Charlie Rose: Journalists Are Infidels
Check out the Charlie Rose interview with three Iraqi journalists, Ali Fadhil, Zeyad Kasim, and Ali Nuri. (Zeyad blogs are healingiraq.com. )
Ali Fadhil discusses attacks on Iraqi journalists, at about 6:01 or so into the show. Now this isn’t at all like Eason Jordan at Davos accusing the US of attacking journalists. Fadhil is talking about the real world attacks — by Islamists.
Fadhil:
“The reason why these attacks against the media the media itself and journalism is seen by Islamists and fanatics as something invented by the West. It (journalism) is not an invention of Islam. They regard as something you should not do. It is only infidels that go into journalism and into the media. That’s actually the main reason. If you say you are a journalist you are saying you are an infidel.”
This story — the story of theo-fascists and Saddamists killing Iraqi journalists– should be front and center on the pages of America’s leading newspapers. But it’s not. The terrorists and tyrants also target teachers, doctors, professors, and other professionals.
At 11:13, Rose asks: “Suppose the US had not demilitarized the country…what would be the reality today?” (He also asks about de-Baathification.)
Ali Fadil:
“If we had the Iraqi Army that was 70 years old at that time, respected by all sects of the Iraqi people, if we had that army everyone would have been in that army…That army would have been able to control the country.”
Many US military leaders reached the same conclusion. Paul Bremer’s decision to disband the Iraqi military is the biggest mistake the US has made in The War on Terror.
test
Comment by A Bay — 5/23/2007 @ 2:12 pm
Interesting…I haven’t heard of any Spanish or other Euro indictments or condemnations of rebel attacks on journalists, either; much less any blathering at Davos.
Comment by El Jefe Maximo — 5/23/2007 @ 2:43 pm
Such comments about the army are flat-out stupid. The grunts all walked; as under-or unpaid 10-yr conscripts, they hated the place. The officers were tribal-political, and dedicated CYA buck-passers to a man. And exclusively Sunni. The army was “respected” only in segments of the Sunni community. It was a thoroughly rotted branch that couldn’t have borne 1/10 the weight it would have needed to. This is what Bremer saw, and still knows, and is the reason for the decision. Which was NOT, in any case, his sole call. Ahhh, what’s the use? The “what-iffers” of the world will still pretend there was some institutional and administrative structure in pre-OIF Iraq other than a hierarchy of terror. But that’s all SH had going for him, and he worked it to the hilt. It did NOT leave anything behind that was usable by anyone else.
Comment by Brian H — 5/23/2007 @ 5:07 pm
Please consider adding a link to my page: The Internet Radio Network. At the IRN you can listen for free to 25 of America’s top talk shows via Streaming Audio! http://netradionetwork.com Steve
Comment by Steve — 5/23/2007 @ 5:26 pm
I have heard this assertion that we made a mistake in disbanding the Iragi army many times. It always strikes me as a case of wishful thinking. The bulk of the enlisted ranks were Shia conscripts who wanted to get the hell out and did so as soon as they could. The officer corps was hand picked by Saddam for loyalty to him. Officers who displayed military competence were seen as a threat to the regime (remember how, during the war with Iran, Iraqi generals who won battles tended to have unfortunate “helicopter accidents” as soon as the latest Iranian offensive had been blunted.) The Republican Guard and the Special Republican Guard were, supposedly, the elite of the Iraqi military. This status was the result of their fanatical loyalty to Saddam’s regime being rewarded with better pay, equipment and training. And we were going to turn an institution as throughly corrupted as this into a defender of a democratic Iraq overnight? I could well be wrong but I would like those who assert that we should not have disbanded the Iraqi Army to explain how exactly this would have worked rather than just assume it would have magically made things better. I think Brian H.’s comment above is right on the mark.
Comment by John F. MacMichael — 5/23/2007 @ 6:50 pm
It’s possible that I’m mistaken in my memory, but I seem to recall one of the above mentioned, Iraq the Model, I think, saying (deriding the idea actually), at the time, that there was an army for Bremer to disband, because they had dissolved themselves en mass shortly after the initial 3 week rout. Frankly, I wonder how good it would have been to have the same army that had operated at the behest of Saddam, continuing operations as usual? Of course it wouldn’t have been “as usual” but would that perception have lingered? I wonder too, what may have been different if Turkey had allowed our troops to come in from the north, thus portraying a stronger presence immediately? I wonder a lot of things about the past, but am more concerned about the future. Does anyone really believe, be they Dem, Rep, Iraqi, or even Eskimo, that the overall well-being of the Iraqi people will be better served by a cut and run policy by the USA? For that matter, even if one were so callous as to negate the fate of the Iraqis, would the world be better served by same? I don’t think so, and am disappointed that the conversation is even taking place.
Comment by Mark H. — 5/23/2007 @ 7:10 pm
My understanding too was that the Iraqi army formations that were competent were Saddam loyalists and untrustworthy if not downright hostile, while the regular conscript army was undertrained, vistually unpaid, and simply dissolved.
Comment by Jeff Z — 5/23/2007 @ 8:05 pm
I mean “virtually unpaid.”
