What Chrenkoff and his adulatory followers seem to lack is a sense of what is important, and often go to absurd lengths to find positive news; summarizing a depressing CSIS report as simply "Iraqi Optimism Endures but It Is Fragile" is a prime example of the latter problem. While CSIS itself notes that "although Iraq’s governing institutions lack adequate capacity and negative trends dominate security, jobs, and services like electricity and sewage, Iraqis themselves remain optimistic" Chrenkoff argues that "whereas the fragility of Iraqi optimism is a function of continuing violence and reconstruction pains, the American optimism is under the constant assault from the negative media coverage." But if these negative trends ("continuing violence and reconstruction pains") do in fact exist--an element of the report that Chrenkoff does not dispute--then the media is reporting appropriately, and Americans are merely reacting naturally to the bad news.
Another element of Chrenkoff Syndrome that bothers me is that it takes normal events and spins them as "historic." Chrenkoff seems to believe that Iraqis have never experienced economic activity. While in his introduction, Chrenkoff nods in this direction by referring to "normalcy," he gets overly enthusiastic when he goes on to say that "the Iraqi caravan is certainly on the move" when according to the CSIS report he cited approvingly, Iraq is advancing in a backwards direction.
Yet another masterful element of Chrenkoff Syndrome is the spinning of clear policy reversals as good news, for instance, the announcement that the four dominant parties in the new Iraqi National Assembly are Allawi's Iraqi National Accord but also the Communists, the Sunni Islamists, and the Shi'ite Islamists. While it's good that everyone is able to participate in civil society, few Americans would recognize the ascension of a Communist or an Islamic fundamentalist government as a successful outcome or a step towards liberal democracy. If the moderate Swiss Islamist Tariq Ramadan doesn't deserve to be admitted to the U.S., imagine an Iraqi government delegation consisting of more than a few folks who have explicitly called for the death of American troops and civilians. Not to mention that, according to the very poll Chrenkoff touts, 80% of Iraqis aren't affiliated with any political party, so the body can hardly be said to be representative of Iraqis as a whole. Spencer Ackerman points out other worrying problems with the poll here. I'll note in passing that while the IRI (the organization responsible for the poll) claims to be non-partisan, its board consists entirely of conservatives and was founded explicitly to execute "President Reagan's vision."
Some of what Chrenkoff points to are, in fact, encouraging signs: new construction, high real estate prices, and some modest success with the electrical sector. But does anyone believe that $13,500 worth of donated archeological tools matters at all to whether Iraq will become a functioning democracy? And again, Iraqi attitudes towards all of these developments are examined exhaustively and incorporated in the CSIS report mentioned above.
Chrenkoff might say that what he is doing is important in order to lend balance to what he sees as a biased mainstream media that is hurting American morale. The only way America can lose, in this view, is if we lose our nerve. If America does lose its nerve based on bad information, that would be tragic. But obviously this approach can be taken to absurd levels. When is enough enough? Would Chrenkoff ever be able admit that a change of course is needed, or that our presence is actually a source of instability in many cases? Even though the latter has been admitted in recent weeks by various commanders on the ground, I doubt Chrenkoff would ever acknowledge it.
While I agree that an American withdrawal would have enormous propaganda value for Al Qaeda and a devastating effect on Iraqi moderates, I do find value in honest assessments of the state of play. An account intended to Balance what one sees as overly negative media stories ought not to be mindless puffery; it ought to be itself balanced. American optimism, if that is the goal, is more useful if it arises not from propaganda but from perspective. That's why I'm far more impressed by the hefty doses of pragmatic realism exhibited by military officials than I am by a bunch of painted schools.
This rather, um, shrill assessment by Christopher Albritton -- who benefits from actually being in Iraq -- offers a pre-emptive rebuttal of Chrenkoff Syndrome:
I don’t know if I can really put into words just how bad it is here some days. Yesterday was horrible — just horrible. While most reports show Fallujah, Ramadi and Samarra as “no-go” areas, practically the entire Western part of the country is controlled by insurgents, with pockets of U.S. power formed by the garrisons outside the towns. Insurgents move freely throughout the country and the violence continues to grow.While I doubt Albritton has a handle on the entire country, I don't think his story can be easily dismissed by someone sitting in his pajamas in front of a computer monitor, spinning wildly. But it can be done with a more realistic attitude. If Iraqis are not, in fact, fleeing the country (I've read that some 40,000 Christians have left in the past year or so) and much of the Iraqi government has not actually vacated the scene, please find evidence to show that Allbritton is wrong. If Samarra and Ramadi are not actually "no-go areas," find me a story about American attempts to work with local tribal leaders to marginalize the insurgents. If Iraqis don't seem to have a clue what elections are all about, show that concrete steps are being taken to address the problem. If Americans helicopters are shooting random civilians, tell me how they are going to make amends. If American will is faltering, remind me that positive developments take time and that setbacks are to be expected but can be overcome by wise and realistic policies.
I wish I could point to a solution, but I don’t see one. People continue to email me, telling me to report the “truth” of all the good things that are going on in Iraq. I’m not seeing a one. A buddy of mine is stationed here and they’re fixing up a park on a major street. Gen. Chiarelli was very proud of this accomplishment, and he stressed this to me when I interviewed him for the TIME story. But Baghdadis couldn’t care less. They don’t want city beautification projects; they want electricity, clean water and, most of all, an end to the violence.
And in the midst of all this violence, most of the Iraqi Interim Government is out of town. Security Advisors, heads of important ministries and the chief of the new Mukhabarat are all mysteriously absent. The Iraqi security forces are a joke, with the much talked about Fallujah Brigade disbanded for being feckless and — worse — riddled with insurgents who were being paid and trained by the U.S. Marines.
Thousands of Iraqis are desperate to get a new passport and flee the country. These are often the most educated Iraqis — the have the money to get new passports and travel — so the brain-drain will accelerate.
The poor and the disenfranchised are finding their leaders in the populist and fundamentalist Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr or in the radical Islam of the jihadis, who are casting a long shadow on this formerly secular country. Iraq has its own home-grown Wahhabists now, something it didn’t have 18 months ago.
In the context of all this, reporting on a half-assed refurbished school or two seems a bit childish and naive, the equivalent of telling a happy story to comfort a scared child. Anyone who asks me to tell the “real” story of Iraq — implying all the bad things are just media hype — should refer to this post. I just told you the real story: What was once a hell wrought by Saddam is now one of America’s making.
Don't try to shine me on with stories about soccer fields, archeological tools, and DOA efforts to forge relations with Israel.
UPDATE [9-17-04] by nadezhda
Perhaps a brush with reality from time to time is the best cure for the Chrenkoff Syndrome. As Andrew Sullivan notes today:
Losing control of critical parts of Baghdad is, er, not a good sign.His comment was made as a followup to this excerpt from Gregory Djerjeian, The Belgravia Dispatch on fatalities in Iraq.
Also, folks, a capital city like Baghdad is critical in all of this. You can't have foreign nationals, willy-nilly, being kidnapped from the Mansour neighborhood smack dab in the morning on their way to work. You can't have myriad suicide car bombings slaughtering new Iraqi police recruits seemingly every day. You can't have the effing perimeter of the Green Zone unsecured at this late juncture. Not only is it critical to exert real control over the capital as a strategic matter--it's also of hugely symbolic support--for us, for the international community and, yes, for the insurgents.This would seem to be a pretty self-evident observation. But he's one of the few long-time supporters of the invasion to have been willing to look unblinkingly at what's going on and not reject out-of-hand the idea that the US strategy may require adjustment. He warns against equating realism with "defeatism" with this plea:
Listen, we're all in this together. Suger-coating and potentially dubious number-crunching exercises aren't going to win this war. Understanding (at least as best as one can judiciously ascertain) where we are right now, however, might help. And, truth be told, it ain't all that pretty. No, it's not Tet, not by a long shot. But it's not a rinky-dink little insurgency fully contained and emasculated in Anbar province either. It's something in between, and the sooner we accept that, the better for all of us.
UPDATE [9-22-04 10:AM] by nadezhda while praktike is in Egypt
Arthur Chrenkoff has a couple of responses to contributing his name to a syndrome. He's clearly feeling misunderstood as well by M Yglesias. Main point:
I'm not in the business of providing an "honest assessment" - in fact, I'm not in the business of providing any "assessment" at all - I am in the business of providing information, though. If the media is painting an overly negative picture of Iraq, my mission is to point out to people all the positive developments taking place. My readers can then look at both, give each set of information the weight they consider appropriate, and then make up their mind as to what's going on in Iraq. If after the end of the whole process my readers are convinced that Iraq is after all going to hell, that's perfectly fine with me - the point is not to convince them either way, but to enable them to reach an educated judgment. My fisker is indeed the perfect example of how it all works in practice: he (or she) obviously follows the mainstream media coverage of Iraq; he (or she) also looks at my work, doesn't find it convincing or persuasive enough (as he or she is perfectly entitled to do), and arrives at the conclusion that situation in Iraq is truly bad - the most important element here is that he (or she) is now making that assessment based on all the information available.
My commentator thinks that reading "Good news from Iraq" "inhibits clear thinking about what is really going on in Iraq". I would have thought that trying to form opinion about the situation in Iraq after considering only one side of the story is far more dangerous.
The first afoe European weblog awards