To all armchair pundits

Being a newcomer in the vast blogosphere I should probably grateful to shark blog for drawing his readers' attention to my blog (and my book). Thanks, Stefan. But then, what a “shark hug” that was, too! Stefan writes:

“Kleveman's blog tends to favor the side of the media over the U.S. administration in the "how bad are things in Iraq" debate. But that's to be expected, he's from the media and writes mainly for a European audience.”

What kind of crap is this?

First of all, I am not “from THE MEDIA” (whatever that means). I am A writer. Free-lance, i.e. independent (-minded), with no corporate affiliations and with my own eyes and ears. Yes, I do need to pay my bills but that does not make me part of the “old media establishment” some bloggers are so desperate to rail against. As for my writing for “a European audience”, explain to me how that would impair my judgment?

What is this silly and spurious debate where one has to side either with “the media” or the Bush administration? How much more black and white does it get? So, by that logic instapundit and rantingprofs are government mouthpieces?

In his email (fair game, I suppose?) Stefan writes:

I don't quite buy the perspective that the Iraq war is an imperialist enterprise and a quagmire. Reconstructing Iraq and building a civil society there is an important undertaking for international security, just as was rebuilding the defeated fascist states after WWII and rebuilding the former Soviet Union after the Cold War. And just because we are motivated by oil interests, doesn't mean that it's not also both in our long-term security as well as consistent with our national values to help develop a saner society in Iraq.

Just two questions:

- how does turning a country that posed no credible immediate threat (where are the WMDs?) neither to the region nor to “the West” into a chaotic mess and a cause célèbre for Islamic terrorists improve “international security”? (remember this Bin Laden chap? he is still out there)

- if “we” (who is we? Americans? the Bush administration?) are motivated by oil interests, as you concede, how do you think that goes over with the people in the region? (try answering that one without using the “i-word”..)

At least, Stefan does acknowledge that it is reporters who do the primary reporting in Iraq. So what?, Glenn would probably retort. In yet another pamphlet against biased, lazy, butt-covering, Baghdad media types, he writes "Imagine what we might hear if more reporters were willing to venture out [of Baghdad] in search of a story."

With all due respect, Glenn, that is what most of us reporters out there do, unlike some Starbucks-catered armchair pundits who confuse their wishful thinking with the reality in Iraq!

Granted, some self-styled journalists sit around the Al Hamra hotel pool all day, sipping cocktails and churning out gloom-and-doom stories. However, many colleagues I know (including myself) have travelled through the entire country, to the Shiite South, the Kurdish North and the Sunni West. But ultimately it is the situation in the capital as the main locus of power that counts the most.

Read the latest dispatch by my friend and co-author Jack Fairweather about an altogether ordinary bomb attack in Baghdad that I have posted separately (see below). He reports that up to 50 Iraqis get shot dead EVERY DAY in the capital alone. Sounds like liberation?

http://rantingprofs.blogspot.com/
So the ranting profs “think the coverage is slapping on a single coherent narrative (chaos/quagmire/Vietnam) whether it fits or not, and filtering out that which does not fit.”

Do these campus crusaders have any idea just how many reporters get robbed at gunpoint on the road from Amman to Baghdad every week? Of course, they are unlikely to downplay the daily attacks on U.S. troops.

Just some "pinprick attacks by leftover Baathists"?? Oh my! You wish, Glenn, you wish! Read this informed and thorough text from river (not a Vietnam-templating hack, no fear, but an Iraqi woman) for a clue on who the attackers really are.

Here is a telling excerpt: “I would think that publicly humiliating and detaining respected members of society like sheikhs and religious leaders would contribute more to throttling democracy than ‘cousins marrying cousins’. Many of the attacks against the occupying forces are acts of revenge for assaulted family members, or people who were killed during raids, demonstrations or checkpoints. But the author fails to mention that, of course.”

River’s text is a riposte to a NYT article by John Tierney titled “Iraqi Family Ties Complicate American Efforts for Change”. It actually shows that just because they are on the ground foreign reporters don’t necessarily get it right.

But it helps.