Comment by Jeff Z — 5/23/2007 @ 8:05 pm
The primary mission of Saddam’s army was to keep Saddam in power by killing civilians. (Repelling foreign invaders was a secondary mission at best, which it did very poorly.) So you have two choices: build a real army from scratch; or take a goon squad and turn it into an army. Building an army from scratch isn’t easy, and it takes time, but it can be done. Converting a goon squad might or might not be faster, would certainly be harder, and maybe it can’t be done. Choose wisely.
Comment by Bob Hawkins — 5/23/2007 @ 8:07 pm
Many US military leaders reached the same conclusion. Paul Bremer’s decision to disband the Iraqi military is the biggest mistake the US has made in The War on Terror. And yet it was a political necessity. The perception in the west of that tool of aggression and internal suppression now being wielded by America would have been hard to overcome. Picture a few brutal incidents on CNN, featuring the Iraqi Army up to its old tricks, and the effect on popular opinion, in Iraq, and abroad, and I still think it was the right thing to make the clean cut. Also, with the “insurrection” being made up from the old guard’s ranks, and with infiltration being a major problem in the New Iraqi Army, I am not so sure it would have been an useful instrument for creating security. apex
Comment by apex — 5/23/2007 @ 10:51 pm
An army of a third world totalitarian dictatorship is of no use to us. Even if it was held together it would have been in name only. Tearing the whole thing down and starting from scratch would have been necessary anyways, which isn’t any different than what happened.
Comment by andrew — 5/24/2007 @ 6:32 am
Bremer answers this charge very well in a recent WSJ article, I’m surprised you don’t link it. The Army was FEARED, murderers and rapists, not respected. I feel the biggest mistake was in NOT having immediate, food ration based local elections for local tribal/ town council, with the town council to decide on a local mayor — and let these elected Iraqis have control over most of the aid/reconstruction cash as well as security. Instead of keeping an Iraqi army, most of those army soldiers should have been immediately reconstituted into home village Defense Guard — paid by America. With their first job being to collect an accurate, computerized census database — to be used for voting AND for distributing Oil Trust cash. Bremer should have created the Oil Trust “temporarily” with half of all oil cash going directly to registered Iraqis.
Comment by Tom Grey — 5/24/2007 @ 10:59 am
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 05/24/2007 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.
Comment by David M — 5/24/2007 @ 11:04 am
Fadhil is quoted: “It (journalism) is not an invention of Islam. They regard as something you should not do. It is only infidels that go into journalism and into the media. That’s actually the main reason. If you say you are a journalist you are saying you are an infidel.†But we see over and over that the Islamists are quite willing to manipulate the journalists and media to achieve their ends. Quite a contradiction, isn’t it?
Comment by Retread — 5/24/2007 @ 2:22 pm
Perhaps if it was the army of 70 years ago, the 1930’s, it would have been respected. The army Saddam had was not a professional force like the Wehrmacht; it was the SA with tanks. DeAtkine’s article on Arab Armies applied to the Iraqi army of Baathist Iraq in spades.
Comment by Mikey NTH — 5/24/2007 @ 2:27 pm
Not really a contradiction. If one doesn’t respect something, one has no qualms about manipulating, debasing, and perverting it.
Comment by Bobbo — 5/24/2007 @ 2:32 pm
I agree with previous posters that disbanding Saddam’s Army was the “least worst” of two bad options. I think the failure to quickly create a new Iraqi Army out of “retrainable” individual soldiers (and others) was the real failure. Someone should do a “lessons learned” piece on that.
Comment by Tom Paine — 5/24/2007 @ 3:43 pm
“Paul Bremer’s decision to disband the Iraqi military is the biggest mistake the US has made in The War on Terror.” I get sick and tired of this. Bremer made many mistakes (as is to be expected) and is hardly one of my heroes, but this non argument about how disbanding the Iraqi military was a huge mistake is one of the silliest memes to come out of the echo chamber on the war. I’ve done this one to death. I can probably come up with six reasons why Bremer’s decision was a non-mistake and quite possible even the right thing to do. But I’m sick and tired of repeating myself, so I’ll just say that I read the comment with an entirely different emphasis than you do. “If we had the Iraqi Army that was 70 years old at that time, respected by all sects of the Iraqi people, if we had that army everyone would have been in that army…That army would have been able to control the country.†Yes, exactly.
Comment by Celebrim — 5/24/2007 @ 6:55 pm
Tom Grey has the right idea: keep the army temporarily paid but then build a new army from scratch. Also, the oil trust - I really don’t know why that wasn’t done. ED NOTE: In 2005 at a counter-terrorism conference I attended, LTG Jay Garner told me at lunch that he and GEN Franks expected to have 100K to 150K Iraqi troops to use as local security forces. I asked him if we would have turned the remnant Iraqi Army inyo a “civilian work corps” type organization and he said that was what he had in mind –lots of brooms. It would have been a jobs program for out of work 19 year olds. It would have pumped money into the economy. We would have had US sergeants advising company units — helping give young Iraqis role models for a truly “new army.” Garner said Bremer’s decision to disband the military truly stunned him. Over time we would have helped the Iraqis introduce new leaders. Some new leaders would have emerged from the ranks. These are some of the reasons I think disbanding the army was a major strategic error — the biggest one we’ve made.
Comment by Aaron — 5/24/2007 @ 8:41 pm
Bremer insisted that the military be disbanded, against the wishes of many coalition military commanders. Bremer insisted upon de-Baathification, against the wishes of many coalition military commanders. Bremer refused to honor the tribal system in Iraq (as we see in Anbar), insisting it was anti-Democratic… again, contrary to the wishes of many coalition military commanders. If you can critically look at what fuelled much of the insurgency, and led the Sunni populace to beleive that al Qaeda was a viable aternative, you’ll realize that Bush and Bremer brought the insurgency into being.
Comment by Sean — 5/24/2007 @ 9:49 pm
Big surprise that journalism is “un-Islamic.” What is the biggest enemy of any totalitarian regime? The guns of democracy? No, it’s freedom of information. The Russians had Pravda, the Islamists have the mosque. They know that in order to control the masses, you have to control the information that the masses have access to. As for the decisions made by Bremer, history will be the judge of what was right and wrong. What’s important now is to strive for victory and let history record the successes and failures later. Armchair quarterbacking, while very tempting, is quite dangerous in light of what we’re up against.
Comment by Kafir — 5/25/2007 @ 7:22 am
I strongly disagree with the idea that disbanding the Iraqi army was a mistake. My memory of the war was that prior to crossing the berm into Iraq, we expended a lot of efforts to get Iraqi generals to defect with their units intact, going so far as to email them. But once we attacked, we called on the Iraqi army to just go home rather than surrender so we wouldn’t have to divert units and resources to actually take prisoners, guard them, move them, and feed them. So when major combat operations were over, the army was just gone–as we intended at that point. Further, with Shias happy to have Saddam gone, but suspicious of our motives after abandoning them in the 1991 uprising, would it really have been a good idea to alienate the Shias by keeping the Sunni-led units intact? And can you imagine the spring 2004 Fallujah and Sadr uprisings with “former” Baathists still leading their units? As it was, half the new Iraqi security forces just dissolved that spring. What portion of the units that dissolved would have instead gone over to the enemy side if Baathists ran them? The spring and summer of 2004 were ugly affairs but we won that round. God help us if we had to worry about Iraqi units turning on us. That would have been a Sepoy Mutiny to be sure. Many mistakes are made in war. The Iraq War is no exception. But disbanding the Iraqi army was no error in my opinion.
Comment by Brian J. Dunn — 5/25/2007 @ 9:14 am
JOURNALISTS UNDER ATTACK: no story at 11 There are journalists under attack in Iraq, though. It’s restrained - largely because the terrorists know they have at least accomplices if not allies in the media in their effort to defeat the coalition troops - but it exists. Austin Bay examines thi…
Trackback by Word Around the Net — 5/25/2007 @ 10:58 am
Beware of these blanket proclamations that “biggest mistake the US has made in The War on Terror.” Hindsight is not, in fact, 20/20, and it is very easy to assume that whatever problems you are having now would have never happened if only you had done x differently way back when. Had the Iraqi army not been disbanded, it is just as likely that it would have turned into an organized resistance far larger and more deadly than what we have seen from the insurgents, and people would be whining, “Why, oh why did we not disband the stupid army?”
Comment by Ben — 5/25/2007 @ 11:49 am
Um, corrected version below… Beware of these blanket proclamations that not disbanding the army is the “biggest mistake the US has made in The War on Terror.” Hindsight is not, in fact, 20/20, and it is very easy to assume that whatever problems you are having now would have never happened if only you had done x differently way back when. Had the Iraqi army not been disbanded, it is just as likely that it would have turned into an organized resistance far larger and more deadly than what we have seen from the insurgents, and people would be whining, “Why, oh why did we not disband the stupid army?”
Comment by Ben — 5/25/2007 @ 11:50 am
Damn, I quit. One more time, and then it’s back to bed. Sheesh… Beware of these blanket proclamations that disbanding the army is the “biggest mistake the US has made in The War on Terror.†Hindsight is not, in fact, 20/20, and it is very easy to assume that whatever problems you are having now would have never happened if only you had done x differently way back when. Had the Iraqi army not been disbanded, it is just as likely that it would have turned into an organized resistance far larger and more deadly than what we have seen from the insurgents, and people would be whining, “Why, oh why did we not disband the stupid army?â€
Comment by Ben — 5/25/2007 @ 11:51 am
Getting back to the oil trust. Here we have a country with no taxation sytem and we want to remove from the government its only means of income. How does this help?
Comment by davod — 5/25/2007 @ 12:56 pm
Pop Quiz: Who said this quote? “They regard as something you should not do. It is only infidels that go into journalism and into the media. That’s actually the main reason. If you say you are a journalist you are saying you are an infidel.” A) Glenn Reynolds B) Charles Johnson C) Glenn Reynolds D) Vladimir Putin E) None of the Above The answer may surprise you!
Comment by Derek — 5/28/2007 @ 12:57 pm