OT: US BLEW IT IN IRAQ- Wall Street Journal Reporter Finds

F

Fred Bloggs

Guest
From Baghdad
A Wall Street Journal Reporter's E-Mail to Friends

by Farnaz Fassihi

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 Fassihi, a Wall Street Journal reporter sent this report as an
e-mail to friends.

###
 
Fred Bloggs wrote...
From Baghdad
A Wall Street Journal Reporter's E-Mail to Friends

Farnaz Fassihi, a Wall Street Journal reporter sent this report
as an e-mail to friends.
A truly dismal picture.

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.
Another shocking discouraging thing we are not told about.

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.
And his analysis of the elections we so anxiously await,

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.

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?"

--
Thanks,
- Win

(email: use hill_at_rowland-dotties-org for now)
 
A little known factoid emerging from the 960-page Duelfer report is
their estimation that the Iraq invasion has *increased* the threat of
biological/chemical weapon attack by terrorist groups. During his
investigation there, Duelfer broke up an insurgent network, Al Abud,
formed to manufacture ricin, mustard, and nerve agent weapons, and
discovered quite a bit of evidence confirming that Al Qaeda in Iraq is
going for broke to acquire something to be used against US occupation
forces. Once again Bush has deceived the public with his selective
emphasis and distorted information. He has in fact in inadvertently
produced a Skunk Works for discovery of a means of WMD improvisation.

Winfield Hill wrote:
Fred Bloggs wrote...

From Baghdad
A Wall Street Journal Reporter's E-Mail to Friends

Farnaz Fassihi, a Wall Street Journal reporter sent this report
as an e-mail to friends.


A truly dismal picture.


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.


Another shocking discouraging thing we are not told about.


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.


And his analysis of the elections we so anxiously await,


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.


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?"
 
Fred Bloggs wrote:

A little known factoid emerging from the 960-page Duelfer report is
their estimation that the Iraq invasion has *increased* the threat of
biological/chemical weapon attack by terrorist groups. During his
investigation there, Duelfer broke up an insurgent network, Al Abud,
formed to manufacture ricin, mustard, and nerve agent weapons, and
discovered quite a bit of evidence confirming that Al Qaeda in Iraq is
going for broke to acquire something to be used against US occupation
forces. Once again Bush has deceived the public with his selective
emphasis and distorted information. He has in fact in inadvertently
produced a Skunk Works for discovery of a means of WMD improvisation.
Which is why the US is keen on keeping the only two official women in prison,
who both have expertise in biochem weapons.

It is why AQ wants them released, and why the hostages are being beheaded.

It's going to interesting to see how the US elections are celebrated by AQ.

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
 
I heard Ralph Nader tonight on PBS. He said we should announce that we are
leaving in 6 months, and that we are not taking anything. We will stick around
and have elections, and try to get peacekeepers from the middle east to ease
the transition. We will open the contracts to rebuilding hire local contractors
and put Iraq to work. He thinks that will deflate the insurgency because we
would be announcing that we are not occupiers, just peacekeepers and that we
are not after anything.

I think I got the gist of it. I think it makes more sense than the plans from
the major parties. What do you think?
 
Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
Which reminds me of another point seldom mentioned.
When Saddam was in charge (according to the report) he maintained the
'intellectual resources' to restart his biochem programs.

Now he's gone, they are free to sell their services to the highest
bidder, or just to AQ for revenge.

IMHO the world was safer with Saddams scientists and engineers bottled
up and under firm control in Iraq.
Look in the NYT Op-Ed archive. About 2 weeks ago, there was an article
by the former head of Iraq's nuclear program in the 80s and early 90s.
He was describing exactly what you are afraid of, and was pleading that
we immediately grab about 100 scientists and place them with US
universities before they start building bombs for al-Qaida.

--
Regards,
Robert Monsen

"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.
 
Rolavine wrote:
I heard Ralph Nader tonight on PBS. He said we should announce that we are
leaving in 6 months, and that we are not taking anything. We will stick around
and have elections, and try to get peacekeepers from the middle east to ease
the transition. We will open the contracts to rebuilding hire local contractors
and put Iraq to work. He thinks that will deflate the insurgency because we
would be announcing that we are not occupiers, just peacekeepers and that we
are not after anything.

