Also see:
AOL/Microsoft-Hotmail Preventing Delivery of Truthout Communications •
Also see below:
An Interview With Dahr Jamail •
The Patriot: Dahr Jamail's
"Beyond the Green Zone:
Dispatches From
an Unembedded Reporter in Occupied Iraq"
By Leslie Thatcher
t r u t h o u t | Book Review
Thursday 03 January 2008
We were a minority, but still, there were many of us to whom it was as plain
as the nose on our own face, in the fall of 2002 when the great "marketing
campaign" for the Iraq war was rolled out, that Saddam Hussein had no weapons
of mass destruction and no connection whatsoever to 9/11, that the war was an
illegal act of aggression that could only hearten enemies of the United States.
Some of us turned out for the great global "focus group" of February
15, 2003; some of us wrote to the editor, argued with family members and neighbors,
were horrified by the mainstream media's pornographic endorsement of "Shock
and Awe," but Dahr Jamail came down from his job as a Park Service rescue
ranger on Mt. Denali in Alaska, and, armed with $2,000, a laptop, digital camera,
and some indie media listserve advice about how to get there, set off for Baghdad.
What he has described as "an act of desperation" provoked by his sense
of complicity as an American is also, in a very real sense, an ultimate act
of patriotism, an assertion that Americans are better than what we have done
in Iraq, a faith he still champions that:
"If the people of the United States had the real story about what their
government has done in Iraq, the occupation would already have ended ... If
people in my country could hear the stories of life under occupation and put
themselves in Iraqis' stories, they would understand. I hold that hope because
the stories of Iraq are our story now."
The decision to "embed" with the Iraqis, to tell the Iraqis' side
of the story - or what he could learn of it - has won Dahr Jamail four Project
Censored awards. He broke stories about American house raids, torture and use
of white phosphorus in Fallujah. He has written for The Nation, The Independent,
the BBC, Democracy Now, and continues to work principally with the InterPressService
as editor and fact-checker for Ali al-Fadhily and Ahmed Ali, two Iraqi reporters
working under pseudonyms in Baghdad and Baquba, respectively. And in his book,
"Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches From an Unembedded Reporter in Occupied
Iraq," published by Haymarket Books this October, Jamail supplies the Iraqi
perspective he garnered from the four visits he made to Iraq between November
2003 and February 2005, spending a total of eight months in the country.
Jamail's conviction that telling the Iraqis' stories is a path to personal
and perhaps national redemption provides his book with a focus, perspective
and objective very different from the so-called "objectivity" of the
"professional" journalist. Perhaps, because he is aware of his absence
of "professional" credentials, this citizen journalist makes it clear
he verifies his stories, checks his sources, and generally applies the standards
"professional" journalism contents itself with paying lip service
to. By adopting the standpoint of the occupied, he is forced to violate one
of the most fundamental tropes of mainstream media reporting: the sacrosanct
virtue, integrity and wholesomeness of US military personnel.
Americans may not be able - or willing - to put themselves "into Iraqis'
stories," but Jamail reproduces Iraqi voices:
Quite soon after his arrival, he observes US troops fanning out in the street
from a balcony where he stands with Iraqi interpreter and driver Hamoudi. Jamail
describes one soldier twitching, jerking and swiveling as he walks backward.
Hamoudi leans over and says, "Look at that poor bastard. It's clear to
anyone with eyes that he has mental problems from being here doing this shit
job."
Dr. Aisha Abdulla in the supply room at Yarmouk Hospital rages against the
occupiers:
"They've destroyed the foundations of Iraq - what do you think we can
do without foundations? Even if the Americans stay here 15 years, there will
be no security ... Anything they do or build is superficial, not fundamental.
Abu Ghraib attacked the dignity of the Iraqi people. Did America not become
barbarians from killing Indians, Vietnamese, Central Americans, Afghanis, and
bombing us and our young children, who now have psychological scars? If these
did not reveal the true barbarian nature of America, then Abu Ghraib did. I
never liked Saddam, nor did I support him, but at least under the dictator there
was order and some basic services. Now, there is no order, no electricity, no
fundamental stability."
