D-day

As I type, we're crowded around the bank of TVs in our office watching the start of Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker's presentation to the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees. Although I don't think anyone is expecting huge surprises out of this testimony, this is a big deal for us -- all of our work has revolved around this day for at least six weeks. It's hard to describe how I feel watching this: I'm bizarrely nervous, as if this is a referendum on our work, not just the military's. In some ways it is -- Ike Skelton just cited something I wrote this morning (no mention of my name), and a lot of our work is likely to come up in discussion. Political developments over the next several days or weeks could also determine the course of my company's work in the long term.

I also am nervous that there will be too much political infighting and not enough discussion about how the continued U.S. military presence is affecting Iraqi civilians. A poll in The Washington Post this morning showed that most Iraqis think security has gotten worse since the troop "surge" -- not a single person in Anbar province and Baghdad, where the majority of additional troops are based, said they feel very safe. And, of course, things are much worse where there are fewer troops. Combine that with the fact that many Iraqis don't have jobs, water, electricity, schools, etc. and you get a pretty bleak situation. Although I believe Gen. Petraeus is a brilliant guy, he's looking at this from a military perspective, which only touches the tip of the iceberg.

More later...

Best picture ever

For some reason, the Americans in our compound were really, really fascinated by the Larry Craig scandal. I guess it just struck us as so delightfully trivial that we couldn't resist. We read all the coverage, gossiped about the details, etc. The photo below depicts a particularly wonderful moment in which a conversation about Iraqi politics stopped dead when someone heard a CNN anchor announce the start of the audio tape of Craig's interview with the police. These brilliant, talented people leaped off the couch and crowded around the TV to hear every word. None of us could stop laughing for a good 10 minutes. Fortunately, someone had a camera, and you can even make out Craig's face on the TV (and yet, you can't recognize any of these people unless you know them personally).

Scattershot

I don't have anything cohesive to say, so here are some tidbits:

--S, one of my Iraqi coworkers, is coming to DC in November, which should be fun. The company is paying for his flight and hotel stay to thank him for being a good employee, etc. The big boss is already planning lots of parties, tours and the like.
--I think I'm staying in Iraq an extra week. It's not official yet, but that looks like the plan. That will mean I will have been here for about 10 weeks.
--Somehow I just discovered that the people next door get large shipments of magazines from the States each week. Even better, the most recent Sports Illustrated, which they gave me, has an article about Jack Cust!
--People tend to get a little... creative when it comes to alcohol purchases in Iraq. The liquor store in the Green Zone just closed, so Americans haul in whatever they can carry from the duty-free shop in Amman. Still, though, I'm not sure that excuses the consumption of Skyy melon vodka. I can assure you it's disgusting even by our lowered standards.
--There's a possibility that Tuesday will be a big day -- Petraeus is holding a meeting to talk about the Sept. report... it could make headlines.
--Did anybody see this coming?

Parliament's recess

The issue of the Iraqi parliament's August recess has become hugely controversial in the U.S. (much more so than in Iraq, it seems). Most recently, I came across this Mitch Albom column arguing that the month-long vacation is ridiculous as the war is going on. Tony Snow certainly didn't help the legislators' case with his glib comment that "it's 130 degrees in Baghdad in August" since, um, there are American troops there with 80 pounds of gear on (and the rest of us are still working here too!). This seems to be the one Iraq-related topic that people across the political spectrum are riled up about. It seems to me that the outrage on the right is motivated by frustrations that there won't be any political progress made by the Sept. 15 deadline for a progress report -- and with waning Congressional support for the war, that report will be important for Bush. I tend to think that line of argument against the recess is more valid than the left's, which seems to me to be driven by some childish glee every time something goes wrong in Iraq.

All that said, I think all the criticism is misguided. First of all, as lawmakers have pointed out in numerous media accounts, the recess is constitutionally-mandated. Parliament is supposed to be in session for two four-month sessions each year, with a two-month break between each session. The two breaks can be shortened to one month at the request of the Prime Minister, but the way I read the constitution it can't be any shorter than a month.

Sure, critics say, but if they were really dedicated they would pass emergency legislation to change the statute and stick around. But let's keep in mind that many, if not most lawmakers have moved their families out of Baghdad because they could be targeted here. Without a break, parliament members would have the choice between leaving their families in Baghdad -- where members of the government and their families would be good targets for many insurgent groups -- or not seeing their spouses, children, etc. at all. Since it's not their fault that Baghdad is unsafe, punishing them like that seems unfair.