I think I got the gist of it. I think it makes more sense than the plans from
the major parties. What do you think?
That about sums up what the pundits are starting to think either major
party candidate will actually do, but are afraid to talk about before
the election. (Mark Shields from the left, and Robert Novak from the
right both have said this)

--
Regards,
Robert Monsen

"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.
 
Tom Seim wrote:
Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<41693A8A.2060009@nospam.com>...

From Baghdad
A Wall Street Journal Reporter's E-Mail to Friends

by Farnaz Fassihi


I thought you said the WSJ should stick to business news?

Here is an actual article by Fassihi:
What's your problem, retard? This is an article about the Iraqi tourist
business- and not a summary of "the situation". I know one thing for
sure, and that is you are NOT very intelligent to think you can
substitute an unrelated story for an argument. Note that your
cut-and-paste /is/ about business.
 
Fred Bloggs wrote:

Tom Seim wrote:

Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<41693A8A.2060009@nospam.com>...

From Baghdad
A Wall Street Journal Reporter's E-Mail to Friends

by Farnaz Fassihi



I thought you said the WSJ should stick to business news?

Here is an actual article by Fassihi:


What's your problem, retard? This is an article about the Iraqi tourist
business- and not a summary of "the situation". I know one thing for
sure, and that is you are NOT very intelligent to think you can
substitute an unrelated story for an argument. Note that your
cut-and-paste /is/ about business.

There was an item on the BBC about the Iraqi tourism minister (!) asking people
not to come to Iraq for holidays!

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
 
Robert Monsen wrote:

Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:

Which reminds me of another point seldom mentioned.
When Saddam was in charge (according to the report) he maintained the
'intellectual resources' to restart his biochem programs.

Now he's gone, they are free to sell their services to the highest
bidder, or just to AQ for revenge.

IMHO the world was safer with Saddams scientists and engineers bottled
up and under firm control in Iraq.


Look in the NYT Op-Ed archive. About 2 weeks ago, there was an article
by the former head of Iraq's nuclear program in the 80s and early 90s.
He was describing exactly what you are afraid of, and was pleading that
we immediately grab about 100 scientists and place them with US
universities before they start building bombs for al-Qaida.
That is the most sensible (and cost effective) solution to the problem I can
imagine.

I bet it's not even been considered by the Bush clique.

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
 
Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
Fred Bloggs wrote:



Tom Seim wrote:

Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<41693A8A.2060009@nospam.com>...

From Baghdad
A Wall Street Journal Reporter's E-Mail to Friends

by Farnaz Fassihi




I thought you said the WSJ should stick to business news?

Here is an actual article by Fassihi:



What's your problem, retard? This is an article about the Iraqi
tourist business- and not a summary of "the situation". I know one
thing for sure, and that is you are NOT very intelligent to think you
can substitute an unrelated story for an argument. Note that your
cut-and-paste /is/ about business.

There was an item on the BBC about the Iraqi tourism minister (!) asking
people not to come to Iraq for holidays!
Un believable! I have a suspicion that those so-called 'tourists' are
really Iraqis jumping ship while they can.

>
 
Shexmus wrote...
I can't believe Ralph Nader is advocating the third
great betrayal of the Kurds by the USA in three decades.
You don't think they can handle themselves?


--
Thanks,
- Win

(email: use hill_at_rowland-dotties-org for now)
 
On Monday 11 October 2004 09:35 am, bogax did deign to grace us with the
following:

rolavine@aol.com (Rolavine) wrote in message
news:<20041011002912.16600.00001724@mb-m16.aol.com>...
I heard Ralph Nader tonight on PBS. He said we should announce that we
are leaving in 6 months, and that we are not taking anything. We will
stick around and have elections, and try to get peacekeepers from the
middle east to ease the transition. We will open the contracts to
rebuilding hire local contractors and put Iraq to work. He thinks that
will deflate the insurgency because we would be announcing that we are
not occupiers, just peacekeepers and that we are not after anything.

I think I got the gist of it. I think it makes more sense than the plans
from the major parties. What do you think?

If it's the same interview i saw (on "NOW") he said the first thing he'd
do is get rid of Battelle and Halliburton.

You might have a look at this bit of the unvarnished truth, if you haven't
already, to get an idea of why and why we should announce we're not taking
anything:

("Baghdad, Year Zero")

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0924-13.htm

To summarize, Bush stole Iraq from Saddam and now the fences are having
trouble moving the stuff.