One detainee released in the spring of 2004, tells Jamail, "The Americans
brought electricity to my ass before they brought it to my house."
An Iraqi policeman comments on the case of an Iraqi driving home from work
who was gunned down by US troops, "This is the usual policy of the Americans.
They always shoot first, because there is nobody to punish them for their mistakes."
And Jamail shows how US brutality and heedlessness, the military having "all
the power and no accountability," radicalized ordinary Iraqis from the
outset, as their sense of justice and honor was repeatedly outraged. Without
even making an explicit argument, the book wholly refutes the notion that a
continuation of the occupation in any form could promote stability: By the time
Jamail arrived in November 2003, all trust and any sense of joint purpose between
occupier and occupied had already been exhausted.
"Beyond the Green Zone" details what it's like to be on the receiving
end of troops searching a boy's high school for boys who took part in a pro-Saddam
demonstration and threw rocks, of house searches that end in murder and destruction,
of arrests that end in torture and death, of "reconstruction" that
leaves people drinking sewage - but only during the hour in the day the electricity
is running - of assassination attempts on independent journalists, and, most
notably, of the two sieges of Fallujah.
The coverage of war crimes in Fallujah: the use of cluster munitions and white
phosphorous against civilians; the targeting of hospitals, clinics and ambulances;
snipers hitting women and children is more vivid because he introduces the people
of Fallujah, whom he met prior to either siege; describes how the city turned
from moderately cooperative with the occupation to totally opposed to it; how
its people gloried in self-government between the April and November 2004 sieges;
how virtually everything the US military did there boomeranged.
The stories of Iraqis' resourcefulness, hospitality, sense of humor and warmth;
Jamail's descriptions of shared meals and experiences that are spread throughout
the book, are other angles, missed - in every sense of the word - by embedded
reporters for whom the Iraqis are always "the other." Jamail, instead,
conveys Iraqis' shock - because it has become his own - at the apparently wanton
bulldozing of a grove of date palm trees that belonged to his interlocutors'
fathers' fathers' fathers, at a friend's inability to get home from a shopping
trip because she lost her American-issued biometric ID card, at the vastly inflated
turn-out numbers in the Iraqi elections reported by the US media.
Jamail's immediate and intense identification with the Iraqis he encountered
and his ability to convey their experience makes for matchless reportage. His
book is also very strong on deconstructing propaganda: This is what happened;
this is what the US media, the Pentagon or the CPA reported. Jamail may have
been reporting too close in to provide an outside perspective on how Iraqi society
works: He ascribes sectarian violence largely to US troublemaking, but the basis
and trends of Iraqi allegiance is not clear. One fixer describes an Iraqi policeman
as a "US spy"; Jamail refers to "militants," and certainly
describes how they are created, but the patterns of loyalty, rivalry and leadership
are no clearer from his unembedded perspective than they are in the mainstream
media vocabulary of "insurgents," "foreign fighters," "Shia
factions," Sunni tribesmen" etc.
That is both the weakness and the strength of choosing the perspective from
the ground, of ordinary Iraqis still reeling from their world being turned upside
down, trying to survive and to protect their families, still testing narratives
that can make sense of their lived experience.
And by bringing us their voices, their experience, trying to project us into
the lives of ordinary Iraqis, the ones who could be you or me, were we willing
to exercise our imagination and put ourselves into their stories. Dahr Jamail
continues to try and rescue his fellow citizens from obliviousness, folly, hubris,
from the consequences of their heedlessness, just as surely and courageously
as he did on the slopes of Denali.
An Interview With Dahr Jamail
Leslie Thatcher Interviews Dahr Jamail
t r u t h o u t | Interview
Thursday 03 January 2008
Leslie Thatcher for Truthout: First of all, Dahr Jamail, thank you
for your book and for bringing us the voices and experiences of ordinary Iraqis.
Thanks also for taking the stories of Americans who oppose the invasion and
occupation to them.
