Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Tell The Christians To Come Home

You can tell them, but they just won't listen! So what the Bush Administration has done instead is remove visas from the jurisdiction of the Baghdad embassy. It's the largest American embassy in the world, but if you want political asylum, sorry, you have to go to Jordan. Jordan shut its border to Iraqi refugees, but sorry, the Baghdad embassy can't fix that either. So Iraqi Christians have fled to Europe, Kurdistan, Syria, and Lebanon.

Anyway Michael Yon has discovered just how empty his Iwo Jima moment was. You can raise the holy cross of victory in Baghdad, but most of the Christians are gone. I'm sure that the lesson won't stick, but at least for today he's a wiser man. Besides, replacing the flag on Mount Suribachi with a cross rather dubiously sells the Iraq war as a Christian crusade.

Frankly Michael Yon has bad judgment written all over him. What else do you expect from an embedded "journalist" who seizes an Army rifle during a firefight and almost kills an American soldier. If they weren't desperate for pro-war flacks, they could have pressed criminal charges.

Posted by Jim Harris at November 16, 2007 08:45 AM

Jim,
you obviously prefer the anti-war, half-truth, out right lie, doctored pictures flacks.

Besides, replacing the flag on Mount Suribachi with a cross rather dubiously sells the Iraq war as a Christian crusade.

What about the Druids and Wiccans who are in uniform? And WE didn't put up a cross, the Iraqis put it BACK.

Beside's all that, Yon's story isn't about government edicts, government border closures or your hatred of GWB and his unjust war. It's about the ATTITUDES of the everyday people of Iraq and what they want.

Frankly, I'm surprised the Dems aren't all over this, it's diversity in action at the local level.

Posted by Steve at November 16, 2007 10:01 AM

Nice try Jim. I know you loathe to admit that the main point of the story, that peace through superior firepower, and on the ground neighborhood diplomacy are creating a return to normalcy and peace in Iraq. Instead you seek to move the goal post once more. Ironically you’re complaining about a problem that’s caused by the only US government arm in Iraq where the Democratic Party really has influence, the State Department. If you sincerely wish to help those wishing to return please let you congressmen know that you support our efforts in Iraq and ask them to see if we can help Iraqis’ return to a free Iraq.

Posted by JJS at November 16, 2007 12:16 PM

I wonder why those Iraqis want Christians to return.

Do they think that a Christian population makes the US more likely to care?

Or, maybe they associate Christians with not-oil wealthy countries.

Posted by Andy Freeman at November 16, 2007 01:27 PM

It seems to be entirely too optimistic to say that the war is won. Almost as bad as Harry Reid saying the war was lost.

The war will be won when the 2.5-4 million refugees return and the current occupants of their homes and property give it back to them. The war is won when Iraq has a stable government representing all sects. The war is won when this stable government is pro-American.

It's much too early to say the war is won. I think the war is simply on the PAUSE button. I hope not, but I think it is. The Iranians are also playing it very smart and cooling all their efforts inside Iraq. They are waiting for Americans to declare the war as won, just as at this blog, and withdraw the troops.

Of course if the war is on the PAUSE button, who wants to keep the troops there? So we will pull them out, and then find out where the war actually went.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at November 16, 2007 02:24 PM

Andy Freeman I don't get your point(s).

Why would they think the US would care more? I'm sure they're aware that a US-led coalition liberated Kuwait too and I bet there was far fewer christians there.

So perhaps they just want their friends and acquaintances back.

Why would they associate christians with countries without oil wealth? Norway is the worlds third largest oil exporter and Britain was self-sufficient until the early eighties if I remember correctly (or maybe it was mid-seventies?). Russia is the worlds second largest oil exporter and they've got lots of christians too. Then there's the US with Texas, the Gulf of Mexico, and Alaska and other places too I'm sure but those are the biggest ones I know of (I'll include the US since the US known reserves are at the same level now as they were in the seventies due to constant technological improvements and discoveries of new deposits).

So perhaps iraqis just want their fellow iraqi back because they're part of their own national identity (which I think is much stronger than a lot of westerners realize, the Iran-Iraq war made sure of that).

Posted by Habitat Hermit at November 16, 2007 04:40 PM

I wonder why those Iraqis want Christians to return.

The most likely reason is that some Army brigade wanted them to care. The Iraq war is about twice the size of the Iraq GDP and an Iraqi doesn't have to be Abu Einstein to appease the wealthy occupiers. They are desperate for jobs and other favors and they know what the US Army wants to hear. They are probably genuinely ashamed that their people ran the Christians out of Baghdad, so they aren't really lying in begging them to come back. But there is no reason to believe that they truly care given their personal dire straits.

For one thing, it's no secret that the Christians are not coming back. I don't know why JJS suggests that the State Department is blocking Iraqi Christians from returning to Baghdad. State is blocking them from leaving, not returning, and has been for four years. There is nothing that State can say to persuade Iraqi refugees in Jordan to return, much less the ones in Sweden and Germany. The most they can do is slam the door to America. A lot of the Christians still in Baghdad wouldn't be caught dead in a church either. They know that if they go to church too often, they probably will be caught dead one way or another. Iraqi Muslims know it too, so if they beg Iraqi Christians to come back, it's at the most a sincere apology for what has happened to the Christians.

The bottom line is that Iraq is moving from a country that is 3% Christian to one that is 0% Christian. Some may call that "victory" or "moving the goal posts", but it's a disaster, plain and simple. Maybe Michael Yon thinks it's victory, but he doesn't even have the sense to keep his hands off of Army weapons. There is only one Iraqi Christian in Maliki's cabinet --- her portfolio is a travesty known as the human rights ministry --- and she says that in 20 years, there won't be any Christians left in Iraq.

Posted by Jim Harris at November 16, 2007 04:48 PM

You confuse "countries with oil wealth" with "countries with only oil wealth." They notice that we have other ways of creating wealth besides oil, and may want to consider emulating it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 16, 2007 04:53 PM

Maybe Michael Yon thinks it's victory, but he doesn't even have the sense to keep his hands off of Army weapons.

Michael Yon was Special Forces. He knows a little about weapons handling.

He's probably be upset about this continual slandering of him here on your part, if he were aware of it, and if it didn't come from what he'd probably consider a piss ant.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 16, 2007 04:58 PM

Michael Yon was Special Forces. He knows a little about weapons handling.

Then he really should have known better, because the first thing that you learn in any organized force, special or otherwise, is not to fire weapons without authorization.

What happened was that in a firefight in Mosul, a US soldier, Robert Prosser, appeared to "go down" inside a shop. Yon screamed for a grenade; when none materialized he grabbed a rifle and fired three shots blind into the shop. In fact, Prosser was choking an insurgent and he was doing fine until Yon shot at him. Yon could just as well have hit Prosser as the insurgent. If he had grabbed a grenade, he could have killed both of them. Prosser's response to this behavior was: "Have you lost your mind?"

Given that Yon was an embedded "journalist" at the time, this is really breaking every rule in the book. As I said, if the military wasn't desperate for war rah-rah, they could have pressed charges. Or at the very least, kicked him out and made sure he never came back.

He's probably be upset about this continual slandering of him

There is something that you don't understand about the slander laws, Rand. It's not slander if it's openly admitted and documented. Like if I say that Michael Yon also killed a man in a bar fight in Maryland, that's not slander either. Yon said so himself.

Posted by Jim Harris at November 16, 2007 05:43 PM

Well Jim that was quite the piece on Yon. Does anyone know whether he has refuted any of it?

Posted by Offside at November 16, 2007 06:01 PM

Whether it's legally slander or not is beside the point. It is an irrelevant ad hominem attack on him to attempt to diminish his credibility (gee, just like with Kathleen Willey). Don't like the message? Attack the messenger. Classy.

