Michael Ware (read the whole radioblogger transcript, or listen to the mp3, decide for yourself) has chosen teams, and he chose the wrong one.
When he was on Bill Maher last week (video at link, from exposetheleft.com) he came across as a self-aggrandizing ass, and adrenaline junky, idiotic, but not dangerous.
After reading the above I've changed my mind.
Whether or not what he describes doing as Time's lead Baghdad correspondent matches the technical definition of treason doesn't matter.
What he has done is treacherous, what he has failed to do risks the lives of coalition troops, Iraqi troops, and Iraqi civilians.
He has chosen to be complicit with the enemy, of that I no longer doubt.
Should he die on his next trip out with the enemy, I won't shed a tear.
If Time/Warner helped Ware do what he did, or even condoned it, or really even knew about it and didn't fire him immediately, they should be held in utter, total and complete contempt and any reporting they do on any subject from now on must be held in equal contempt.
The whole interview reaffirms my view that what he did was vile, and very nearly unprecedented, for the key reason why I say so here's this quote from the transcripts
HH: Have you spent time with the jihadis?
MW: I have. I have. It's certainly not something that's simple to do at any time, particularly now. However, in the past, though, I have actually been with Zarqawi's organization on different occasions. I once was taken to a Zarqawi training camp, although I was not told that that's where I was going, or for quite a while, that that's where I was. I've been to some of their safe houses. I've received some of their propaganda materials. By the same token, trying to film them secretly in Baghdad, I was kidnapped by them, dragged out of my car, and a group of Syrian fighters for Zarqawi were preparing to execute me on the street here in Baghdad. So I've been with Zarqawi's people in a number of different forms. (italics, and bold mine)
He should have been considered persona non grata in Iraq long ago. CNN seemed proud of their 'gutsy' Australian Time Inc. (his latest missive, here) corporate cousin back in 2004, I wonder if they feel the same way once the discussion regarding this interview begins to ramp up?
Nevada has their known associates of organized crime list that you end up on whether or not you've ever been convicted of mob activity (and yes I know a guy, who knows a guy, if you get my drift), anyone on that list can't work in any capacity for casinos, I think the U.S. should have a 'known associate of terrorists' lists for journalists. Anyone working a bit too closely with the enemy should be permanently banned from any hotspot around the world, and if they aren't already a U.S. citizen should also be banned from ever entering this country.There should be real consequences for choosing the wrong side in this war.
I'm not saying Ware should be thrown in jail, but he should be expelled from Iraq and banned from Afghanistan, plus I'd have no problem if he's never allowed to set foot in this country, ever again.
Some stories don't require balance, there is no compelling reason to allow idiots to propagandize for the enemy and retain their status or protection by our forces.
Choose the wrong side, pay some price, that's not too much to ask.
He's free to write what he wants, think what he wants, scour the streets of Baghdad for thrills, chills and stories, but when you essentially admit to 'embedding' with terrorists frequently, that's a step too far, and though the press may be free, it should also have some common sense, and right now, some in the press aren't showing much in the way of common sense.
One last taste of the interview before you decide that I'm just some right-wing nut unhappy with the poor press coming out of Iraq and looking for some scapegoat to lash out upon
HH: Okay, indulge me, a lawyer, and you're a lawyer, so you know. I'm just trying to get a sense of it. Has it been five different times out with the jihadists and 20 different times with the insurgents? I'm not looking for minute counts here, but I am trying to get a sense of how often you'll cross over to the other side and spend time with them.MW: Well, I suppose it's a matter of how you look at crossing over, too. But I mean, I guess I've dealt with jihadis in one form or another perhaps a dozen, couple of dozen times, and the Baathists, many, many times. I mean, to constantly reassess where these guys are, I mean, as military intelligence does, trying to take their pulse of how sophisticated they are, how under pressure they are, how well financed they are or aren't, how organized they are, what morale is like. You constantly have to keep dipping into the well to see where they are. So with the Baathists, with the military types, it's many, many, many times.
HH: Okay, let me put a floor on it then. At least 18 times with the jihadists, and 30 or 40 times with the insurgents.
MW: Yeah, you could easily say that.
UPDATE: At the end of his post regarding this interview, Mr. Hewitt suggests some questions for a symposium regarding all this, here's his questions and my answers, for what it's worth
Is Michael Ware doing a good job as a journalist? Is he helping or hurting the effort to pacify Iraq and help it towards stable democracy? Should Time recall him? Should there be a time limit on all journalists in a theater of conflict like Iraq?Michael Ware good job?
