The Emerald City, Part 2
Reason Number Two the occupation of Iraq was so troubled? The Emerald City itself.
There’s no better way for me to make the case than to excerpt part of the first chapter of my new book, Imperial Life in the Emerald City:
The Green Zone quickly became Baghdad’s Little America. Everyone who worked in the palace lived there, either in white metal trailers or in the towering al-Rasheed Hotel. Hundreds of private contractors working for firms including Bechtel, General Electric, and Halliburton set up trailer parks there, as did legions of private security guards hired to protect the contractors. The only Iraqis allowed inside the Green Zone were those who worked for the Americans or those who could prove that they had resided there before the war.
Americans drove around in new GMC Suburbans, dutifully obeying the thirty-five-mile-an-hour speed limit signs posted by the CPA on the flat, wide streets. There were so many identical Suburbans parked in front of the palace that drivers had to use their electronic door openers as homing devices. (One contractor affixed Texas license plates to his vehicle to set it apart.) When they cruised around, they kept the air-conditioning on high and the radio tuned to 107.7 FM, Freedom Radio, an American-run station that played classic rock and rah-rah messages. Every two weeks, the vehicles were cleaned at a Halliburton car wash.
Shuttle buses looped around the Green Zone at twenty-minute intervals, stopping at wooden shelters to transport those who didn’t have cars and didn’t want to walk. There was daily mail delivery. Generators ensured that the lights were always on. If you didn’t like what was being served in the cafeteria—or you were feeling peckish between meals—you could get takeout from one of the Green Zone’s Chinese restaurants. Halliburton’s dry-cleaning service would get the dust and sweat stains out of your khakis in three days. A sign warned patrons to remove ammunition from pockets before submitting clothes.
Iraqi laws and customs didn’t apply inside the Green Zone. Women jogged on the sidewalk in shorts and T-shirts. A liquor store sold imported beer, wine, and spirits. One of the Chinese restaurants offered massages as well as noodles. The young boys selling DVDs near the palace parking lot had a secret stash. “Mister, you want porno?” they whispered to me.
Veteran diplomats who had lived in the Arab world or worked in post-conflict situations wanted local cuisine in the dining room, a respect for local traditions, and a local workforce. But they were in the minority. Most of the CPA’s staff had never worked outside the United States. More than half, according to one estimate, had gotten their first passport in order to travel to Iraq. If they were going to survive in Baghdad, they needed the same sort of bubble that American oil companies had built for their workers in Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Indonesia.
From inside the Green Zone, the real Baghdad—the checkpoints, the bombed-out buildings, the paralyzing traffic jams—could have been a world away. The horns, the gunshots, the muezzin’s call to prayer, never drifted over the walls. The fear on the faces of American troops was rarely seen by the denizens of the palace. The acrid smoke of a detonated car bomb didn’t fill the air. The sub-Saharan privation and Wild West lawlessness that gripped one of the world’s most ancient cities swirled around the walls, but on the inside, the calm sterility of an American subdivision prevailed.
* * *
THE GREEN ZONE, SCENE VI
Books and magazines from back home were a precious commodity. Most people passed them on to friends when they were done. It was considered bad form not to. Mystery novels and thrillers were the most popular. Tomes about Iraq, the Arab world, and Islam gathered dust. After thinking about Iraq all day, the last thing you wanted to do was read about it while going to sleep. But a few books on Iraq were well thumbed. A Halliburton employee found copies of the Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Iraq while cleaning out CPA staff rooms at the Al Rasheed. When an Iraqi-American translator offered to loan a senior CPA staffer a copy of Hanna Batatu's The Old Social Classes and the Revolutionary Movements of Iraq, a seminal work of regional history, the staffer declined. He pointed to a small book on his desk. "Everything I need is in here," he said. The translator picked it up. It was a tourist guide to Iraq, written in the 1970s.
* * *
THE GREEN ZONE, SCENE VIII
The corkboard in the bar at Ocean Cliffs, the British housing compound, was the Green Zone's Hyde Park. There was a photograph of President Bush dressed as Marlon Brando in The Wild One, in a leather jacket and touring cap, sitting atop a motorcycle. "Be afraid," the caption read, "because paranoia is patriotic." Another parodied a poster for the movie Jackass. It depicted the Bush administration's foreign policy team in a shopping cart, flying off a cliff. Other postings involved less graphic design acumen. A handwritten sign proclaimed, "Yee-Haw Is Not a Foreign Policy."
Comments (19)
Any evidence that any senior officials in Baghdad or back in Washington ever tried to make the Green Zone less more Iraqi and less American suburbia?
When you arrived in 2003 and Baghdad was more secure who/how many besides journalists left the Green Zone?
Thks for your continuing glimpses into Iraq.
October 12, 2006 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
This could actually be a description of most of the US Embassy compounds overseas.
Way back in 1950 when the foreign service officers in China accurately predicted the victory of the communists, the State Department, in response to criticism for "losing China" from Senator McCarthy changed its policy of having country experts. From that point forward, it was no longer considered necessary (or desirable) to be an expert on any country or culture other than the United States. Diplomats are rapidly relocated around the world after 2 or 4 years in a country. in part to make sure they don't go native. Home leave is required every two years. Anyone who does develop any interest in the local culture and customs can actually damage their career, especially if it causes them to question any aspect of US policy (often formulated by political appointees who are either well-intentioned fools or just plain idiots with NO knowledge of that same culture or customs or in response to US domestic concerns). Most senior posts are filled by political appointees who spend most of their time reading and sending email to and from DC. Language training has been eliminated for budgetary but also cultural and political reasons. If language skills were a prerequisite for the job, most of the "right" people would never qualify.
What you saw in the Emerald City is this same policy on steroids. It is not the exception, it is the rule.
October 12, 2006 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for posting the passages. It seems surreal...completely detached from reality...kinda like our whole Iraq policy. The one line that was the most surreal and in a sense depraved, and very disturbing on a few levels, was the description of porn being peddaled by a child in the Green Zone. I have nothing against anybody watching the occassional smut vid...but being sold by children within the Green Zone, WTF???
October 12, 2006 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
In contrast to the Foreign Service, CIA field people, including those in the embassy, are encouraged to specialize in areas. Their tours are longer, and when they do rotate back, they work with the staff for that region.
The Army does have some very good tracks for foreign area specialists, but they occasionally to a pentagonal peg in a triangular home, such as sending a multilingual Eastern European specialist to Korea, or vice-versa.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
October 12, 2006 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
True. But overreliance on technical intelligence and the underutilization of human intelligence on the ground are also contributing factors to the lack of sound intelligence for Washington decision makers.
October 12, 2006 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of the General Staff, is quoted as saying the British should "get out some time soon".
He basically says the presence of troops is making things worse. BBC's political editor called the statement quite extraordinary.
People that would have provided genteel cover for the political goal du jour are abandoning the former groupspeak for honest assessment. Let us remember that at the worst of times under Clinton basically nobody jumped ship, but the rats leaving this ship of state are legion. Worse, they all have a story to tell.
October 12, 2006 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rajiv, I asked this earlier, but I'm interesting in how the CPA related to the British diplomatic staff sent down to the south of Iraq. The Foreign Office sent Arabic-speaking civilians with plenty of post-conflict experience, but even that didn't make much difference when it came to promoting pluralism in areas with well-armed sectarian groups.
The sentiments at Ocean Cliffs suggest that the British in the CPA took a similar view to those in the field. Did they make a difference, or were they fighting a losing battle against the political appointees?
October 12, 2006 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most of the CPA’s staff had never worked outside the United States. More than half, according to one estimate, had gotten their first passport in order to travel to Iraq.
This is particularly disturbing. I mean, it's one thing to not be up on Arab and Persian culture. But it's magnitudes worse to have never shed the blinders of all-US-all-the-time.
The more I learn the facts of the "winning the peace," the less surprised I am at the outcome.
October 12, 2006 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Chandrasekaran,
Big doings here in upstate New York today. No, not the first visit from those west winds that make the Mohawk Valley such a winter wonderland.
Instead, I sent an email to Washington Post Ombudsman Deborah Howell.
A few days ago, I had written that I may submit a question or two to Mrs. Howell regarding Dan Senor's column earlier this week in the Post. Today, I threw caution to the winds, both Mother Nature's and potentially Mrs. Howell's, and cranked out the letter to Mrs. Howell.
I will post the letter at the end of this note. Before I do, however, a few stipulations:
1. Should Mrs. Howell address my questions in her Washington Post column, I will also post her response here. Mrs. Howell's work deserves respect and a fair review.
2. Should Mrs. Howell reply to my email, I will only post her response if Mrs. Howell specifically authorizes me to do so. I have no use for the attack-by-email strategy that some seem to employ on the Internet. In other words, I will not use Malkin-like tactics. I respect the Washington Post, Mrs. Howell's highly successful career as a journalist, and, quite frankly, myself far too much to stoop to that level. If Mrs. Howell responds and grants me the specific right to post her reply at the TPM Cafe, I will do so. Otherwise, I will not.