Not to mention a logical fallacy.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 16, 2007 06:11 PM

Jim,

Where does a Chickenshit like yourself come off lecturing your better (Yon) what to do in a life or death situation like a pitched firefight?

You never served, Chickenshits don't have the right to monday morning quarterback thoes who have.

Posted by Mike Puckett at November 16, 2007 06:35 PM

Jim,

It is obvious that you would have happily stood by and took pictures while our brave soldiers were killed, then sold them to the MSM to show how bad the war was going. While what Yon did was against the rules, it was the morally correct and brave choice. Both attributes you lack or understand.

Posted by George Tyson at November 16, 2007 09:37 PM

Does anyone know whether he has refuted any of it?

He'd have a hard time refuting direct testimony from the soldier that he was trying to "save". In any case, I don't see why this story would shake him, since it isn't even as bad as the other story in which he killed a man in a bar fight. And fled the scene. He also thought about escaping to Mexico. It's true that a grand jury let him off, but the incident still makes him look really bad. Not only did Yon not refute that story, he published it himself: it's the first chapter of his autobiography.

As I said, this guy has bad judgment written all over him.

Posted by Jim Harris at November 16, 2007 10:04 PM

Yon has discussed the matter, laying out facts (facts being irrelevant to some I would say); and, the military itself "cleared" him on his actions. Some in the military, particularly REMFs, were not happy about it, but he was found to have acted properly in saving the lives of soldiers and himself. His site has a good bit, and you can also find more (including sometimes spirited discussion by people who are knowledgeable) at milblogs such as Blackfive, Mudville, Milblogs, OpFor, etc. BTW, the proper term from a legal perspective is libel, since electronic is treated as print. Yon scarecely needs me to defend him, esp. as I think he is much more likely to laugh himself silly at one such as jimmy. Rand, is this the latest iteration of your perrenial troll? Yeah, spelling bites, deal with it. And a shameless plug: more reports from my embed coming out soon at Blackfive, PMI, and my own blog. :)

Posted by Laughing Wolf at November 17, 2007 06:36 AM

As I said, this guy has bad judgment written all over him.

While that may be accurate, how does this affect his reporting? As I see it, a lot of reporters have big character flaws. These aren't usually relevant.

Also, I don't think throwing around phrases like "the war is over" is prudent. "Winning" is a long way from "won".

Posted by Karl Hallowell at November 17, 2007 07:27 AM

Rand wrote:
"You confuse "countries with oil wealth" with "countries with only oil wealth.""

Andy's words were "not-oil wealthy countries" so it could be this or that. I wrote my comment because I didn't see Andy's point and I still don't. The most wealthy country among the most "not-oil wealthy" countries in the world I can think of has something below 1% christians: Japan.

I don't buy all the various strained and mostly anti-american explanations for why iraqis want their christian iraqis back.

Mike Puckett wrote to Jim:
"You never served, Chickenshits don't have the right to monday morning quarterback thoes who have."

That's an inverted chickenhawk "argument" and just as invalid. The whole point of freedom of speech is that he has the right no matter how stupid.

Posted by Habitat Hermit at November 17, 2007 07:36 AM

"As I said, this guy has bad judgment written all over him."

http://www.oaktreeent.com/web_photos/8mm_Film/Bell_And_Howell_254-RS_Regular_8mm_Film_Projector_web.jpg

Posted by Mike Puckett at November 17, 2007 07:37 AM

Andy's words were "not-oil wealthy countries" so it could be this or that.

Well, my interpretation was that he was referring to other countries whose wealth (unlike that of much of the Middle East) did not primarily derive from oil, not countries that had none.

Posted by at November 17, 2007 08:34 AM

While that may be accurate, how does this affect his reporting?

It certainly does affect his "reporting". These incidents portray a man who has extremely poor consideration for other people's safety. If you badly injure a man in a bar fight, the solution is to stay and call an ambulance, not wrestle past a bouncer and run out of the bar. If you are an embedded war guest and you see a soldier chase an insurgent into a street shop, the solution is to let the troop handle it, not throw a genade or shoot at him.

Likewise, if you have good consideration for others' personal safety, you would realize that Iraqi Christians' fear of getting killed in Baghdad is real and enduring. They didn't flee just at the drop of a hat. You would realize that re-enacting Mount Suribachi with a church steeple is callous, false symbolism that won't fool anybody. Indeed, to add injury to insult, it makes the Iraq war look like a Christian crusade. If Yon's photo were to spread widely in Iraq, it would invite even more threats to Iraqi Christians.

No, the truth is the opposite of the staged church steeple photograph. The only Christian in Iraq's government cabinet is Wijdan Mikhail Salim. Unlike Tariq Aziz, who was Saddam Hussein's Christian underling, Salim has no real influence. But she does warn the world that in 20 years, there will be no more Christians in Iraq. Half of them are already gone; there were also a few dozen Jews in Baghdad and they were evacuated too. It is a "victory" worthy of Jack Kevorkian.

Posted by Jim Harris at November 17, 2007 08:39 AM

A reasonable complaint then. Still I see a few mitigating circumstances. First, Yon was willing to write about the bar fight killing. That strikes me as showing some sort of remorse and consideration for what he did. Second, Yon's personal safety was at risk. I think the appropriate solution would have been to leave the bar and call from a safe location.

As to the incident in Iraq, I agree that Yon should not have fired a weapon in this situation. Yet I find it disconcerting that a soldier goes off by their own into a building and drops out of sight. This was not a good situation. I don't know whether the military properly reviewed this incident or not, but under slightly different circumstances (even ignoring Yon's actions) that soldier could have ended up dead either from the person he fought but also from friendly fire from his fellow soldiers.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at November 17, 2007 09:21 AM

A reasonable complaint then.

No, it's a fallacious (but convenient for Jim's thesis) ad hominem argument. There is no relationship about quality of reporting and reasoned analysis, and instant decisions made in the heat of combat or a bar fight. They are entirely different types of cognitive activities, and competence or incompetence in one does not translate into competence or incompetence in the other in any way.

As for whether or not the Christians in fact return, that is an end to be desired, but it's irrelevant to whether or not the war is over. The good sign is that their neighbors seem to sincerely want them to. If they don't, it's one of the tragic outcomes of a necessary war, but it doesn't mean that the war isn't over, any more than it means that World War II isn't over because none of the Jews returned to Poland. Another fallacy on Jim's part.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 17, 2007 09:32 AM

Yon was willing to write about the bar fight killing. That strikes me as showing some sort of remorse and consideration for what he did.

No, he wrote about it out of sheer self-promotion, and, more significantly, because he does not accept that it was wrong. Read it for yourself in his book chapter. He doesn't name the guy he killed, or apologize to him. He is suspiciously vague about the victim's injuries. He left his friend, Steve Shaulis, holding the bag in the bar; but he doesn't apologize to Shaulis either. He rationalizes his cowardice in ducking the bouncers and the police. His only apologia is that the dead man provoked the fight.

http://www.michaelyon-on line.com/wp/danger-close-chapter-one.htm

Yet I find it disconcerting that a soldier goes off by their own into a building and drops out of sight.

But Prosser wasn't on his own, because he had the rest of his troop to back him up. If he needed help. Everyone other than Yon trusted, correctly, that Prosser was stronger than the man he was chasing and had superior firepower. That is why he subdued the insurgent instead of killing him. Yon saw fit not only to fire weapons, but also to shout orders to Prosser's men.

This portrayed not only poor safety judgment, but also a lack of objectivity. Yon isn't really there to document the war, he's there to fight and win.

As for whether or not the Christians in fact return, that is an end to be desired, but it's irrelevant to whether or not the war is over.

It certainly is relevant to who won the Iraq war. And the fate of Polish Jews is a good example. Maybe Poles won World War II (sort of), but Polish Jews certainly lost. The surviving Poles didn't even help the Jews who returned to Poland after 1945; in many cases they attacked them. If not for you guys, some of the Poles argued, the Nazis would have treated us better. World War II killed Polish Judaism, just like the Iraq War is killing Iraqi Christianity. If some Michael Yon had waved the Israeli flag in Warsaw in 1948, it would have been just as callous and stupid.

Posted by Jim Harris at November 17, 2007 10:18 AM

Don't like the message? Attack the messenger. Classy.

Oh, that's just delicious. Hypocrisy of the very first order.

Posted by at November 17, 2007 10:25 AM

Oh, that's just delicious. Hypocrisy of the very first order.

Nonsense. Learn to think.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 17, 2007 10:43 AM

Rand,

If anonymous was talking about Jim, he was right on the money. That is eactly what he is doing with Yon. So funny to see him go so overboard to deny the truth.

Can we label it Surge Denial Syndrome? A subset of BDS.

Posted by Mike Puckett at November 17, 2007 11:10 AM

As for whether or not the Christians in fact return, that is an end to be desired, but it's irrelevant to whether or not the war is over.

Rand, I find it quite hard to beleive that you think the war is over . Are you just trying to score some points here or is this in any way tied to reality?

Moving some 2-5+ million people out of Iraq as refugees can't count as an inevitable part of winning any war. It's NOT a necessary part of winning by any definition of that term. In fact it is rather a sick idea to suggest that the Iraqi exodus is immaterial to our success. The fact that these people, the vast majority of whom are innocents, are out of Iraq is a resounding testament to our failure. So let's fix that before talking about victory.

Posted by Offside at November 17, 2007 11:19 AM

Moving some 2-5+ million people out of Iraq as refugees can't count as an inevitable part of winning any war.

Of course it can. Again, by that standard, World War II is still going on, unwon.

In fact it is rather a sick idea to suggest that the Iraqi exodus is immaterial to our success.

I neither said, or even "suggested" that. I simply said that it's immaterial to whether or not the war is over. There remain many challenges ahead in forming a viable new nation in Iraq, and we may still ultimately fail, but that's a new and different problem. The war we were in, first with the Ba'athists, and then with Al Qaeda, is effectively over.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 17, 2007 11:39 AM

The war we were in, first with the Ba'athists, and then with Al Qaeda, is effectively over.

That's mostly correct. The Baathists in Iraq were defeated, and Al Qaeda in Iraq is on its way. Al Qaeda in Pakistan is alive and well, but Al Qaeda in Iraq, which is a different group, is close to toast. In fact all of the Sunni Arabs in Iraq will be vanquished. They will be stranded in the desert with nothing, which is why they are taking patronage from the US Army for now. Pro-Iranian Shiite Islamists are winning in Baghdad and will win; Kurdistan is seceding and will secede; and Iraqi Christians are leaving and won't come back.

So yeah, American interests in Iraq are drawing to a close.

Posted by Jim Harris at November 17, 2007 12:04 PM

I find Yon's lengthy rationalizations and flight fantasies there to be bizarre. Basically, he has to explain why he didn't turn himself in right away, and he makes a feeble effort at it. OTOH, he was apparently 15 at the time of the fight and such fantasizing isn't unusual for the age. This doesn't appear to reflect well on him at that time, but I do find the fact that he will speak of it in some detail to be interesting.

And as far as "sheer" self-promotion goes, the act of writing an autobiography is generally sufficient proof of that. I do not see an unusual amount of self-promotion in the above story. He could have, after all, given it short shrift.

Prosser was fighting someone hand to hand without any allies close to him. He was alone in that building apparently. Hence, your statement is incorrect here. It is foolish to assume that the stronger person will win such a fight. There might have been weapons, accomplices, or some other factor that would result in Prosser's injury or death. Even random chance can turn the tide in such circumstances.

