get me wrong, I think the U.S. should have invaded Iraq for a host of reasons but the screwups in the occupation are hard to stomach. Like Lebanon, we Americans come in 'wide eyed' expecting to the place to be Sunnybrook farm.

Occupation Mistakes:
1. Understand the basics of the Arab culture and follow "Hama" rules. The Arabs have a saying, "Better 100 years of Tyranny, than one day of Anarchy". The Arab world is not a 'nice' place. No Arab leader has EVER stayed in power by being 'nice'..... Machiavelli's "The Prince" provides the blueprint for governing Iraq. The term "Hama Rules" comes from Thomas Friedman's book "From Beirut to Jeruselum". Hama is a city in Syria populated largely by muslim fundamentalist.. They did not like President Assad so they rebelled. Assad leveled the town and his soldiers went on a MASSIVE killing spree. And here is the KICKER!!! How did much of Syria look at Assad's response?

****They approved.****
Do not underestimate the Arab saying, "Better 100 years of Tyranny, than one day of anarchy". This meaning of this saying resonates in the Arab world... Am I saying coalition forces should go on a killing frenzy? No (although that might work), but I do believe the rrestrictions for using deadly force should be minimal...

2. Putting General Garner in charge after the fall of Iraq. General Garner was at best adequate as the liason between the friendly Kurds, but was a complete DISASTER as head of the occupation. I saw his open meeting w/ the Sheiks on TV and it was embarassing. It was like appointing Snow White to head a mafia family. The Arabs saw him as weak and they were right. Paul Bremer is a HUGE improvement, but he is more of a politician than tough guy.

3a. Not imposing immediate martial law and a curfew. Security should have been the #1 priority. Shoot looters and shoot anyone on the street after the curfew. Letting the common Iraqis loot the palaces and goverment building was STUPID and set the precedent for more crime.

3b. Not clamping down on crime. By clamping down, I mean shooting looters and thieves. Those who live in the US, know that after a Hurricane or other natural disaster, it is not uncommon for the governor of a state to call out the national guard and give them the authority to shoot looters. If we can shoot American looters , we certanly can shoot Arab looters. And as with Hama, the majority of the Iraqis would have approved...

4. Not detaining the Al Sadr(sp?) brigrade when they returned to Iraq from Iran. Within one week of returning to Iraq, they murdered a pro western muslim cleric not to mention the insurections they are leading. Al Sadr's goons are financed by our 'good friends' in Iran. These guys should have been detained AT LEAST one year. I was no secret that Iran funded Al Sadr, and Iran is no friend of the US. Why is anyone surprised that they came to cause to US trouble?

5. There is not enough troops. Send every division station in South Korea to Iraq. These troops are TOUGH and well trained. North Korea is very dangerous BUT South Korea is strong enough to defend themselves especially when backed by American Air Power.

6. Get Tough with Iran. Iran is funding much of the insurgency. Give them an ultimatum. If they don't comply then imediately impose a naval blockade. Lets see how they behave when we shut off their cash. Yes it will mean higher oil, but I'd rather pay more for gasoline than see more dead Americans.

7. Announce a five year plan for leaving Iraq with milestones and time tables. Many Iraqis view the US as occupiers. Bt providing a time table to leave, SOME of the insurgents may adopt a wait a see policy. By having no time table, the coalition is fueling the paranoia that we're after their oil. Mmmmmmm.....spend $100B a year to steal $20B a year of oil revenues (revenue not profit). Yeah...that makes sense.

I'm irritated that that the Bush administration is following a 'wimpy' political correct strategy toward the Iraq reconstruction. As for John Kerry, he would be a HUGE disaster. If things don't improve, the best strategy may be to forget a unified Iraq and create a separate Kurdish State in the North.

Non_Comformist
10-02-2004, 06:23 PM
Good post.