3. I made a couple of minor corrections to the letter, itself. My editor took the day off and the scribe who wrote the letter got a little sloppy. Not in content, but in presentation. The boss read the writer the veritable riot act after the fact. (chuckle)
4. None of this is intended to get you into trouble with the Washington Post, Mrs. Howell, and/or the D.C. media brotherhood. I simply wanted people to see the questions I asked Mrs. Howell and, if she replies and approves publication, her response. My letter was written with respect. I would never imagine Mrs. Howell to reply in any other than the most professional of manners. (In other words, if Boisfeuillet Jones Jr., Leonard Downie Jr., or Warren Buffett gets mad at you, tell 'em it's all my fault and to call me. If Fred Hiatt should develop a minor tizzy or a full-blow snit, I'm still responsible, but only my answering machine will be available.)
5. While I sent Mrs. Howell the full text of my blog post from earlier this week, I did not reprint it here. It would just take up space. If anyone did not read it and wishes to do so, my blog, Logical Consequences, can be found on this website.
With those items duly noted, here's the full text of the letter:
Mrs. Howell,
On Oct. 10, the Washington Post published a column, "The Realities of Trying to Rebuild Iraq," that was written by Dan Senor. In the column, Mr. Senor questioned the motivations and factual accuracy of Washington Post staff writer and former Baghdad bureau chief, Rajiv Chandrasekaran, in his book, "Imperial Life in the Emerald City." The Post has, of course, published not only an excerpt from Mr. Chandrasekaran's book, but also a series of his prior stories during his work for the Post in Baghdad.
Mr. Senor's column appeared on page A21 of your newspaper, which I believe to be the finest in this country. At the conclusion of the piece, the Post listed Mr. Senor as the following:
"The writer, who was based in Baghdad from April 2003 to June 2004, served as senior adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority."
Such a description appears rather insignificant at first read. However, I did a bit of research into Mr. Senor, his past and his present. Mr. Senor is not exactly your average federal staffer just trying to land a pension. Instead, Mr. Senor owns rather direct ties to the White House, the Republican Party, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the Carlyle Group, and Fox News. I wrote about Mr. Senor's connections, all of which can be researched through simple use of google on the Internet, in a blog (I know, that word) piece entitled, "Dan Senor, The Galloping Ghostwriter", at the TPM Cafe.
Here's the link to the blog item:
http://tableforone.tpmcafe.com/blog/mark_raven/2006/oct/10/the_galloping_ghostwriter_dan_senor
At the end of this note, you will find the text of my blog item in full.
Also, I highly suggest that you read the following blog entry at the site, ePluribus Media:
http://scoop.epluribusmedia.org/story/2006/10/10/43345/677
In this piece, the writer, identified as BarbinMD, researched the federal employment histories of the individuals that Mr. Senor attempted to tie solely to the Clinton Administration. I believe you will find that the people mentioned in Mr. Senor's effort have federal careers that started in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Not exactly partisan hacks straight out of the Clinton camp.
Finally, I readily admit that my writing style employs a fair amount of satire and self-depreciating humor. Credit that to a 20-year journalism career in upstate New York that began when a bunch of Syracuse University types and Big Apple executives thought a kid from a small town in Fulton County had potential. Damn fools, every one of 'em and none more foolish than that one-time kid himself. (chuckle)
Hope you read it. Don't believe a word of it, of course. Research the whole thing yourself. Verify. Verify. Verify.
Maybe the Post, which I read first every day and value a bit more that other broadsheet publication geographically located almost between us, needs to offer a bit more data on its Op/Ed guest scribes?
Maybe that one-time kid with potential still doesn't know what he's writing, err blogging, about?
Have a nice day!
Mark Raven
October 12, 2006 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Care to clue the rest of us in on what you object to in this comment, Mr/Ms fubu?
sPh
October 13, 2006 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Care to guess who it actually is?
October 13, 2006 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it clear? RC is "the media." And "the media" is bad.
Makes perfect sense to me...doesn't seem like an contrived oversimplification of things at all...nope, not one bit...
Dissent Protects Democracy.
October 13, 2006 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see, you were asking the person with the one rating...I assumed you were reponding to Raven's post. So the above may not make sense.
But I certainly don't get the point of Raven's post -- make you can explain it to me?
Dissent Protects Democracy.
October 13, 2006 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Post listed Senor's bona fides in the same way Libby wanted to be referred to as a "former congressional staffer". What was mentioned was misleading as to where Senor is coming from, is Raven's point.