As I see it, Yon has serious flaws. But his flaws are obvious. One doesn't need to read much to understand where his sympathies lie or his biases. He doesn't hide this. Given also his efforts in high risk areas, the length of time he's worked in Iraq, and the good quality of his reports and photographs (archived, of course), he is a relatively high quality source.

My take though is that Michael Yon will have a difficult time carrying that success past Iraq.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at November 17, 2007 09:36 PM

he was apparently 15 at the time

He was 19. He said that he looked 15.

It is foolish to assume that the stronger person will win such a fight.

Whether Prosser was "alone" is really just semantics. It's a fine theory of tactical engagement that Prosser was in danger --- who knows if it's true though. The fact remains that Yon had absolutely no business thinking that he knew better than the soldiers on the scene. You are talking as if it was just him and Prosser.

One doesn't need to read much to understand where his sympathies lie or his biases.

It's true that Yon wears his monumental bias and reckless attitude more-or-less on his sleeve. So does Rush Limbaugh. That is not a good excuse to then pretend that his work is well-reasoned. So okay, he is a good photographer, in the sense that the pictures are clear and dramatic and the hues are all correct. That's commendable, but beside the point. He interprets those pictures with the same bad judgment that led to his dangerous incidents. It's precisely these unbalanced interpretations that make him popular in right-wing circles.

After all, the money quote in this whole thread is the title of the post: "Tell The Christians To Come Home". That plea is a crock. Iraqi Christians know that they aren't safe in Baghdad no matter what Yon says about it.

Posted by Jim Harris at November 17, 2007 10:03 PM

In that case, why does it matter what Yon did or didn't do? As you point out, just because Yon fired a few shots at Prosser, doesn't mean that Prosser was in any danger. It's just semantics. Sarcasm aside, the story as told so far in this thread implied these limited conclusions.

OTOH, your admission of uncertainty would be more credible, if you applied that standard equally.

Fine, so he shouldn't be anyone's sole source of news about Iraq then. I'm tolerant of these things because I think I can invert the Michael Yon filter.

Your certainty in this matter is interesting considering the lack of information about the current state of affairs in Iraq.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at November 18, 2007 05:55 AM

The story as told so far in this thread implied these limited conclusions.

The simple path to reason is to trust the judgment of the American soldiers who were there, since it was their job. Prosser was furious with Yon for firing a rifle at him, and even more so for interfering with Army operations.

Your certainty in this matter is interesting considering the lack of information about the current state of affairs in Iraq.

There are thousands of tons of information about the current state of affairs in Iraq. The problem is not a lack of information, it's that there is a cacophany of information.

In particular, the information is that Iraqi Christians are not protected from Muslim thugs and that they are fleeing the country. You can learn that from blogs, from embassies, from the New York Times, from Christian newsletters, from Iraqi Christian leaders, from any source other than pro-war zealots. All I said about it in relation to Michael Yon is that maybe he thinks it's "victory", but he has bad judgment. That is inverting the Yon filter. If you're happy to also invert the Yon filter, then we don't disagree.

Posted by Jim Harris at November 18, 2007 08:18 AM

Look, Harris, if you want to take Yon to task, you can go to Iraq and talk to him personally. Then let him have the first punch. Till then, quit it with the musical posts. "Oh, he killed a guy in a bar fight" - "Oh, he did something stupid in Iraq" - "Oh, he has poor judgment" - "Oh, he killed a guy in a bar fight." Waste of time.

As for the Iraqi exodus, did you bother to get the opinion of the 4 million Iraqis who were in exile under Saddam? For the record, they wanted the war. And you haven't bothered to answer Rand's question as to why the lack of returns among Iraqi Christians is relevant, especially when other Iraqis are returning. Hell, for all you know the pleas for Iraqi Christians to come home were genuine and represented 99% of the locals, but the Christians stayed away for fear of the remaining 1%. I don't believe the war's over because my parameters for the war are broader than Rand's and I'm more cautious than he, but your arguments have been tasteless and pointless thus far.

Posted by Math_Mage at November 19, 2007 04:01 AM

Post a comment