I agree that Bush allowed polictical ramifications to affect his decisions in Iraq. I think it should be obvious to anyone following Iraq that a stronger response and actions were and still are needed. My brother has just returned for two weeks after nearly being killed for the 3rd time by a mortar, this time only being saved by his loaded magazine kept in his vest which absorbed the shapnel. His take is that Iraq's respect strength and everytime Al Sadir and his band stand up to the US without being killed they then go back to their followers and say "look at me I took on the mighty US and I am still here." According to him, most Iraq's are afraid to stand up to these thugs and criminals because they believe that at some point America will cut and run, leaving them in the cold. They site the first gulf war as evidence.

Toro
10-02-2004, 06:27 PM
It's time to declare victory and leave.

Cyrus
10-02-2004, 08:04 PM
Well, let's see :

"The occupation is a disaster."

Correct-a-mundo!

"We Americans come in 'wide eyed' expecting to the place to be Sunnybrook farm."

Bullcrap. The United States has been invading almost every 4 years a country in the world for the last hundred years or so. Ample time for the US to stop being "wide eyed" and "innocent" - which it NEVER was.

Occupation Mistakes:

Understand the basics of the Arab culture.

Correct again! But that would mean an oceanic shift in American planning and preparation, in general. (Note that in truly serious affairs, the planning is extremely adequate. The US military started preparing for the occupation of Germany and Japan after WWII as soon as the war was declared!)

"The Arabs have a saying, "Better 100 years of Tyranny, than one day of Anarchy"."

Too late for that now! The Americans should have known that the region of Iraq was never ruled with anything less than an iron fist! The myriad of ethnic (and antagonistic) groups and religions in the area made the iron fist a necessity for hundreds of years.

"Putting General Garner in charge after the fall of Iraq."

Correct a third time! You're on a roll.

"Not imposing immediate martial law and a curfew."

Yes, but the American military could not handle the work of full time police required for a curfew and martial law. What was needed was Iraqis. But Bush and Rummy wanted the "Saddam police and army" dismantled a.s.a.p. -- a huge mistake, as the American brass has warned. To no avail. (So, the Americans disbanded the police and the army, and their members went home --- jobless, angry, and armed. Connect the dotted lines.)

"Not clamping down on crime."

Correct. But see above! (Anyway, now, Iraqis that would have otherwise accepted the American presence, such as western-minded middle class persons, have turned angrily against them, because, let's admit it, THE AMERICAN INVASION BROUGHT THE BREAKDOWN IN LAW & ORDER in Iraq.)

"Not detaining the Al Sadr brigade when they returned to Iraq from Iran."

Bullcrap. The overwhelming majority of the Iraqi insurgency is composed of Iraqis. The claim about Sadr being supported by Iran is nonsense. Iran is being very, very careful in all this (even going out of its way to mediate in the release of hostages, whenever it can.) The "radical cleric" Sadr could have been brought into the (American) fold, since he was as anti-Saddam as they come -- but the Americans treated the whole situation as clumsily as the Britons handled their part of the country brilliantly. so far.

"There is not enough troops. Send every division station in South Korea to Iraq."

You cannot seriously be suggesting such a total blunder! Abandoning South Korea would be a grave mistake, for American aspirations in the S.East Asian region.

"Get Tough with Iran."

On the contrary! America should get cosy with Iran! Why should I have to explain why? (Briefly: Iran had a war against Saddam for 10 years. Iran is secretly crazy with joy to see the last of Saddam. Plus, it sees the opportunity for a power play in Iraq, using the Iraqi Shiites. I could elaborate more, but better consult the nearest book on British imperialism -- and how the limeys used to deal with the restless natives. That's the ticket, ol' boy.)

"Announce a five year plan for leaving Iraq with milestones and time tables."

No, announce a five-month withdrawal plan. The time to fold that hand is long overdue.

"If things don't improve, the best strategy may be to forget a unified Iraq and create a separate Kurdish State in the North."

I have one word for you, you turkey. (And I already said it.)