Iraq War Honor Roll

Salute Juan Cole, not Ken Pollack or Fred Kagan

Amid the disastrous manner in which most of the American media aquitted itself in enabling the Iraq war, and then for months after exulting in its “successful” execution until the insurgency took hold, there were a number of honorable exceptions. And Tom Engelhardt, whose web site TomDispatch remains an honorable exception in a media world that has long abandoned deep, critical thought, offers this great list as part of the intro to Greg Mitchell’s critical examination of Iraq war coverage. I was meaning to do something like this myself, but I’ll rely on Tom!

He begins by noting the New York Times’ pathetic attempt to assess the war last Sunday:

Just imagine: You run a flagship national newspaper, the New York Times. It’s the fifth anniversary of President Bush’s catastrophic invasion of Iraq. Your own record of reportage in the period leading up to the invasion was not exactly sterling. So, for a change of pace, you decide to turn most of your double op-ed page in your Sunday “Week in Review” over to people who can look back thoughtfully on the misapprehensions of that moment.

But who? Now, that’s a tough one. You want “nine experts on military and foreign affairs” who can consider “the one aspect of the war that most surprised them or that they wished they had considered in the prewar debate.” Hmm, sounds like an interesting idea. Of course, one option would be to gather together an involved crew who, even before the invasion began, saw in one way or another that problems, possibly disaster, lay ahead. That would be a logical thought?

?But it wouldn’t be the Times, which this past Sunday chose to ask a rogue’s gallery of “experts” who led (or cheerled) us deep into the war and occupation what surprised them most. Leading off those pages were Richard Perle, nicknamed “the Prince of Darkness,” L. Paul Bremer III, the former American viceroy of Baghdad, who so brilliantly disbanded the Iraqi Army and much of the country as well, not to speak of invasion and occupation cheerleaders Frederick Kagan, Danielle Pletka, and Kenneth M. Pollack. With the exception of Pollack, all of them unsurprisingly pointed the finger elsewhere or claimed they were really on the mark all along.

So, just in case the Times has a sudden, bizarre urge on some future anniversary to ask a cast of characters who didn’t drive us into the nearest ditch to look back, it seems worthwhile to start on a list of suggestions for its editors.

He salutes Mitchell’s own efforts at Editor and Publisher, then adds the following list:

My list would be long indeed, but it would certainly include: the Knight Ridder (now McClatchy) reporters Warren Stroebel and Jonathan Landy in Washington, as well as Tom Lasseter, Hannah Allam, and others in Iraq who never had a flagship paper to show off their work, but generally did far better reporting than the flagship papers; Seymour Hersh, who simply picked up where he left off in the Vietnam era (though this time for the New Yorker); Riverbend, the young Baghdad blogger who gave us a more vivid view of the occupation than any you could ordinarily find in the mainstream media (and who has not been heard from since she arrived in Syria as a refugee in October 2007); Jim Lobe who covered the neocons like a blanket for Inter Press Service; independents Nir Rosen and Dahr Jamail, as well as Patrick Cockburn of the British Independent, who has been perhaps the most courageous (or foolhardy) Western reporter in Iraq, invariably bringing back news that others didn’t have; the New York Review of Books, which stepped into some of the empty print space where the mainstream media should have been (with writers like Mark Danner and Michael Massing) and was the first to put into print in this country the Downing Street Memo, in itself a striking measure of mainstream failure; and Juan Cole, whose Informed Comment website was so on the mark on Iraq that reporters locked inside the Green Zone in Baghdad read it just to keep informed.

Amen to that. But as Bill Moyers noted a while back, having been wrong about Iraq has hardly been a handicap for the career of most of the “pundits” preferred by the mainstream media. Frankly, looking at the career trajectories of the likes of Bill Kristol, Max Boot, Charles Krauthammer, Peter Beinart and George Packer, I’d say that, if anything, having been wrong about Iraq appears to be something of a job-requirement in the mainstream punditocracy.

This entry was posted in 99c Blogging. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Iraq War Honor Roll

  1. gracie_fr says:

    Permit me to add Nazareth based British author Jonathan Cook . His latest book ‘Israel and the Clash of Civilizations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East’, published by Pluto Press in January 2008 presents a convincing argument on the “creative destruction” aspect of the current conflict in Iraq and broader aims for the Middle East. Along with Anatol Leiven he has be invaluable on connecting the dots.

  2. piotr says:

    I would like to this list too Ramzy Baroud and Sami Moubayed

  3. Pat S. says:

    It’s amazing that I’m trying to think of a pre-2003 antiwar voice at the big media outlets, and the only name coming to me is Seymour Hersh. One guy!

    Slate may or may not have done something very similar to what the Times did. Oops. But at least that was done on the assumption that the war has gone wrong and it’s time to apologize for your errors. (Except for Christopher Hitchens; he of course maintained that he’s been right all along.)

  4. Patrick says:

    I would suggest two other names to the honour role. William Pfaff of the International Herald Tribune and Immanuel Wallerstein of Yale both foresaw accurately the Iraq debacle. The latter’s April 1, 2002 commentary, ‘Iraq: how great powers bring themselves down’, was especially prescient. Note the publication date April 2002 (not 2003).

  5. I would include James Carroll of the Boston Globe on any short list of prescient pre-Iraq-invasion critics. He called Deputy Dubya’s Debacle lost about one minute after the epic epithet “Crusade” escaped from between Boy Blunder’s lying, moving lips.

  6. Ah, good post – gave me something decent to read while I am bored at work. I’ll have to check your site out more often 🙂 Thanks!

  7. Cesar says:


  8. Thank you for this articleI am happy to part with you, I think that everything in the way of change and certainly I see things from the other side, we reflect on good Can I change the font color

  9. sex izle says:

    very good site.thanks

  10. Bean Macathy says:

    Hey Pat.s you are a big fan of Tony Right?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *