Commentary Magazine


Contentions

The Other Fallujah Reporter

“The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.” — Thomas Jefferson

I just returned home from a trip to Fallujah, where I was the only reporter embedded with the United States military. There was, however, an unembedded reporter in the city at the same time. Normally it would be useful to compare what I saw and heard while traveling and working with the Marines with what a colleague saw and heard while working solo. Unfortunately, the other Fallujah reporter was Ali al-Fadhily from Inter Press Services.

Mr. al-Fadhily is unhappy with the way things are going in the city right now. It means little to him that the only shots fired by the Marines anymore are practice rounds on the range, and that there hasn’t been a single fire fight or combat casualty for months. That’s fair enough, as far as it goes, and perhaps to be expected from a reporter who isn’t embedded with the military and who focuses his attention on Iraqi civilians. The trouble is that Mr. Al-Fadhily’s hysterical exaggerations, refusal to provide crucial context, and outright fabrications amount to a serious case of journalistic malpractice.

Some of what al-Fadhily writes is correct. The economy and infrastructure really are shattered. Unemployment is greater than 50 percent, as he says. It’s true that most Iraqis – in Fallujah as well as everywhere else – don’t have access to safe drinking water. But he proves himself unreliable, to put it mildly, after only one sentence: “The city that was routed in November 2004 is still suffering the worst humanitarian conditions under a siege that continues.”

There is no “siege” in Fallujah. He is referring here to the hard perimeter around the city manned by Iraqi Police who prevent non-residents from bringing their cars in. It’s an extreme measure, no doubt about it. But it keeps the car bombers and weapon smugglers out. Iraqis who live in Fallujah are free to come and go as they please. The non-resident vehicle ban is a defensive measure, like a national border or castle moat. Its purpose is to prevent a siege from the outside.

My colleague (of sorts) at least acknowledges that “military actions are down to the minimum inside the city.” He adds, however, that “local and U.S. authorities do not seem to be thinking of ending the agonies of the over 400,000 residents of Fallujah.”

This is nonsense on stilts. Marines distribute food aid to impoverished local civilians. The electrical grid is being repaired now that insurgents no longer sabotage it. Solar-powered street lights have been installed on some of the main thoroughfares and will cover the entire city in two years if the war doesn’t come back. Locals are hired to pick up trash that went uncollected for months. A new sewage and water treatment plant is under construction in the poorest part of the city. Low-interest microloans are being distributed to small business owners to kick start the economy. American civilians donate school supplies to Iraqi children that are distributed by the Marines. Mr. al-Fadhily would know all this if he embedded with the U.S. military. Whether or not he would take the trouble to report these facts if he knew of them is another question.

He claims seventy percent of the city was destroyed during Operation Phantom Fury, also known as Al-Fajr, in November 2004. This is a lie. If he really went to Fallujah himself, he knows it’s a lie. It’s possible that as much as seventy percent of the city was damaged, if a single bullet hole in the side of a house counts as damage. I really don’t know. It’s hard to say. But I saw much more destruction in nearby Ramadi than I saw in Fallujah. Even there the percentage of the city that was actually destroyed is in the low single digits – nowhere near seventy percent. And I spent triple the amount of time in Fallujah as in Ramadi. I didn’t personally see every street or house, but I followed the Marines on foot patrols every day and never once retraced my steps.

You don’t have to take my word for it. Look at Google’s interactive satellite image of Fallujah from space. You can clearly see which parts of the city were destroyed and which weren’t. Most of the damage is in the north. Some of the blanks spots you’ll see are empty lots, some are cemeteries, others are destruction from war. Even if all the blank spots in the city were sites of destruction, the percentage of the total area destroyed is far closer to zero percent than to seventy. Mr. al-Fadhily’s exaggeration is on par with the libelous claim that the Israel Defense Forces killed thousands of people in the Jenin refugee camp in April of 2002 when the actual number was a mere 52.

“All of the residents interviewed by IPS were extremely angry with the media for recent reports that the situation in the city is good,” he wrote. “Many refused to be quoted for different reasons.”

This is about as believable as his seventy-percent destruction claim. What media reports from Fallujah are the residents talking about? Fallujah is very nearly a journalist-free zone. Mr. al-Fadhily and I are practically the only ones who have been there for some time. Google News finds hardly any articles filed from the city aside from mine and his. Noah Shachtman published a Fallujah piece in Wired recently, but it’s unlikely that anyone there came across it. It’s also not very likely that the Arabic-language satellite channels Fallujah residents have access to are bursting with reports of good news from the former insurgent stronghold.

Anyway, the situation in the city isn’t good. Not at all. What it is is non-violent. It’s not a war zone anymore. The infrastructure and economy are only just now beginning to slowly recover because the war, until recently, made rebuilding impossible.

“Many residents told IPS that US-backed Iraqi police and army personnel have detained people who have spoken to the media,” al-Fadhily wrote.

Some Iraqis may well have said this. The idea that Americans were setting off car bombs was another theory that made the rounds in Fallujah not long ago. Only the most paranoid or irresponsible of reporters would bother to publish such claims without a dash of skepticism or evidence.

I have been to the Iraqi Police jail in Fallujah. It’s a terrible place that probably ought to be investigated by Human Rights Watch or the like. (The Marines I spoke to insist it is an abomination.) The Iraqi Police force gets, and deserves, a lot of legitimate criticism. But the idea that its officers arrest citizens for talking to journalists is about as plausible as the silly claim made by Iraqis in Nassiriya recently that the Americans dumped a shark in a Euphrates River canal to frighten people.

Mr. al-Fadhily quotes many disgruntled Iraqis. That’s all fine and good. I, too, heard lots of complaints. There’s plenty to gripe about. Fallujah is a broken-down, ramshackle, impoverished wreck of a city. It was ruined by more than three years of war. What else can you expect of a place that only stopped exploding this summer? But if the best possible scenario ever unfolds, if peace arrives even in Baghdad, if the government becomes truly moderate and representative, if rainbows break out in the skies and the fields fill with smiling children and bunny rabbits, somebody, somewhere, will complain that Iraq has been taken over by the imperial powers of Kentucky Fried Chicken and Starbucks.

Introducing Commentary Complete

46 Responses to “The Other Fallujah Reporter”

  1. lester says:

    talk about a weak spin attempt. man, you are really determined to give this guy ammo for his next book.

  2. Joe says:

    The Jews have gone crazy

    Opps, some one miscalculated on this one! And guess what, Fatah is not coming to rescue Hamas.

  3. Los Angeleno says:

    The answer to Walt is that of course Israel wouldn’t use the same force, because it is not the same situation. Obviously, if Israel knew that 20,000 Hamas were in Tel Aviv, they would clear out Israeli citizens and then destroy or capture Hamas. The problem in Gaza is that, unlike in the example Walt postulates, there is no way to separate the “good” guys from the bad guys in Gaza. This is all obvious to any thinking person. Walt, who is a thinking person, must therefore be person with a lot of malice toward the Jewish State.

    Lester, I assume you realize how idiotic Walt’s hypo is, and that you can see when an apple is being compared to an orange?

  4. Stuart Koehl says:

    “So, in other words, Israel shouldn’t operate in reality — rather, it should consider the morality of its actions against a series of fantastical hypothetical scenarios.”

    As someone said years ago, “Other nations are judged by history; Israel is judged by sociology”.

  5. lester says:

    LA- have you read his book “the israel lobby”? none of these clowns have dared say anything about it other than make personal attacks on walt and mearsheimer themselves because it is so thick with end notes and so obviously correct in it’s thesis.

    seriously, you read up on this stuff. where do you think things are going: toward so called realism or towards neo conservatism?

    the realists were right about iraq and that is as good as a great big bar of gold as the massive upward career movement of people as diverse as ron paul, keith olbermann and Barack Obama have proved.

    sour grapes. that’s what this blog has become

  6. NukemHill says:

    Umm … we won in Iraq. You really do have a problem with reality, don’t you lester. No wonder you like Walt so much. Birds of a feather, and all that.

    By the way–end notes don’t mean crap. Bellisides had all kinds of end notes in his “comprehensive” study of guns in early U.S. history. Turns out they were all fabrications. Walt and Mearsheimer may not be fabricating their sources out of whole-cloth, but it has been demonstrated pretty convincingly that they consistently took data and quotes completely out of context.

    Thereby rendering their “obviously correct” thesis to the garbage heap, where it belongs. If that’s your reality, you’re welcome to it.

  7. JEM says:

    Why is anyone talking to lester – he is a troll, living in some perverse sense of realty that is quite unreal. He is looking for the response. No point in arguing with someone who isn’t saying anything.

    I mean come on – everyone who said Iraq would be a failure has now been proven wrong to this point. I would like to see Israel just wipe out as much of Hamas as possible and see what impact that has. We have never seen that before.

    As to Walt – who thinks he has smart thoughts but then manages to take the entire point he is making and destroy it by disagreeing with it by his other arguments.

  8. ALEJCARO says:

    Well now, JEM says that that ‘everyone who said Iraq would be a failure has now been proven wrong to this point’. It depends on how you define success doesn’t it? If it means destroying a sovereign country in order to make it free, even if no one in the sovereign country asked us to do that, yeah it was a success. Getting rid of a tyrant, Hussein–success. Getting the Iraqi People to appreciate what we did–utter failure. Iraq an ally against Iran–failure. Iraq a friend of Israel–failure. Remember when it was said that the road to Israeli-Palestinian peace was through Baghdad? That removing Saddam Hussein would somehow end the Palestinian uprisings? How is that working out?

    Even President Numb-nuts wondered why the Iraqis were so ungrateful. That’s a good question. Should bear looking into.

  9. SmokeVanThorn says:

    If Japan had taken control of San Francisco in WW II, Truman would not have used an atomic weapon against the Japanese forces there. So what?

    Walt ought to be embarrassed by the stupidity of his “thought experiment.”

    #8 – Are they running a special on strawmen this week?

  10. From Inwood says:

    NukemHill

    Good point on lester’s endnotes

    Two thoughts:

    (1) I find at cocktails, Bar B Qs, lunchtime BS, or Blog threads, sometimes a guy will say “O, yeah? I just read [insert title of Liberal book du jour] & he disagrees. Someone answers: “He can have his opinion & I can have mine.” The guy replies like lester: saying something not much better than “O, yeah? It’s not just opinion, there’s a ton of footnotes/endnotes in the book so it’s revealed truth backed by unassailable facts.” I have found in later picking up some of these argument trump-card books to see what the guru had said about a particular issue, the same thing that you list above. And that often the argument winner has, let’s say, oversimplified the conclusions of the guru. Even if I’m familiar with the trump-card book & say this at the time of the argument/thread, the guy will often answer “that’s your [my] opinion. I have presented his conclusion fairly!

    BTW, don’t ever cite a Commentary dead-on, devastating book review of a Tom Friedman book to a Friedman worshiper who has just used Friedman as his trump card as I did recently!

    (2) When I cite Conservatives as my experts & say that they’ve extensively footnoted their facts, some of these guys will say “that guy/gal is a wingnut & nobody intelligent believes anything he/she writes & I don’t care about his/her phony footnotes.”

    Heads they win….

  11. lester says:

    “everyone who said Iraq would be a failure has now been proven wrong to this point. ”

    is this some new kind of sarcasm I’m not familiar with?

  12. W Krebs says:

    I don’t accept that Stephen Walt’s hypothetical is pertinent, for the reasons, presented by LosAngeleno in Comment #3.

    However, here’s a better hypothetical. Suppose that several hundred Jews from Europe, Canada, and the United States who oppose military action in Palestine were to offer themselves as human shields. Do you think this would change Israeli tactics?