The other quibbles were Senor himself misleading as to the bona fides of certain CPA employees, doing the "It's Clinon's fault" thing.
October 13, 2006 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I'm just saying that he ain't no Judith Miller. At least it doesn't seem that way to me. So I don't know why all this stuff is being directed at him, other than he's here and an easy (or available...) target.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
October 13, 2006 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guess it's the easy-target. For myself, I just skipped reading the piece rather than get hot.
October 13, 2006 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know what you mean. On the one hand, it's hard to look away at the trainwreck of incompetence and arrogance, but, on the other, you almost just don't want to know...
Dissent Protects Democracy.
October 13, 2006 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
cscs,
My apologies if I confused you in any way.
Earlier this week, prior to knowing that Rajiv would be on TPM Cafe, I had read Dan Senor's piece in The Washington Post. That led me to research Mr. Senor's background, which I found that to reveal a great deal about his possible motivations for writing such a column. So, here on TPM Cafe, I authored a post, "The Galloping Ghostwriter, Dan Senor," on my blog, Logical Consequences. (Also, read BarbinMD's piece, "Dan Senor: WA Post Op-Ed Distorting Reality," at ePluribusMedia. Barbin did a marvelous job researching and writing about the extensive backgrounds of the federal employees Senor mentioned in his column.)
Turns out, somewhat to my surprise, that Rajiv complimented me on the post. I also received feedback from others, both on this website and elsewhere. Still curious about why The Washington Post had published Mr. Senor's column without giving its readers a better idea of his strong background in the Conservative movement and the Bush White House, I had mentioned that I planned to send a letter to Post Ombudsman Deborah Howell, asking her to address the issue. That, of course, led to the item on the letter to Mrs. Howell that I had posted earlier in this thread.
As to my larger point for writing such a blog item and then a letter to Mrs. Howell, I believe that Conservatives have done a masterful political job of controlling the tempo and tenor of debate. Conservatives, whether on talk radio or in the blogosphere, have stigmatized and targeted Democrats, Independents, and Moderate Republicans as "soft" in the war on terror and questioned their overall patriotism and love of our nation.
Mr. Senor employed this same style in his column, which I believe to be an effort of half-truths, inferences, and cheap rhetoric, to attack the accuracy of Rajiv's book, the motivations of its author, and the service to our nation of a handful of long-term federal staffers in Baghdad.
With factual evidence, satire, and a bit of self-depreciating humor, I attempted to counter Mr. Senor's arguments and ask what I respectfully believe to be a series of valid questions about the veracity of his column and both his personal and professional motivations for writing such a piece. Feel free to disagree with me. Provide ample factual support to the contrary and I'll gladly consider my positions on this issue.
Too often and for too long, Democrats, Independents, and Moderate Republicans have stood idly by as individuals like Mr. Senor and former Coalition Provisional Authority staffer Simone Ledeen wrote columns and made appearances (usually on either Fox News or AM talk radio) to make these often unsubstantiated, factually devoid claims about not only writers like Rajiv and newspapers like The Washington Post, but about Americans who disagreed with the positions of the Bush White House.
You end each of your posts with these words, "Dissent Protects Democracy." I could not agree more, for it is democracy that I cherish, this country that I love, and the protection of its freedoms and liberties that I believe to be a war of ideas - factual ideas developed through research and with a fair amount of humility - that each of us needs to fight every day.
I don't have all the answers. I don't know whether I am correct or incorrect. Instead, I simply believe, ask questions, work, and keep my sense of humor in the process. And it is belief, the belief in America and its people, that prompts me to write.
Hope this answered your question.
October 13, 2006 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
No question about it; however, the time may be drawing nigh when these Conservatives' chickens are coming home to roost.
As we approach the mid-term elections, the endless reports of corrupt elected officials and their appointed and or hired staff in the halls of Congress and the White House seem to be overwhelming the partisan apparatus rendering it less and less effective, leaving the task of Republican Party spokesman to the President.
Karl Rove has his hands full trying to get the "Evangelicals" back in the corral. Rove hasn't yet succeeded in burning the books like Cobra II, Hubris, Fiasco, Emerald City and now Tempting Faith. He has yet to silence the retired military doing real damage to his plans to run on fear mongering.
It remains to be seen how successful weekly White House "Rose Garden News Conferences" will prove between now and November 7. Bush previews his campaign remarks in those press conferences and C-Span and the MSM parrot them when they cover Bush's pep talks at his party's fundraisers.
October 14, 2006 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink