September 17, 2003
Heavy Medals

Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark., Rob Simmons, R-Conn., and Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, today introduced legislation to award veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan specific campaign medals for those wars.

“As a Vietnam veteran and former Marine, I know the incredible pride and sense of accomplishment our military personnel feel about how well they have done in our most recent wars,” said Snyder in a statement. “Whatever one thinks about the Iraq war, our people in uniform did what their country asked of them and they did it very well. Congress should recognize their accomplishments, and I am very pleased that Mr. Simmons and Mr. Reyes have joined me in introducing this legislation recognizing the accomplishments of our men and women in uniform.”

“The embattled soldiers of the 507th Maintenance Company fought in Iraq to rid the world of Saddam Hussein and search out his weapons of mass destruction,” said Reyes. “Their ambush and imprisonment — and the experiences of all those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan — should be adequately recognized. In past wars, millions of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines have received combat medals that have held intense meaning for them. Soldiers who fought and are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan deserve a medal of equal significance.”

Good for these congressmen. There legislation is in response to the Pentagon’s decision to award a single Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) medal to military veterans. Now let’s do something about military pay…

September 11, 2003
In Memoriam

ribbon_large.jpg

Sept. 11, 2001

September 10, 2003
Update to Flag Flap

A knowledgeable friend who was in Kirkuk a few weeks ago wrote in to tell me that the Kurds — and other political parties such as the Turkoman Front — had been flying their flags since at least the beginning of August. Three days ago, when the Coalition Provisional Authority instructed the flags be taken down, Kurds pelted U.S. soldiers with stones. The CPA soon reversed itself, the reason for the previous entry.

As my friend wrote: “When I was there [in early August], the city was FILLED with Kurdish flags. It is truly unbelievable, and quite beautiful. Every single building had a Kurdistan flag flying. Many walls had Kurdish flags painted on them. Even the lightposts had Kurdish flags painted on them.”

The flagrant flag flying was news to me. I had heard from friends in the area that the Iraqi flag (minus Saddam’s post-1991 Arabic additions) had been flying since the early summer or so. In fact, when I was there in April on the day of Kirkuk’s liberation, there were many old-style Iraqi flags being waved about — in addition to the political parties’ flags. When did the Kurds and others begin putting up their own flags? I don’t know.

Anyway, the decision to let the Kurds wave their banner high in Kirkuk seems to be a reverting to the status quo, although one that I still think is decidedly shaky. Regardless of the validity of the Kurds’ claims on Kirkuk (and I think they’re pretty damn valid), flaunting the Kurdish nature of the city in the face of Turkey and its Turkoman brethren is asking for trouble.

Anyway, this flag lag reveals a source of major frustration for me. My sources communicate too slowly to allow for timeliness. Trying to parse Kurdish and Arabic English-language media over the net is a bit of a fool’s game. In short, there’s no good way to cover Iraq from New York, and I have no way to get to Iraq any time soon.

September 09, 2003
Kurds, CPA asking for trouble in Kirkuk

Hoo boy. The Kurds in Kirkuk, a flash-point for Turks, Turkoman, Arabs and Kurds alike, have received permission from the CPA to fly the Kurdish flag in the city.

The coalition forces announced that Kurds are free to fly the Kurdistan flag in Kirkuk, wherever they want and no one has the right to remove the Kurdistan flag or object this Kurdish right.

The Kurds have told the coalition forces that the Iraqi flag does not represent Kurds and Kurdistan and it has caused many atrocities to Kurds.

Is the CPA nuts? When the Kurds liberated Kirkuk, the Kurdish police who immediately set up shop in the city wore the old Iraqi police uniforms so they wouldn’t give Turkey the wrong idea that the Kurds were about to bolt from Iraq and form an independent country. This was a wise move.

But this flag flying could be trouble. It’s an expression of Kurdish nationalism and seems to indicate a frustration with the slow pace of the federalization plan the Kurds came up with last year.

A friend of mine thinks the Kurds should have their own country, the Arabs should get the rest of Iraq and, for good measure, Turkey should be dismantled (!) and the southeast ceded to the newly independent Kurdistan. While I think the Kurds certainly deserve their own state — God knows they’ve suffered through the decades — it’s unclear whether they can they have it? I’d guess probably not. A Kurdish state would be too destabilizing to the region. Turkey is absolutely opposed to an independent Kurdistan, and worries that if Kurds controlled the oil revenue of the Kirkuk fields, they would have the means to make an independent state viable. Thus, a declaration of independence — possibly brought on by nationalism stoked by such symbolism as the flying the Kurdish flag over Kirkuk — could result in a massive and immediate invasion from both Turkey and Iran in order to keep order, and to secure the Kirkuk and Mosul oil fields.

How many Kurds would die for such a future? How many Turks? No doubt, many on both sides are willing to die for either Kurdistan or Turkey, but the Kurds should ask themselves whether an independent state would be worth death and destruction.

THe flag over Kirkuk could enrage the Turkoman, who claim Kirkuk as their city in the same way that Kurds say it is theirs. The will likely say they need protection, prompting Turkey to growl about the need for intervention. (The Turks are using the presence of the Turkoman in Kirkuk as an excuse to maintain their leverage with the Americans on the Kurdish issue.) Support the Kurds too much in their independence dream, the Turks are saying, and we’ll use the plight of the Turkoman as a pretext to invade. Does the United States want to be caught in between the Turks and the Kurds? A NATO ally and a coalition member? When America is trying to convince Turkey to supply up to 10,000 troops to help pacify Baghdad? Is this some kind of brinkmanship the U.S. is playing with Turkey? Could the U.S. be using the Kurds to provoke the Turks, only to promise to reign them in if the Turks finally offer troops, betting Ankara won’t really invade? If so, it’s a dangerous bluff.

The status of Kirkuk is, to put it mildly, delicate. Letting the Kurds fly their flag, while seemingly a small gesture, could have large consequences.

Posted by Christopher at 04:42 PM | Forums | Comments (11) | Trackback (2)
Categories: Iraq
September 07, 2003
Yet more on Paul Moran

I may very well regret this, but in the interest of fairness and/or throwing gasoline on a dying fire, I’m reprinting Sheldon Rampton’s email to me — with his full permission — in which he responds to Eric Campbell, the Australian Broadcasting Corp. reporter who defended Paul Moran’s work in Iraqi Kurdistan. (And whose criticism led me to apologize.) Rampton is the co-author of “Weapons of Mass Deception,” which was the original prod to this whole Paul Moran imbroglio.

1585422762.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpgAs the co-author with John Stauber of “Weapons of Mass Deception,” I read with interest your recent apology about Paul Moran, the Australian TV cameraman who was killed in Iraq and who also worked for the Rendon Group. However, I think you have apologized excessively and prematurely.

In “Weapons of Mass Deception,” John and I describe Moran’s work for Rendon very briefly, but there is more to the story than we tell there. We decided not go go into further detail, partly because a more extensive telling didn’t seem to fit within the flow of that chapter. However, the facts in total are actually MORE disturbing than you would imagine from the brief mention that appears in our book. Moreover, I would challenge some of the statements that Eric Campbell made in his comments to you.

To begin with, Campbell refers to an “unending repetition of false claims” about Moran. However, Colin James, the reporter who first wrote about Moran’s relationship with the Rendon Group, continues to stand by his story. James works for the “Adelaide Advertiser,” and he learned about Moran’s work for Rendon when he attended his funeral. According to “The Bulletin,” an Australian news magazine, James sat down with “two close friends and two of Moran’s brothers” the day after the funeral:

They drank coffee and reminisced about their friend the altar boy, the sea scout, the livewire. The journalist was inquiring of the cameraman’s work in northern Iraq when one of the friends mentioned that Moran worked for a “shadowy” company. Shadowy company, wondered the journalist. Whatever could you mean?

The friend mentioned a name: the Rendon Group. He talked of Moran’s involvement in helping an Iraqi defector escape and Moran’s work with the INC. Moran, he said, had helped mobilise a popular uprising against Saddam Hussein’s regime and trained dissidents in the use of hidden cameras. There were the renowned “Paul Moran channels” – he seemed able to contact important people with little bother – and the “James Bond lifestyle”. In short, Moran had spent a decade, on and off, trying to destabilise Saddam Hussein’s regime for a company hired by both the CIA and Pentagon.

Perhaps Moran’s death wasn’t so random, after all. Perhaps this nice guy had a secret. Well, that’s how the journalist reported it, anyway. Colin James, an Adelaide Advertiser reporter with a 1994 Walkley Award, stands by his story. No one demurred while one friend spun tales about Moran, he says. James’ main fear during the interview was that his eyes might turn into saucers. He rushed back to the office and punched “Rendon Group” into an internet search engine. And his eyes grew wider.

The URL for the above story is as follows: http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/EdDesk.nsf/0/
B1B47ED7DABBEDBCCA256D480013C030?OpenDocument

It should be noted that Colin James did not intend his story to be any sort of attack or criticism of Moran’s work. To the contrary, it was headlined “Moran’s secret crusade against the tyranny of Saddam,” and it is full of laudatory comments about Moran by his grieving friends. You can read James’ story at the following URL:

http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/printpage/ 0,5942,6239116,00.html

Clearly, James’ account differs from Eric Campbell’s claim that Moran merely “did occasional audio visual production work [for] Rendon and other PR companies.” Moreover, James’ account is corroborated and amplified in a TV segment for the Australian news program Dateline. You can read a transcript of the program and view the video at the following URL:

http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/
trans.php3?dte=2003-07-23&title= Paul+Moran+Story

The Dateline program interviewed Zaab Sethna, a longtime spokesman for the Iraqi National Congress. According to Sethna, he and Moran began working together more than a decade ago, prior to Operation Desert Storm:

When I first met Paul we were working for the government of Kuwait. That ended after Kuwait was liberated by the Americans and then the Rendon group came back us to.

We weren’t employees we were on contract. The Rendon group came back to us and said, “We now have a contract to bureaucracy, to kind of do anti-Saddam propaganda on behalf of the Iraqi opposition.”

So, there was some radio, some television, there was like a travelling human rights exhibition around the world to show Saddam’s human rights violations. There was sending out press releases, kind of standard public relations. What we did’nt know, what the Rendon group didn’t tell us, was in fact it was the CIA that had hired them to do this work so we hired on…

Moreover, Moran’s relationship with the INC and the Rendon Group led to one of the high-profile international news stories that purported to document a covert Iraqi program to develop weapons of mass destruction. As Sethna explains in the Dateline piece, Moran was chosen by the INC as one of only two reporters (the other was Judith Miller of the New York Times) invited to interview Adnan Ihsan Saeed al Haideri, an Iraqi defector who claimed that he had been used by Saddam to build specialised bunkers and other facilities for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons research. After Miller and Moran did their separate stories on al Haideri, he disappeared into a U.S. witness protection program. You can see some of the stories about Iraq that were based on al Haideri’s allegations at the following URLs:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/18/eveningnews/ main324937.shtml

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/01122107.htm

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/ 0,11581,669024,00.html

As this example illustrates, it is inaccurate for Campbell to characterize Paul Moran as merely a cameraman. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation also treated him as a reporter and allowed him to break a story that was of major importance in making the case for war with Iraq. To have this story reported by someone who has worked closely with both the Rendon Group and the Iraqi National Congress is a clear case of conflict of interest. Eric Campbell is merely blowing smoke when he tries to use the distinction between a “contract worker” and an “employee” as his basis for claiming that no such conflict existed. It is also striking that no one has been able to substantiate al Haideri’s detailed descriptions (including locations) of an extensive weapons program that included underground storage facilities. As Scott Ritter has pointed out, it would have been impossible for Saddam Hussein to destroy such facilities quickly without leaving a trace in the days preceding the war. There is a good chance that al Haideri’s claims about weapons facilities were the basis for Donald Rumsfeld’s claim on March 30 that “We know where they are.” But if we knew where they are, why haven’t we found them by now?

I think that it is also rather disingenous for Campbell to complain that it is now “too late to repair the damage” of allegedly “false claims” about Moran that have circulated on the Internet. Following the publication of Colin James’s story in the Adelaide Advertiser, Moran’s family and friends were asked repeatedly to clarify the facts about his life and work, and they repeatedly declined to do so, usually citing their grief as the reason for remaining silent. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has also been very “economical with the truth” in its comments on the matter. For example, here is the URL to a transcript from ABC’s “Media Watch,” which comments on the Adelaide Advertiser:

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s832032.htm

The ABC response consists of calling Colin James’s story “a superficial piece” and then declining to comment further on grounds that it wasn’t “a story most of the Australian media followed” — a classic “non-denial denial” that fails to identify a single error of fact in James’s story while insinuating that something was wrong with it. And how can Moran’s people have it both ways? If the Colin James story wasn’t followed by most of the media, how can it have caused the intense grief and suffering of which they complain? And if they can’t be bothered to publicly correct any errors in the story, why should we take them at face value now when they complain that errors have gone uncorrected? And what errors specifically are they talking about? The only error that Campbell mentions in his complaint to you is that Moran worked on contract for Rendon rather than being an “employee.” That’s arguably an error on your part (not ours), but it’s a pretty nit-picky complaint, given the extent of Moran’s relationship with the Rendon Group.

As for the complaint that Moran is being villainized, John and I never characterized him as a villain, and neither did you. I think Campbell brought up that claim for the purpose of emotional intimidation. I have no doubt that Campbell liked Paul Moran and resents reading criticism of his work. I also have no reason to doubt that Moran believed in the cause of the Kurds, and he probably also believed in the work he did for the INC. People who work on public relations campaigns often internalize the beliefs of their clients. “Sincerity of belief,” however, is not a valid defense against the specific charge of conflict of interest, and by any reasonable interpretation, Moran crossed that line. To say that this is the case does not mean that Moran was a villain, and it is not intended to convey any disrespect for the dead. Out of respect for the LIVING, however, I think the public is entitled to know the full story of how we were sold the war on Iraq.

Sheldon Rampton
Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
Author of books including:
Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
Mad Cow USA
Trust Us, We’re Experts
Weapons of Mass Deception

There is obviously more to this story than a first — or second or third — glance shows. I’ll be working on this one over the next few days.

September 04, 2003
Story in CJR on weblogs, credibility and Jayson Blair

Just a quick pointer. The Columbia Journalism Review devoted its latest issue to alternative media. The chairman of NYU’s journalism department and, full disclosure, now my boss, offered Emerging Alternatives: Terms of Authority to try to make some sense of what’s happening in the world of journalism today. Back-to-Iraq.com is a central part of his article, but it’s more interesting because of his exploration of the interaction between the public and the reporter. It’s a good — if lengthy — read.

September 03, 2003
Mea culpa on Paul Moran

I’d like to apologize about the Paul Moran piece below. I don’t know that Paul Moran was working for Rendon Group at the time of his tragic death and I should not have said or insinuated that he did. I stepped over the line from valid criticism of government and private firms to smearing a man who can’t defend himself, and that was wrong.

A commenter, calling himself Eric Campbell, who was the reporter with Moran at the time of his death, wrote in and said this:

I am the ABC reporter who was working with Paul Moran when he was killed. The immense grief his family is suffering has been compounded by the unending repetition of false claims about him on the internet.

It is probably too late to repair the damage, but in the interests of decency, people should recognise the following:

Paul’s assignment for the ABC in northern Iraq Iraq was as my cameraman. He was not the reporter. It is absurd and wrong to say there was a conflict of interest.

Paul was not working for the Rendon Group at the same time. He was never any employee of the Rendon Group. Like many freelance journalists, he did occasional audio visual production work Rendon and other PR companies.

His work was never propaganda. It was corporate videos, news webs-sites, and in the case of his original work in Kurdistan, production and training work to help the Kurds set up a TV station.