It was clear from your book that your periods in the US, in between trips to
Iraq, took on a surreal character, that "the American dream" took
on a completely new meaning after the intensity and harsh realities of war.
Do you ever regret your decision to go to Iraq?
Dahr Jamail: Not for one instant. It is critical for me, and I believe other
US citizens, to have a full knowledge of the situation in Iraq.
How do you personally adjust to being unable to return to Iraq for
the moment?
Of course, it is extremely frustrating. I would return in an instant if I felt
I could report unembedded without jeopardizing the life of any Iraqi who worked
with me, but that's just not possible now. Fortunately, I'm in a position to
be able to continue reporting by working with several Iraqi colleagues who remain
in their country; so, in this way, I have been able to remain closely connected
to the situation even though I have not been back inside Iraq for two years.
And how should we reconcile your inability to return because of the
danger to yourself, and especially the danger to your Iraqi colleagues, with
the statistics General Petraeus offered this past weekend suggesting Iraq has
become a safer place?
The rhetoric and propaganda about the occupation from hacks like Petraeus and
Bush administration officials would make Orwell proud. If we simply look at
the facts on the ground: over five million refugees, over four million in need
of emergency aid, over three million wounded, and over one million dead - how
could any rational person ever define that as good? Or safer? Or improving?
The reality is that since the so-called surge began, the number of displaced
Iraqis has quadrupled, tens of thousands more have been killed, and the deepening
political crisis within the Iraqi government has increased in severity.
Finally, the fact that Muqtada al-Sadr has his militia, the largest in the
country, on stand-down orders, while the US military is arming and backing various
Sunni militias and former resistance fighters has led to a sharp, albeit temporary,
decrease in the number of US soldiers being killed. But I wouldn't necessary
classify this ticking time bomb as an "improvement."
One problem for Americans trying to understand what is happening in
Iraq is trying sort out the country's various political characters and factions.
For example, until I read your book, I had believed that Muqtada al-Sadr was
generally considered responsible for the April 2003 assassination of Ayatollah
Abdul Majid al-Khoei in Najaf. But you write that Sadr had disproved his involvement
in the killing. How did he do that? Who is al-Sadr "really"? And whom
do Iraqis or do you consider responsible for al-Khoei's assassination?
An Iraqi court had already found Sadr innocent of that accusation, long before
Bremer decided to blame him for it and use it as an excuse to begin military
operations against Sadr and his militia.
Sadr is a young, fiery, anti-occupation Shia cleric who inherited his position
of power via familial ties. He has excellent advisers and has played his position,
politically, quite well throughout the occupation. He has expressed loyalty
to Iran, when less than two years ago during one of the louder instances of
bellicose Bush administration rhetoric against Iran, Sadr announced, from Tehran,
that any attack on Iran would be an attack against himself and his followers
and he would respond appropriately. He has already called for two uprisings
against the US military, and, in time, will likely do so again. For now, his
militia controls most of Baghdad, and much of the south.
Who do Iraqis consider responsible for al-Khoei's assassination? That would
depend on whom you ask and what their politics are. A great number blame the
Americans, which is common now in Iraq - for the occupation forces to be blamed
for anything bad that occurs.
Do you have a sense of what the group dynamics are today, whether
there is genuine sectarian civil war or some elements of that with other forces
at work? What are those forces?
When we discuss sectarianism in Iraq, we mustn't underestimate the role the
US has played in fostering it. From the beginning, including the US-installed
Iraqi Governing Council, which was structured to appoint positions of power
strictly along sectarian and ethnic lines, the US has been playing the game
of divide and rule.
The most important element of this, I believe, is the US role in establishing
sectarian based death squads in Iraq. I discuss this at length in my book; but,
in sum, Negroponte and Steele, two men who did the same in Central America in
the 1980s, played crucial roles in organizing and facilitating these death squads.
These death squads, along with sectarian-based militias, have split Baghdad
up into sectarian neighborhoods; and, today, we're looking at the end-game of
this process where the capital is now nearly completely segregated.