We should also remember that legislators generally work seven days a week when they are in session (and I mean holding sessions every day, not typing a few e-mails from home). The reason for the breaks is because they aren't getting time off during the rest of the year, which would seem slightly cruel.

A column (subscription only) in The New York Times a couple of weeks ago summed up one other important point nicely. I don't mean this as a political statement, or even as a criticism of Congress, just some context:

"It is also mildly bizarre to see our lawmakers castigate the Iraqis for taking a summer recess when they themselves have just taken a break (the ''spring district work period''), which occurred even as work on a bill to provide money for our troops went uncompleted. And that's not the end of it. They are also preparing to take another siesta in August (the ''summer district work period'').

Some have argued that it's far more important for the Iraqis to meet, because they're in the middle of a war. But lest we forget, there are American men and women fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq right now. We're in the middle of a war, too."

Good reads today

Iraq coverage in the major dailies is good reading on Sundays. Most of the time I read only as much Iraq-related journalism as I have to (which, admittedly, is a lot), but some of the Sunday stuff is too good to miss. The Washington Post has two Iraq-related enterprise stories today. The first is about the GI Bill's inability to keep pace with college tuition, which is a major problem for people coming back from Iraq. Most of the soldiers I meet here are between 18 and 22, and although many of them don't have college plans the GI Bill allows them to keep their options open. The story is here.

The second Post story is more directly about Iraq itself -- a look at the dwindling artists' community in Baghdad. People used to consider Baghdad the Paris of the Arab world, but an estimated 90 percent of artists have left the country (or been killed). There are some interesting characters in the story, both people who have chosen to leave and those who have stayed. The story is here.

The New York Times has a big political story in the Sunday magazine, but I didn't make it past the first few paragraphs. The Post has an opinion piece written by an anonymous dentist in Iraq, but I already know that Baghdad can be a depressing place to live, so I skipped that one too. They're both linked if you're interested.

E-mail

I get a lot of crazy e-mail about projects I've worked on. The crazies come from all sides of the political spectrum and seem to think I have a special pipeline to Bush, Maliki or the CEO of my company (none of these things are true). Here are some favorites:

=

(CCed to the CEO of my company, president@whitehouse.gove, vicepresident@whitehouse.gov)
Of course you hid the report on the devastating conditions in Iraq as a result of George Bush's war that you love and support. You don't want people to know how he and you murdered and maimed innocent people and destroyed a country for no good reason. George Bush, Dick Cheney and you make America sick. And that's nothing compared to what you've done to Iraq.

SD

Alexandria, VA

=
(in response to an Oxfam report about declining humanitarian conditions in Iraq)
Oh yes life in Iraq was much better before we came and screwed it up. The practice of towing a power tree shredder into a family yard and putting the wife and kids in feet first, while dad watched the goo spraying all over the side of the house, was much better than now .... don't ya think? Or how about the 500 person mass grave yards, where people were buried alive clutching their children? Or the village gas killings? Just harmless play ... right?

John

=
I'm not sure if you can help me but maybe you can send me in the right direction. I'm writing a screenplay involving international military operations both covert and public. Where do you go when you want to find specific details of international military operations for example ex-military personell.

Thanx,
Demetrius

=
(the CAPS are his, not mine)
You are now saying what I have tried to tell my political representatives since 2003 when I retired and started researching the Iraq debacle. Reference to Senator Durbin and O/Bama regarding letters attempting to get them to inquire within their own experience why the way out of Iraq has left completely the WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE out of consideration.

Second, another bump in the road that U.S. is constantly hounding the Parliament with is the Oil Project. This is very important to the Iraqi process of survival due to their income for operations and distribution - 95% of which comes from OIL. . The OIL PROJECT document as written by U.S. is an indicator of not serving good will with favor. Over 75% of the oil revenue would be distributed to U.S. and 4 large oil companies. Results: financial suicide if the Parliament permits this instrument to live. Thus the reason the Oil Project is shelved by the Parliament until adjustments are agreed to.

Which brings about another problem for Bush since he has his STAY THE COURSE mantra blaring but not considered by most WHY.. The WHY is the OIL PROJECT. Without this document being signed, there can be no representation of even perhaps exiting Iraq. This due to the promises at the inception of the invasion or prior. The PNAC handbook states that all will share richly in the protection of our assets - OIL. To those who had an inkling otherwise, the only reason for the invasion was OIL and is still OIL or the revenue of.