I don't he's taken the idea of objectivity and getting both sides of the story far too far, and in doing so has ruined any credibility he may have as a journalist, and worse yet, distorts the facts, distorts his reporting, and undermines the efforts of the coalition and the Iraqis working to put their country back together.
Help or Hurt Iraq?
Hurting big time, when Time gives the insurgence a soapbox, that gives them hope that the coalition and the new Iraqi government can be defeated in the long run. The insurgency will be defeated, but the time it takes will be lengthened the longer the likes of Michael Ware aid the insurgency.
Shoud Time Recall Him?
Actually they should forget they ever knew him, regardless of what Time thinks they should do with him, the Iraqi government should EXPEL the idiot (despite his obvious physical bravery, he also demonstrates a mental laxity that earns him the idiot designation)
Time limit on journalist in theater?
Probably not a bad idea for the sanity of each correspondent, but as a steadfast rule, that shouldn't be imposed by anyone outside of each organization or individual. Any reporter should have the right to be there, until they've earned (like Michael Ware has done) a forcible expulsion through their actions (and as far as I know, he's the only one, as far as expulsion goes I'd set a very high bar, but even with that bar set high, Michael Ware has easily vaulted over it)
16 comments:
Is it worth noting that Michael Ware is Australian?
I have never hear such bull in my life... Well, except when the adminstration tells us how great everything is going. Do you HAVE to treat warfare like a 'be true to your school' exercise in teenage machismo?
Do you honestly believe we're better off NOT knowing where the insurgency came from and what they want? Is it better to be misinformed about how many there are and how well- or ill-equipped?
God knows we're not getting anything approaching correct information from our leaders; so the media should print exactly what George tells them to? Bet you weren't so 'patriotic' when it was Clinton in the WH.
To answer Pooh, no doesn't matter that he's Australian, they are also a coalition member with boots on the ground. As I stated in my post he should be expelled by the Iraqis, and then if the U.S. gov't wants to revoke his privilege to enter this country they could (and should).
To answer Arachnae (who I seriously doubt will ever visit this site again as I don't have the requisite level of 'reality-basedness' for her to come by).
What Michael Ware has done by his own admission frequently going out with murderous thugs who don't respect the most basic precepts of human rights should disgust everyone regardless of political ideology (unless you are an Islamo-Fascist yourself, but given that Arachnae's site includes the usual cries from the 'committed' left about how our Christians are as bad if not worse than those Islamists, I doubt she follows any faith, other than 'hippie-dippie').
You do not have to engage with murderous, vile, dangerous thugs to know that they are murderous, vile, dangerous thugs. Al Qaeda in Iraq have proven themselves to be so disgusting as to have even grossed out and pissed of the main branch of Al Qaeda. That's like getting Charles Manson to say, 'dude, that's messed up'.
The other part of the insurgency are Baathist holdovers from one of the worst regimes since Pol Pot or Stalin. Again, engaging won't lead to understanding with these folks either. If anything the opposite is true. The hoops Mr. Ware had to jump through, and the danger he knowingly put himself, and his stringers and minders in, compromises any possibility that he can objectively report on what he witnesses. Plus it calls into question what he is allowed to witness in the first place.
My complaint wasn't about how this reflects on the Bush Administration, or over politics at all, my disgust at what Michael Ware has done is purely on moral grounds.
I believe there is such a thing as a set of basic human moral principles that transcends notions of religiosity and stem from the need for people of all cultures and creeds to recognize the inherent humanity in each other.
When you have a group of folks who continuously, actively, and aggressively ignore these principles, I have no use for them, and I have no use for anyone who chooses to make excuses for them.
You do not have to engage with murderous, vile, dangerous thugs to know that they are murderous, vile, dangerous thugs.
And you would not find it at all helpful to know how many of them there are? Ten? Ten thousand? Who their allies are? What kind of weapons they have and where they're getting them?
Of course not. Simple answers for simple minds.
Arachnae, you are so right. If only our reporters had been embedded with the Nazis, we might have actually won that war.
...
I guess it has never occured to you that perhaps reading Time Magazine and the like isn't necessarily the best way (or, in your 'verse, apparently the only way) to gather actionable intel. And you accuse others of seeking simple minded? Nice....
I guess it has never occured to you that perhaps reading Time Magazine and the like isn't necessarily the best way (or, in your 'verse, apparently the only way) to gather actionable intel.
If our leaders wouldn't cherry-pick the intel for the answers that supported whatever they wanted to do anyway, it wouldn't be an issue, would it?
How'd all that WMD turn out for you, anyway?
Icepick beat me to it.
My comment was going to be 'I prefer spies to do the actual spying, not reporters', but that seems redundant now.
And I appreciate when people with a different perspective than my own visit my website.
An open and honest debate is what fuels understanding between all folks regardless of their opinion.
But I'm really not getting the 'open and honest' vibe radiating off of the comments by Arachnae, and after visiting her site, well predictable is the mildest thing I could say.
Plus I hope she didn't use up her whole weekly supply of this fine product after perusing this site, I'm sure her aura will need some sort of recalibration after having to deal with such awful know nothings as myself.
She must be an excellent touch typist though, with all the smug and self righteous eye closing while composing her missive she clearly must not be looking at the keys.
And just to be clear, my view about what would be moral for the press to do wouldn't change if we had a Pres. Hillary Clinton prosecuting the War on Terror for the 8 years after Pres. Bush.
(and lest anyone forget, she has backed every aim, every goal, and every action in the War on Terror, her only quibbles have been with procedure, if she has been honest these past 5 years, then we can expect the same war to be fought in much the same way under a second Pres. Clinton, unless all her votes have been calculating, manipulative, triangulation)
As far as WMD goes, it wasn't just our intel that was fooled, it was the entire west, and even Saddam himself, intelligence within a Stalinist regime run by a ruthless paranoid megalomaniac is going to be sketchy at best.
WMD wasn't the only motivation for invading Iraq, it wasn't the only reason given before invasion, the only folks pretending that it was are some in the Media, and those who choose to base their 'reality' on the narrow selection of sources that meet with their own already long established worldview.
I realize that the WMD card is the ultimate trump, and ends all arguments about Iraq, and clearly if the folks of the United States weren't so clueless would have elected the bold, daring and decisive Sen. John Kerry to lead us right up into our own assholes (following the example of the fine folks of San Francisco)
How'd all that WMD turn out for you, anyway?
Disappointing, but not for the reason you would think. Much worse than the failure to accurately assess the state of Iraq's weapons programs was the intel community's absolute failure regarding Libya's nuclear program. But I doubt that concerns you, as that kind of thing fails to advance your cause.
[I]f the folks of the United States weren't so clueless would have elected the bold, daring and decisive Sen. John Kerry to lead us right up into our own assholes.
Dude, I couldn't vote for Kerry because I'm just not flexible enough for that kind of thing any more. Maybe 20 years ago....
if the folks of the United States weren't so clueless would have elected the bold, daring and decisive Sen. John Kerry to lead us right up into our own assholes
Ah, how I love open, honest and intellectual debate.
Only on the far right do you find people who actually believe and argue that ignorance is a virtue.
Nothing like coming in, guns blazing, to make friends and influence people. Arach, I'm on your side, but that doesn't mean you should come into someone's house and take a crap all over the floor. There is simply no way that there will be any level of cool-headedness in this dispute now.
BUT, pressing ever onward...
Look, Ware is a gasbag, which makes him different from, well none of them, Hugh Hewitt most definitely not excluded (the Empire State Building as the front line? Put the Cheetos down, dude.)
I will say that it's not Ware's job to win the war, it's his job to report on it. And before you say "all hands on deck", may I query whither the draft?
And despite his intemperance, arach's question Do you honestly believe we're better off NOT knowing where the insurgency came from and what they want? requires answering.
Icepick, I don't think your WWII analogy holds at all, this is a qualitatively different form of conflict from what was essentially "see the enemy, kill the enemy." There's certainly an aspect of search and destroy here, but unless you are in the "kill 'em all" camp, it's not even half the solution.
As a final note, I think it behooves us all to remember that we aren't actually at war with each other.
[T]he Empire State Building as the front line? Put the Cheetos down, dude.
Right. The Empire State Building is mid-town. The front line is downtown in the financial district.
And despite his intemperance, arach's question Do you honestly believe we're better off NOT knowing where the insurgency came from and what they want? requires answering.
Icepick, I don't think your WWII analogy holds at all, this is a qualitatively different form of conflict from what was essentially "see the enemy, kill the enemy." There's certainly an aspect of search and destroy here, but unless you are in the "kill 'em all" camp, it's not even half the solution.