Of course, there is also the element of power struggles within various groups,
political and otherwise, within Iraq as well, in addition to the fact that every
single country in the region, literally, has a hand in Iraq.
In the book, you make some flat statements about US motives: "Bremer's
real reason for delaying the election was to allow sufficient time to install
a 'stable' pro-American puppet government in Baghdad ... A legitimately elected
Iraqi government would have demanded an immediate timetable for withdrawal of
the occupying forces. It was to avoid this fate that the US government wanted
to postpone the elections and to create conditions of bloody sectarian chaos
that would irreversible fragment the country," suggesting that there was
a malicious plan to foment sectarian strife rather than "mere" ineptitude
at work. Are these the views also generally held by the Iraqis you know?
Most Iraqis I know and spoke with about this felt similarly. Carrying on with
the example of sectarianism - it's not a coincidence that, prior to the invasion
and occupation, there were mixed neighborhoods in Baghdad, and had never been
sectarian based civil war.
Insert the occupation, and the policies of the US government, and we have violent
sectarian civil war, sectarian cleansed Baghdad, sectarian based death squads
backed by the US, and marriages between Sunni and Shia which are being split
up. It's not a complex equation to figure out, particularly when you have the
details of US policy, which I also address in my book.
Have you any additional evidence for US training and backing of sectarian
death squads? Your book quotes a Kucinich letter to Rumsfeld of which I had
been unaware. Certainly, the way the war has been funded and the reappearance
of Iran contra personalities suggests the means are there.
I discuss retired Col. James Steele as well, along with how these squads were
run via the Ministry of Interior, which was, of course, being funded and overseen
by the US and a US "adviser."
I also mention in the book the fact that Rumsfeld publicly discussed the "Salvador
option" in Iraq, as a means of attempting to tame the "insurgency,"
as it continued to spread and grow in lethality after the second US attack on
Fallujah.
Your contention that democracy was never an objective is certainly
supported by the illegal Maliki-Bush deal to keep US troops in Iraq, although
the Iraqi parliament does not support it, and by US support for Turkey bombing
Kurdistan, the one semi-functional area of the country. What do you believe
the US administration is striving for now?
Permanent occupation, as they have been from the beginning. As I wrote in an
article for Truthout in Spring 2006,
all one needs to do is read the US National Security Strategy and make up their
own mind what they think the US is up to in the Middle East. In addition, look
at the "embassy" and types of mega-bases which are being constructed
in Iraq. The Bush administration itself has told reporters, within the last
year, to think of the occupation along a timeline of the US bases in South Korea.
I would add, ask yourself how long the US has had bases in Germany, in Japan.
But those have never been referred to as permanent either.
This administration, and future administrations like that of a Hillary Clinton
or Rudy Giuliani for example, will likely push for decreasing troop numbers
to 50,000 or so, and keep them on the bases and embassy. That's the plan, and
thus far, they are heading in that direction.
You spoke eloquently on "Democracy Now" about how Iraq became
an "atrocity-creating situation", which explains, if not excuses,
US soldiers' brutality; but who/what do you believe is responsible for US soldiers'
ignorance? Has five years of occupation made the troops any more culturally
aware, as far as you know?
Big question - but I think it's a number of factors. The education system in
the US is a joke, the fact that most people serving in the military have not
had the privilege of traveling abroad to experience different cultures, ignorance,
prejudice, fear and racism are all critical factors.
Being a journalist, I blame the media, particularly the establishment media
in the US. With few exceptions, the media has, from the very beginning, dehumanized
Iraqis and Arab culture, and done well to instill fear, ignorance and loathing
into American homes regarding the situation in the Middle East. Let alone US
historical involvement, and answering some of the questions about why there
is anti-American sentiment in the region to begin with.
You make clear that "embeds" cannot see what you saw, such
as the Iraqis who celebrated after the departure of US troops in April 2004
with a parade and victory celebration, that Western non-embeds like yourself
can no longer report in-country, and that independent Iraqi journalists run
huge risks such as the assassination attempt on journalist Ismail Zayer or AP
photographer Bilal Hussein's 18 month plus detention and upcoming rigged trial.
What sources can Americans trust to provide actual news of what's happening
in Iraq now?
This web site consistently does a fine job of posting important news stories
about Iraq. I also suggest finding English translations of Arab news outlets.
Today in Iraq, the only reporters going around unembedded are Iraqis and Arabs
from other countries in the Middle East. Al-Jazeera Arabic is a good source,
if you can get it translated, among others. I also suggest the Mosaic program
with Link TV, which is translated news, and MidEastWire.com, a critical source
of translated news from throughout the Middle East. But with few exceptions,
most of the news produced about Iraq in establishment media outlets in the US
is akin to that from state-run media outlets.
When, in your book, the translator Harb suggests the Iraqi policeman
apparently helping you to investigate an incident is actually a US spy, I, as
a reader, was immediately plunged into a "spy vs. spy" world. Did
you as a reporter ever feel it was difficult to tell black from white?
Yes. It was quite confusing at times, and often was difficult to not be overly
paranoid. But such is reporting from any war zone. The key for me was finding
Harb, and a few of the other translators I mentioned in my book, people I could
really trust, and work with them consistently. That way we had experiences to
build on, and after awhile, came to be able to look at each other and know what
the other was thinking, which came in handy in tight situations.
I had a policy of always interviewing different people, at different times,
in different locations, about events. That way, I didn't open myself up to being
taken advantage of, or to being used to spread rumors or propaganda.
Some stories now coming out of the US (I'm thinking, for example,
of Robin Fox's "Kindness of Strangers" or Sunday's New York Times's
article, "Feed the Hand that Bit You") suggest that Iraqis have no
sense of larger society because they can't get beyond family and tribal allegiances,
or that Iraqis lost their initiative and ability to get things done under the
dictatorship. That was certainly not the sense of Iraqi society I got from your
book?
No, because Iraqis are an advanced culture, civilization, and the area is the
historic location of where and how the west obtained much of its math and science.
The articles you mention, particularly the Times piece, are a fine example of
what I mentioned earlier - of how establishment media plays a critical role
in dehumanizing Iraqis, of showing them as the "other" and/or less-than
you or I. That type of propaganda then becomes useful for an administration
which envisions a long-term presence in Iraq, as it serves to portray Iraqis
as a people unable to take care of themselves, or worse, unwilling, all of which
is nonsense.
That type of thinking is not new for Empires - Throughout history this type
of mindset, and that type of propaganda, has been used by empires as they invade
countries, plunder their resources and commit acts of savagery upon other people.
Finally, Dahr Jamail, you write, "If the people of the United
States had the real story about what their government has done in Iraq, the
occupation would already have ended ... If people in my country could hear the
stories of life under occupation and put themselves in Iraqis' stories, they
would understand. I hold that hope because the stories of Iraq are our story
now." Can you still maintain that hope, knowing as you do, that ten years
of sanctions before, the occupation had already broken lives and damaged infrastructure
and that it has only gotten worse?
I do still believe that if people had the facts, and are willing to use their
imagination in order to put themselves in the shoes of Iraqis today who are
suffering greatly under US occupation, that things would look differently. Do
I hope for that? I guess I cannot really say that I do. But I think it is imperative
that people have the information available so they can, perhaps one day, know
the truth about what the US is doing, and has done in Iraq.
Sometimes, I fall back on something the journalist Robert Fisk, who writes
for the Independent in the UK, wrote. He said that at the end of the day, as
wars continue to be fought and atrocities continue to be carried out, and people
ask why and how this can continue, one thing they won't be able to say is, "But
nobody ever told us this was happening."
It is our job as journalists to make sure that remains the case, particularly
in regard to the catastrophic US occupation of Iraq.
Translation: Truthout French language editor Leslie Thatcher.
-------
Jump to today's Truthout Features:
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. t r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
"Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted on TO may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the "Go to Original" links.
Print This Story
E-mail This Story