The neocons are trying to do to Iraq what they'd like to do here (the US)
It's a practice run, like when the preneocons in Germany did Poland and
France and tried to do England. We fought against them that time.

But that time, somebody _asked_ us to go and fight, and we _still_ wanted
to stay neutral until an American base was bombed. And even _that_ was
just a colony.

This time, the preneocons have transformed into the neocons, who have
figured out from that defeat of their progenitors that the US would make an
excellent base from which to dominate the world. They know better than to
goose-step and wear swastikas, so far. And the sheeple are handing them the
whole country on a silver platter.

Thanks,
Rich
 
Shexmus wrote:

rolavine@aol.com (Rolavine) wrote in message news:<20041011002912.16600.00001724@mb-m16.aol.com>...

I heard Ralph Nader tonight on PBS. He said we should announce that we are
leaving in 6 months, and that we are not taking anything. We will stick around
and have elections, and try to get peacekeepers from the middle east to ease
the transition. We will open the contracts to rebuilding hire local contractors
and put Iraq to work. He thinks that will deflate the insurgency because we
would be announcing that we are not occupiers, just peacekeepers and that we
are not after anything.

I think I got the gist of it. I think it makes more sense than the plans from
the major parties. What do you think?


Will these "peacekeepers" from the middle East (Read: Turkey and the
Arab world) also keep peace in the already peaceful, secular,
self-governing and free Kurdistan?

I can't believe Ralph Nader is advocating the third great betrayal of
the Kurds by the USA in three decades.
He's just trying to get in first before Bush or Kerry screws them again.

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
 
Winfield Hill wrote:
Shexmus wrote...

I can't believe Ralph Nader is advocating the third
great betrayal of the Kurds by the USA in three decades.


You don't think they can handle themselves?
No- Turkey is a NATO member- their military is modernized, and they will
not tolerate an independent Kurd republic.
 
On Monday 11 October 2004 12:22 pm, Product developer did deign to grace us
with the following:

There is a reason why Nader can't get over 1% of the vote. He should
stick to consumer advocacy. Anyone with any common sense knows you
cant give your enemy a withdrawl date. The enemy pulls back leaving
only enough behind to be a nuisance and regroups and re-arms to come
back after the withdrawl.
Back to where? Their own homes? That's what's _supposed_ to happen, idiot!

My 11 year old playing Army with his friends
would know better!
And he's apparently smarter than you.

Cheers!
Rich
 
On Monday 11 October 2004 11:16 am, Dirk Bruere at Neopax did deign to grace
us with the following:

normanstrong wrote:

"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message
news:2svc1eF1pve8vU6@uni-berlin.de...

Look in the NYT Op-Ed archive. About 2 weeks ago, there was an

article

by the former head of Iraq's nuclear program in the 80s and early

90s.

He was describing exactly what you are afraid of, and was pleading

that

we immediately grab about 100 scientists and place them with US
universities before they start building bombs for al-Qaida.

That is the most sensible (and cost effective) solution to the

problem I can

imagine.

I bet it's not even been considered by the Bush clique.


Are you suggesting that scientists who are willing to build bombs for
al-Qaida while in Iraq would not be so willing here in the US? I'd
have to think that one over very carefully.

I'd say that people with something to lose think twice about doing
criminal stuff. Giving them a home, security for their families and a good
job is the best insurance against such happening.

And blowing up their homes, jobs, and families is a prescription for
maximizing "terrorism."

Thanks,
Rich
 
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 11:05:37 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:


We are NOT peacekeepers, we ARE occupiers, and the purpose of the
invasion WAS to secure the huge Iraqi oil reserves and to establish a
military base of operations in the Middle East.

This is interesting:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=6390


John
 
John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 11:05:37 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
wrote:



We are NOT peacekeepers, we ARE occupiers, and the purpose of the
invasion WAS to secure the huge Iraqi oil reserves and to establish a
military base of operations in the Middle East.



This is interesting:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=6390


John
Funny the way each and every one of those quotes has no context and no
citation. That so-called article looks a piece for the gullible who are
too stupid to feel insulted. But I guess you're used to being talked
down to by now.
 
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 01:10:23 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:


Apparently reading comprehension is not one of your stronger abilities.
Yeah, my English SAT score was only 720. I always was better at math.

John
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top