He rightly felt sympathy for the plight of Kurdish civilians after seeing the suffering they had been through under Saddam Hussein. He felt the media should do more to report this, as well as many other issues he felt strongly about such as the plight of refugees and asylum seekers. There is no contradiction between that and his work as a cameraman or reporter for such broadcasters as the BBC and ABC.

He obtained the interview with an Iraqi defector through a contact at the INC he had worked with in Kurdistan. That is not sinister. It is how journalists get stories.

Paul never made any secret about his freelance production work. He simply did it to pay the bills betwen broadcast assignments, like any other freelancer.

He was a man of great integrity who was widely loved. The fact that John Rendon came to his funeral in Adelaide, along with dozens of others from around the world who had worked with him, is simply a reflection of that.

Go ahead and criticise the INC, the CIA, the Pentagon, whoever. But do not make Paul the villain, because he wasn’t.

He took on a risky assignment to work for the ABC during the war Kurdistan because he believed the Kurds were an important part of the story. He was disdainful of journalists who just got news from press briefings, believing they should always go to where the story was. He paid for this with his life.

Eric Campbell
Reporter
ABC TV

The IP number that showed up with the comment traceroutes back to a machine in Australia, so I’m going to accept that Campbell is the author of this note.

I’d like to extend my apologies to Moran’s family and to his friends. But most of all, to my readers. It was shoddy journalism.

However, I should have made it more clear that I did not consider Paul a “villain” in this. I felt that the most stinging criticism was rightfully aimed at Rendon and the Pentagon. I still consider it questionable for a journalistic enterprise such as ABC to hire someone with ties to a PR firm so closely tied to the Washington power structure, but that should not be read as a criticism of Moran. As Campbell pointed out, he took jobs to pay bills — something every freelancer has to do. Including myself. (Never for a PR firm, but for magazines that don’t contribute to my foreign policy aspirations.)

My sincerest apologies to Moran’s friends and family.

August 29, 2003
Marriage Vows in Iraq

OK. With all the bloodshed going on today in Iraq, I needed to take a break and point out this story about two GIs who met and married two Iraqi women. The newlyweds met while the women were acting as interpreters for the occupation forces.

I’m sure there are legitimate concerns about combat troops marrying while in theater and all that, but damn… Just for a moment, let’s enjoy a little good news.

I really, really wish the couples well and all the best of luck. Lord knows they’ll need it.

Posted by Christopher at 07:00 PM | Forums | Comments (20) | Trackback (1)
Categories: Iraq
Assassination in Najaf

Unfortunately on deadline today and unable to give a full accounting or analysis on a news-heavy day. Daily Kos has an item on the attack.

Initial response based on NPR: This is very, very bad (obviously). Twenty 75 More than 90 people dead and at least 140 wounded. The most holy shrine to Shi’a Islam is damaged [UPDATE but not too badly, apparently.] Ayatollah Mohammad Baqir al-Hakim, a key Shi’a cleric and head of the SCIRI, is dead. Shi’ites in Najaf seem to be blaming remnants of Saddam’s security forces for the attack. (Which seems plausible.)

Hakim’s death could shatter the Iraqi Governing Council, on which Hakim’s brother, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, sits. It could set off a power struggle among the Shi’ites with the moderates — now possibly led by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim (who isn’t even that moderate, frankly) — and the hard-liners, led by firebrand 22-year-old Moqtada Sadr.

If it turns out that Sunnis were behind this, expect riots and clashes in Baghdad.

Iran will be watching this very closely as well. Hakim was their guy in Iraq and it’s unclear now what will happen.

Tin-foil hat theory of my own: Al Qa’ida operatives, who are Sunni, did this in a bid to spark a civil war, which would embroil U.S. troops and tie them down when they might be needed in South Korea, Indonesia, Afghanistan, etc. The attack also aims to show the Arab world that American troops aren’t up to providing security and can be put on the defensive. This will embolden jihadis and give other nations yet another reason to withhold additional troops. All this means America will likely remain pretty much on its own in Iraq and her ability to respond to threats around the world will be negatively impacted. Instead of flypaper for terrorists, Iraq is a tarbaby for America.

This could be the equivalent of the assassination of the Archuduke Franz Ferdinand that sparked World War I — although on national scale, rather than a global one. The probability of civil war — with American troops caught in the middle — just spiked.

August 27, 2003
Talk about efficiency…

OK. In the “Now That’s Efficient!” category, this article from Army Times points out that the Pentagon “has no plans for campaign-specific medals for the most recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the nation’s most protracted conflicts since Korea and Vietnam.”

Military duty in Antarctica, Kosovo and the 1991 Gulf War was deemed medal-worthy. [Antarctica? — Ed.] But instead of specific theater ribbons, which is a military tradition going back over a century, Afghanistan and Iraq — and presumably future conflicts — will instead be folded into the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal and Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal. The GWOT is expected to go on for many years, according to President Bush, meaning this may be the last combat medal some of America’s armed forces may receive.

In addition, veterans of these 21st-century wars may receive each medal only once. In theory — and in current practice — troops could spend years fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Philippines and elsewhere and end up with a single medal that doesn’t reflect their specific duty history or even the fact that they deployed multiple times in the global war on terrorism.

The Pentagon isn’t saying much about its rationale for the decision. Defense officials feel “these two medals will provide appropriate recognition for our service members participating in the Global War on Terrorism, whether that be in Afghanistan, Iraq or elsewhere,” said Air Force Maj. Sandra Burr, a Pentagon spokeswoman.

Indeed. Look, I didn’t serve, but my father, grandfather, great-grandfather, brother and best friend did, and I think a single GWOT medal is a pretty piss-poor recognition of service to one’s country. Why would they do such a thing? Some twisted sense of efficiency?

In a word, politics.

By not awarding a specific medal for Iraq, the Bush White House gets to fold that war into the GWOT and point to it as a central campaign instead of the diversion it is. If they get away with this, any conflict in the future will be part of the GWOT and, thus, justified.

This is part and parcel for a White House and political party that, let’s face it, talks up the troops on one hand and tries to cut danger pay on the other. That lauds first responders such as firefighters and cops, but leaves them underfunded. Everything is politics to these guys, and it’s shameful.

The men and women who fought and died in Iraq and Afghanistan deserve better. Everyone reading this knows I oppose(d) the Iraq war, but why is it that a lefty peacenik like myself seems to get more pissed off about the treatment of the troops than groups like the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, both of whom gave warm welcomes to President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney recently?

Instead of getting the recognition they deserve for fighting the biggest wars since Vietnam (which has the Vietnam Service Medal as well as several recognized campaigns,) American troops — and aircraft carriers — are props for the current White House. They deserve better.

When is a reporter not a reporter?

I just started reading Weapons of Mass Deception, by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, of the Center for Media & Democracy. For those who don’t know who these guys are, they’re two of the few watchdogs of the PR industry, and their latest book looks at the PR campaign to sell the Iraq war to the American people and the world. Through meticulous documentation and witty verbiage, Stauber and Rampton — unlike Ann Coulter — document instance after instance in which the drive to oust Saddam Hussein was packaged, marketed and sold. With no return policy.

I’m still early into the book, but in the second chapter, I came across a startling revelation.

moran_boat2.jpgWho remembers Paul Moran, a television cameraman on assignment for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in northern Iraq? He was killed March 22, 2003 by a suicide car bomb at a PUK checkpoint by an alleged member of Ansar al-Islam.

It seems there may have been more to Moran than meets the eye. In addition to his work as a cameraman, he was also “a self-described crusader for the Kurdish people in northern Iraq.” He helped an Iraqi scientist and his family defect. And most important, as the obituary in his hometown paper, the Adelaide Advertiser, notes, he was also involved in work for the Rendon Group, an American public relations firm.

Who is the Rendon Group? Stauber and Rampton reveal that in October 2001, the Pentagon awarded the Rendon Group a $397,000 contract “to handle PR aspects of the U.S. military strike in Afghanistan.” They further write that in February 2002, the New York Times reported that the Pentagon was using the Rendon Group to help it with the Office of Strategic Influence (OSI). You remember that office, don’t you? It was the the office the DoD hastily — and noisily — disbanded after the Times reported that it would provide foreign reporters with “news items, possibly even false ones.” The Office was met with outrage by journalistic organizations around the world.

Why the outrage? Because it would have endangered journalists by tainting them with Pentagon disinformation; it would have undermined the fledgling media in other countries; because it was almost a foregone conclusion that the American media would have picked up a false story intended for the foreign press; and because it’s just damn undemocratic.

Rendon’s contract wasn’t cancelled, however, the authors say. “Let me just say that we have a confidentiality/nondisclosure agreement in place” with the DoD, said company spokeswoman Jeanne Sklarz.

Getting back to Moran, the Advertiser points out that “Company founder John Rendon flew from the US to attend Mr Moran’s funeral in Adelaide.”

“A close friend, Rob Buchan, said the presence of Mr Rendon — an adviser to the US National Security Council — illustrated the regard in which Mr. Moran was held in U.S. political circles, including the Congress.”

Oh, and another, minor, point that Stauber and Rampton point out: In 1992, the Rendon Group helped organize the Iraqi National Congress. The PR firm, in fact, came up with the name and channeled $12 million in CIA funds to the group between 1992 and 1996. In October 1992, John Rendon chose one of his protégés, Ahmed Chalabi, to head the group.

Just to be clear: Paul Moran, a “journalist” who was killed in northern Iraq was working for the same people who helped found the INC and an office of disinformation that was “disbanded” but apparently kept contracts going long enough to hire Moran and get him into northern Iraq — more than a year after the Office was officially shuttered.

My point is not to disparage Moran or to somehow insinuate he deserved to die. I’m not at all. But I have to admit that I cast a very skeptical glance at his connections to Rendon and his activism for the Kurds — so much that PUK Prime Minister Barham Salih said in a letter that a statue would be erected in Moran’s honor. I have to wonder why a serious journalistic organization such as the Australian Broadcasting Corp. would hire someone with ties to any PR firm, much less one with such tight ties to the U.S. government and the war effort. (Interestingly, the ABC story on Moran makes no mention of his involvement with Rendon.)

I have to wonder why the founder of the Rendon Group would come to a freelancer’s funeral — in the middle of a war, no less. But most of all, if Moran was working for Rendon Group at the time of his death, as John Rendon’s visit strongly suggests, does that mean the suspicions held by many in the blogosphere that the OSI was never shut down at all were right? And if that’s true, who else in the field might be working for that “disbanded” Office of Strategic Influence?

UPDATE: Hm. Found this transcript from the DoD dated Nov. 18, 2002. It was made while Rumsfeld was en route to Chile for a hemisphere defense meeting. The section that pertains to this issue reads thusly:

And then there was the office of strategic influence. You may recall that. And “oh my goodness gracious isn’t that terrible, Henny Penny the sky is going to fall.” I went down that next day and said fine, if you want to savage this thing fine I’ll give you the corpse. There’s the name. You can have the name, but I’m gonna keep doing every single thing that needs to be done and I have.

That was intended to be done by that office is being done by that office, NOT by that office in other ways.

Now, that certainly sounds like Rumsfeld just admitted that the OSI was still alive in function if not in its old office. And it means Moran was likely not acting as a journalist when he died, but in some other function. I don’t know what it was, but if he was presenting himself as a journalist while working in some other capacity, he was endangering every other journalist in Iraq. This was — and is — a central argument to making it illegal for the CIA to recruit journalists as spies. Terry Anderson, former Beirut bureau chief for the Associated Press, was held hostage in Lebanon for nearly seven years because Islamic militants falsely accused him of being a spy.

This cynical use of journalists is wrong. Journalists, when they’re doing their job, are not only agents of their readers, wriggling their way into situations like Iraq where their readers can’t or won’t go, but they’re also agents of the body politic when they demand answers of the policy makers. Truth matters. Lying to a journalist or using journalists as spies or disinformation conduits is wrong and it subverts democracy because it clogs the media outlets — the circulatory system of the body politic — with crap.

But journalists aren’t off the hook either. Moran should not have worked for Rendon and ABC at the same time. He should have chosen whether to be a Rendon employee and a Kurdish activist or a journalist. The ABC should not have hired him, frankly. At the very least, the broadcaster should have made his ties to Rendon Group public so his viewers could make up their own mind as to his credibility. Journalists should flatly refuse to accept money or work for any group that could lead sources to suspect the reporter is not what he or she seems. It’s one thing for a reporter and a CIA bureau chief to swap information — that happens all the time and it’s probably not so bad. It’s quite another to be on the CIA’s or the Pentagon’s payroll.

August 26, 2003
Security Report

Well, this is pretty bleak. Iraq Today, Baghdad’s independent, English-language newspaper, publishes a Security Bulletin that doesn’t paint an encouraging picture:

CMCC [Civil-Military Coordination Center] cites Adhamiyah, Rusafa, Thowra, al-Muthanna, Shaab, Hurriyah, Shuahla and the area around Saddam International airport as uncertain or hostile areas.

Carjacking is rife in the capital. Do not walk around the streets with bags or mobile/satellite phones.

The curfew in Baghdad begins at 11pm and ends at 4am.

Iraq’s highways are considered dangerous. Highway 10 between Baghdad and the Jordanian border is especially hazardous, particularly around the Ramadi area. Armed bandits operate this route, using fast cars to stop large convoys of vehicles. Highway 8, between Baghdad and Hillah is also considered a no go route by humanitarian organisations. Highway 1, between Baghdad and Qasim is also very dangerous.

Police are present on the streets of the capital but they are Out-gunned and outnumbered.

Jeeze. Good to know. Especially about Highway 10. I took that highway when I left Baghdad in late April, but didn’t have any problems. We ran it during the day, and there were a number of places where earthen embankments had been set up forcing the taxi to follow a tight “S” path verrrrrrry slowly — in other words, it would have been great for an ambush. Luckily, nothing happened. When J., my friend who left a week or so before me, took that route, however, he mentioned that his driver stopped to chat with a man on the side of the road wearing a black face mask and carrying an AK-47. Nice.

August 25, 2003
Tipping Point

Mark this date. Today was the day that the number of U.S. soldiers killed since May 1 equaled the number killed prior to President George W. Bush’s U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln announcement of the end of “major combat operations.”

Two soldiers, whose identities were not revealed, died of a “non-hostile gunshot wound” and by drowning in the Euphrates, near the Hadithah Dam, west of Ar Ramadi.

[UPDATE: Another soldier died when his convoy was attacked with a bomb in the town of Hamariyah, 16 miles northwest of Baghdad.]

Their deaths brings the number of soldiers who have lost their lives in Iraq since May 1 to 139. A total of 277 troops have died either in combat, friendly fire or through accidents since the war started March 20.

I don’t really have much more to add other than to express my sympathies to the soldiers’ families.

Posted by Christopher at 04:39 PM | Forums | Comments (28) | Trackback (2)
Categories: Iraq
Ethnic violence in Kirkuk

Three Turkomen were shot dead in ethnic violence in Kirkuk on Saturday, ending months of relative calm in the Kurdish region of Iraq. It’s unclear exactly what’s happening, but that seems to have been the cap on two days of violence in Kirkuk and Tuz Kharmato to the south, with at least 10 people being killed, some of them at the hands of American troops. The Associated Press reports that in addition to police shootings, artillery or mortar fire “rocked” the city on Saturday.

While a single weekend does not an internecine conflict make, the fallout has reached Ankara, where a “mob” of about 100 Turks attacked the office of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan there. KurdishMedia.com reports that about 23 Turkish police officers and a number of protesters were injured in the melee.

“Kirkuk is Turkish and it will remain Turkish,” shouted the protesters. “Damn Talabani, damn the peshmerga.” (Jalal Talabani is the Secretary-General of the PUK.)

In Kirkuk, the Turkmen representative to the interim Iraqi Governing Council called for the Kirkuk police to be disarmed.

All this is happening as the Middle East Newsline reports that Turkey will contribute 10,000 troops to patrol the Sunni Triangle extending west and north of Baghdad. They will remain under Turkish command and separate from the two international divisions rumored to be en route to Iraq.

This is most alarming. I wrote, during the war, that I felt the Turkomen were crying wolf about the threat to their security in a bid to play Turkey and the United States off one another so as to reign in the Kurds when it came time to establish a government in Kirkuk.

[Salim Otrakchi, a Turkoman spokesman] said the Turkomen were especially worried about Kirkuk because the PUK had promised it would not go into the city with its forces and it did anyway.

At this point, it’s probably a good idea just to tell you that I don’t believe what anyone is telling me at face value. The Kurds, deep in their hearts, really do want an independent Kurdistan and this talk of federalism is the practical side of Kurdish nationalism. If they thought they could get away with it, they would bolt Iraq and never look back, I think. The Turkomen don’t really feel that threatened, but they see the Kurds with their new buddies, the Americans, and worry they’ll be left out of any settlement and development plans in the north. So, they’re trying to play the Turks off the Americans to keep the Kurds in check. And the Turks … Well, actually, I believe them when they say they’re worried about their security. They’re a truly paranoid bunch.

While this may be an isolated incident, as I mentioned, I could also be wrong in my original thoughts on the subject. I watched with dismay as in the days following the capture of Baghdad and Kirkuk as the Kurds drove Arabs from land they felt had been taken from them under Saddam Hussein’s Arabization program. Revenge was being taken and the U.S. wasn’t doing enough to stop it.

Well, now the U.S. has its hands full with the Sunni Triangle and the guerrilla fighters there. Most of Iraqi Kurdistan has had but a sprinkling of American troops with most of the security being provided by Kurdish forces. Perhaps long-simmering tensions are starting to boil over after a brutally hot summer.

I hope not. But — and I apologize for again referring back to myself — as I wrote on Jan. 12, 2003:

Instead of a nice, clean occupation that results in the first Arab democracy — and a network of Army bases from which to project power throughout the region — I predict the United States will have years of guerilla insurgency from nationalistic Iraqis (some of the fiercest nationalism in the Arab world), the dirty job of suppressing Kurdish and Shi’ite independence movements and Sunni power grabs, the problem of al Qai’da slipping across the borders (with the help of Iran and sympathetic Saudis) into the country to stike at American troops and meddling in Iraq’s internal affairs by Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Russia. And don’t forget the resentment in the region that will occur when the United States begins exploiting the Iraqi oil fields for its own purposes. No one will like that, least of all the Iraqis.

So far, it appears only the last prediction hasn’t come to pass. Let’s hope this latest incident isn’t the start of something far worse.

August 20, 2003
Deadly Spectre

Most newspapers talked about the shift in tactics adopted by combatants in Iraq from individual attacks on U.S. troops to massive car bombs against “soft targets” such as the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad yesterday. I don’t have much to add right now, since I gave my analysis yesterday. But I think I know why the Jordanian embassy was targeted by a smaller car bomb Aug. 7.

It was practice.

The question that everyone should be asking now is, what’s the next target?

Mo’ better column

Has Maureen Dowd been reading this site?

Posted by Christopher at 12:04 AM | Forums | Comments (2) | Trackback (0)
Categories: Iraq
August 19, 2003
Attack kills top U.N. envoy, signals shifting strategy

un-baghdad.jpg
A car bomb exploded in front of the hotel housing the U.N. headquarters today, collapsing the front of the building. (® 2003 The Associated Press)

This is serious. Very serious. In addition to at least 19 other victims, the attack killed the U.N.’s top envoy to Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello, the former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

One hundred and thirty About 60 soldiers have died in combat or friendly fire incidents since May 1, many of them killed by an Iraqi resistance perceived by many to be anti-occupation or specifically anti-American. (A total of 130 have died since May 1.) But it could be metastasizing into an anti-Western intifada/Arab nationalist revival. It’s unlikely a small group of former Ba’athists led by Saddam loyalists are leading the resistance now, and it’s pretty obvious that killing Uday and Qusai Hussein was ineffective, seeing as the attacks have increased. Likewise, killing or capturing Saddam Hussein is probably equally ineffective — this is no longer about him.

So who is responsible for this latest attack? The list of U.N.-haters in Iraq is long, thanks to a decade of sanctions. (Of course, those sanctions were largely kept in place by the United States and Britain operating through the U.N. Security Council, but that distinction may be lost on some people.) Iraqi nationalism, one of the fiercest strains of Pan-Arabism thanks to the Iraqis’ position on the frontier of the Arab world, could be rearing its head and the bombing was aimed at Westerners in general, regardless of their intentions. If so, we should expect attacks on aid workers and journalists. And if this resurgent nationalism/Arabism spreads to the Shi’a south, the Americans will have a very, very tough time of it.

Alternately, the slaughter may have been the work of a resistance that saw the U.N. HQ as a “soft target,” one easier to attack than American positions. That points to either Iraqi guerillas, Islamists such Al Qa’ida and Ansar al-Islam or a combination of the two.

In support of this hypothesis are reports of Saudi militants and other Islamists allegedly entering Iraq to wage jihad, possibly through Syria. Baghdad may resemble Afghanistan circa 1979-80, when young Muslim men poured into the country to resist the Soviet invasion. At least the Americans won’t be selling them Stinger missiles this time.

I suspect this is the case, and the attack, which occurred at 4:40 p.m. local time, “signals a substantive strategy shift,” according to Stratfor (reg. required). Instead of directly attacking American troops, who will almost always outgun the guerillas, attacks on infrastructures such as pipelines, water mains and other soft facilities like the U.N. headquarters will force the Americans to respond and tie them down, shifting the troops into a defensive posture. This will mean a loss of initiative and a degradation of offensive capabilities.

Thus, the U.S. faces a difficult choice. Stratfor says that if the U.S. brings in reinforcements from an already over-stretched military, that will degrade its capabilities around the world, opening up new opportunities for Al Qa’ida. The terror group is effectively a liquid, filling in holes and gaps as they appear. On the other hand, if the U.S. stands its ground in Iraq and maintains its current strength, it’s stuck with the status quo, which is obviously untenable. Iraqis and Americans will die in attrition attacks and what good that might have come from the toppling of Saddam Hussein will be undone.

I’m a little tired of writing “I told you so” regarding the Bush Administration and Iraq. We in the anti-war camp have been proven horribly right, and to be honest, the gloating continuing to point this out ain’t so much fun anymore. American credibility with the world — thanks to the WMD issue — is almost non-existent. Iraq is falling apart and a country that before the war wasn’t a haven for Islamic groups such as Al Qa’ida, is now. Pointing out the myriad flaws in logic, misplaced claims, stretched truths and unexamined untruths from Washington no longer helps.

And most important, people are dying.

Shortly after I returned from the war, I urged all people of conscience on both sides of the war debate to hold the Administration’s feet to the fire and demand that the allies’ actions in Iraq match the rhetoric. But this has spiraled so far out of control that the fire, to which I urged feet to be held, looks ready to burn us all.

Posted by Christopher at 02:20 PM | Forums | Comments (47) | Trackback (8)
Categories: Iraq
August 18, 2003
Ad nauseum

OK. I‘ve added an ad stack to the right sidebar. No flash. Just text. In just a few minutes, they generated $.84. Which I find oddly impressive for some reason.

I was thinking of doing a text banner between each entry, but that would be excessive, I think.

Posted by Christopher at 09:00 PM | Forums | Comments (4) | Trackback (0)
Categories: Blog
Some thoughts on site revenue

Hello everyone. I wanted to share with you some thoughts about site revenue. While I’m not updating B2I nearly as frequently as I was, I’ve started rethinking some of my earlier ideas about what will and won’t appear here. Specifically: Advertising.

I’ve been experimenting with Google’s AdSense, and it seems an unobtrusive, relatively focused way of generating a little revenue. Basically, Google scans the site and using its technology, serves up targeted ads based on the content. There is no interaction between myself and the advertising and I get paid on a click-through basis. I don’t even know who will come up, and the advertisers sure don’t know they’re going through my site. Another alternative is BlogAds, but I’m still looking into that one. I’m not sure I like the aesthetic results.

My main objection to advertising on Back to Iraq.com was to avoid the pressure that can sometimes come. Google’s solution seems to avoid that pressure. I’ve not decided if I will do it or not, but I’m considering it. Would you, the readers, absolutely hate an ad scheme such as this?

Also, I’m an Amazon affiliate now. And while I’ve not put anything up on the site — mainly to avoid clutter — I may start doing that. I’d be pointing out interesting books on the region (and hopefully shilling my own!) and getting a small cut from any purchases made through this site. Again, would you hate that?

The reason the subject of revenue comes up is because I’m not making the cash freelancing that will get me back to Iraq any time soon. While I’m hoping for a nice book advance, I’m still waiting to hear if the book has even sold. In the meantime, building up a nest egg through small amounts may be something quite worthwhile.

Donations are still accepted, but since the mission is a little more unfocused I haven’t been aggressive in soliciting them. Another reason is that the site should be a lot more active to justify your generosity. That’s my fault, and unfortunately I’ve not had the time that I’d like this summer to devote to B2I. I don’t think it’s fair to ask of you guys if I’m not putting in as much effort is your largess deserves. Thus, the possible inclusion of more passive revenue generation from AdSense, BlogAds and Amazon affiliation.

So, please feel free to comment on any of this. I’d be interested in hearing what you all think.

Posted by Christopher at 05:55 PM | Forums | Comments (14) | Trackback (0)
Categories: Blog
August 16, 2003
Back from Blackout

14cnd-power2.slide4.jpg
The darkened New York skyline on Thursday night. (® 2003 Associated Press)

Well! That was interesting. Obviously, everybody now knows that on Thursday at about 4:11 p.m. a massive power outage hit the East Coast, sending 50 million people into the dark — including Back-to-Iraq’s server. As I remarked to my brother — when I could get a call through T-Mobile’s overloaded system — New York was now “Baghdad on the Hudson.” And in fact, the New York Times ran an amusing little story on the reaction in Baghdad, which, you may have heard, has had its own problems with the occasional blackout. The generous Iraqis even offered tips to sweaty Americans, often with tongue planted firmly in cheek. My favorite: Appoint Saddam Hussein to oversee the repair of the grid.

“Saddam had the electricity back two months after the last war,” said Maythum Hatam, a computer-science student. “With his methods, you would have electricity right away, but you must expect to lose some workers.”

My only question is how do you say schadenfreude in Arabic?

Posted by Christopher at 10:36 AM | Forums | Comments (1) | Trackback (0)
Categories: Blog