My hope is that you and other reporters can use the IRAQ CONDITION issue to awake those who only think military and political to attain another view more directly related to success in Iraq FOR ALL IRAQ.

WC

The visa question

Today's Washington Post has an important article about an unusual memo from the American ambassador to Baghdad, Ryan Crocker. Crocker is asking the Bush administration to provide visas for all Iraqis working for the U.S. government, including everyone from translators to service workers. Crocker wrote that he fears the government will lose its entire Iraqi staff unless they have the promise of a U.S. visa at the end of their service. ""Our [Iraqi staff members] work under extremely difficult conditions, and are targets for violence including murder and kidnapping. Unless they know that there is some hope of an [immigrant visa] in the future, many will continue to seek asylum, leaving our Mission lacking in one of our most valuable assets."

Crocker is certainly correct in his statement that Iraqis working for Americans risk their lives every day. As I've mentioned before, even those working for Americans unaffiliated with the government must lie about their employment even to their closest friends. Still, millions of Iraqis have been displaced--2.2 million to neighboring countries and another 2 million within Iraq, according to the U.N.--thousands of whom quit their American jobs out of fear that they would be killed. The promise of a one-way ticket to the U.S. would likely go a long way toward the ability to maintain a stable Iraqi workforce. But the article raises an important question: if you admit Iraq is unsafe for these people, what message does that send to everybody else? Shouldn't the goal be to make Iraq safe enough for Iraqis to live here?

The proposal has interesting ramifications for those of us working in the private sector, whose Iraqi coworkers would not be covered. Several staff members in our office are increasingly bitter that our company has not arranged for them to move to the U.S. By the time American security contractors, media companies, etc. leave Iraq, they will have to confront a difficult question about they level of responsibility they should take for the welfare of their staff members.

Hotel journalism

I have been spending a lot of time thinking about the concept of what some have dubbed "hotel journalism," press critics' term for what they see as lazy reporting in Iraq and other places. Instead of going out and getting the story, the accusation goes, reporters sit in their improvised newsrooms letting Iraqi stringers do the real work while the Westerners take the credit. Most recently, one of my hazardous duty training instructors grilled me in our hotel bar about why American journalists are in Iraq at all. "They're not doing the first-hand reporting anyway," he said. "Wouldn't it be easier for all involved if they just compiled their Iraqi staff's feeds sitting in D.C. instead of in a walled compound in Baghdad?"

Perhaps not surprisingly, the criticism generally comes from overtly partisan people. Do you think the left-wing media is being too tough on Bush and his administration? It's probably because reporters aren't actually experiencing all the positive work going on. If you think major media outlets are the lapdogs of the neocons, blame it on the fact that they don't see all the real danger in Iraq. Experienced reporters hear it constantly from both sides. And as someone with more first-hand experience than any of those partisan bloggers, I know for a fact that they're wrong. There isn't a lazy American reporter in Iraq, nor one who has a political agenda. Contrary to popular belief, American reporters don't live in the Green Zone or receive protection from the military.

Yet the idea of hotel journalism still gnaws at me constantly. The reality of the situation in Iraq is that reporters often can't do their own reporting from the streets. It's not laziness, it's common sense; an American wandering through Sadr City, for example, would surely be killed. When reporters do go out, it's with bodyguards, translators and an armored vehicle. We all take risks to go to Iraq, but we must make sure they're calculated ones. Sometimes even a great story isn't worth it, and that's a difficult thing for a hard-nosed journalist to accept. This can be troubling: does the need to avoid so many areas mean the American press isn't getting the whole story?

Former UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism Dean Orville Schell is emphatic in his argument that reporters are doing an admirable job under the circumstances. "But while Western journalists are relying on surrogates, what I observed at the bureaus I visited in Baghdad was far from a dereliction of duty," he wrote last year in the New York Review of Books. "If anything, it showed how the old overseas bureau model of independent reporters has been forced to evolve under very extreme pressure to survive."(Full article is pasted here; scroll down a bit to see the top)

I am constantly inspired by journalists who manage to capture stories of life in Iraq under the pressure Schell describes (one of my recent favorites is here). I know hating on the mainstream press is trendy on both sides of the aisle, but I think reasonable people must concede these guys are doing the best they can.