Pooh, if you think WWII was primarily a "see the enemy, kill the enemy" type of war, I'm not sure that you've bothered to read anything about it. Victory in WWII required technical innovations that had been in development for some time (radar being the best example), superior design (e.g. the T-34 tank), innovative manufacturing technics, superior supply chains, logistical innovations (up to and including building both ports and airstips in very short order in places where they shouldn't have been in the first place), the creation of new tactics and strategies, superior intel and codebreaking (the British breaking the German's Enigma code), and on, and on, and on. A dismissive insinuation that all they had to do was shoot them Nazi bastards while they stood in the middle of a field is kind of missing the nature of warfare at that time.
But even allowing your point doesn't really help. Are journalists who are aggresively claiming that they aren't taking sides actually going to reveal anything of any significance about the insurgents? If so, and assuming their claims of neutrality, then we should shoot every reporter who is or has been embedded with coalition troops, and chase all the other journalists out of Iraq. After all, if they are educating our us about the insurgents, then they arae educating the insurgents about the coalition forces.
Pick, point taken.
My meaning was that during WWII, the sharp end was the U.S. Army vs. the Wehrmacht. You generally had a pretty good idea who the enemy was, and your actions were not likely to have secondary effects as to the number or nature of enemies (I suppose had we gone on Sherman's March through the Ruhr, there may have been something akin to Tito' Partisans). I guess what I'm saying is that in WWII we didn't really need reporters embedded with the Germans to know what they were about. In comparison, the insurgency in Iraq obviously has a political as well as a military/terrorist/criminal element and to deal effectively with the population which supports such 'unconventionals', we have to understand what political need the insurgent/terrorist/enemies are filling.
As to the point of reporters embedded with US troops, we've made a decision to balance the concern over giving the enemy information with the need to keep people at home informed. There is simply no way for us to stay informed without the enemy being privy to that information. If you are suggesting that because of information security concerns, the American public has no right to know anything beyond the company line, I take strong exception. (I don't think that is what you are saying, for the record)
Look, I'm neither condemning or defending Ware here, I don't read Time, so I don't know his stuff. I am saying that crying "treason" is too much. Say he's doing crappy reporting. Say he's being self-aggrandizing. But the notion that the "Media" wants us to fail is risible on its face, and screaming "Benedict Arnold" ever louder doesn't make it more reasonable.
If you are suggesting that because of information security concerns, the American public has no right to know anything beyond the company line, I take strong exception.
That IS how we conducted WWII. It worked then, why not now?
(I don't think that is what you are saying, for the record)
I'm not sure how I feel about it. But I certainly don't feel it's an option that shouldn't have been considered.
(I suppose had we gone on Sherman's March through the Ruhr, there may have been something akin to Tito' Partisans).
We did far worse to the Germans than Sherman did to the South, and the Soviets did worse still. There's a lesson in that.
As for whether or not "The Media" wants us to fail in Iraq, I have no doubt that a not insignificant subset of them do want us to fail, and wanted us to fail in Afghanistan as well. They were real damn quick in the fall of 2001 to declare we were in a quagmire and to pull out all of their carefully honed Vietnam analogies. They were hellbent on destroying our morale at home after three weeks of combat. (And people can complain all they want about the post-hostilities handling of Iraq and Afghanistan, but the military campaigns were brilliant.)
I've heard so much bullshit from the press in the last five years that they get little or no benefit of the doubt from me anymore.
That IS how we conducted WWII. It worked then, why not now?
Again, there is a difference in kind - the 'objective facts' were slightly more telling in WWII then they are here - if the battles were getting closer to Berlin, we were winning, if not, we weren't (slightly simplistic, but I think you understand what I mean). The story didn't take much more than a map with pushpins to tell.
This is not a territorial struggle, so the objective fact that Battle A happened here on this day and Battle B happened there on that day doesn't tell us much at all.
Further, you're really prepared to buy this (or really any, in this post-spin world) administration's rose-hued pictures? Are we supposed to make political decisions based in large part on the fitness demonstrated by our representatives on those representatives' own accounts of their performance? You don't even need to posit malice to guess why that may be a bad idea.
Now, as to 'embedding' reporters, good or bad? That is, as they say, above my pay grade.
And for what its worth, I think you're conflating "pessimism" with "rooting for failure".
As a query, since we both have our own blogs, it's slightly funny that we're having this conversation here...
As a query, since we both have our own blogs, it's slightly funny that we're having this conversation here...
Neutral territory.
Post a Comment