Responding to 'Blogging Baghdad' comments
NBC News Jim Maceda responds to questions sent in to Blogging Baghdad. If you have questions or comments regarding the content of Blogging Baghdad, please see the link below and and send us your thoughts. Name: Mike Bowser Jr Hometown: Excelsior, MN Comments: Why oh why must all correspondents write these blogs about how Iraq is a lost cause? Why doesn't Jim Maceda just go up to the troops and say, "You know, that school that you're building right now will just be blown up tomorrow, so why are you all even trying?" Yes, I understand that there really isn't much progress to speak of in Iraq, but that's not Bush's fault. I don't see Bush making these IEDs and placing them in the streets, and Jim doesn't know what would happen to Iraq if we just picked up and left. Regardless if you disagree with the war or enjoy the occasional Bushbashing, we are there. We have bombed these people's homes and businesses and we must stay there and help them rebuild. Jim Maceda's response: Hello Mike, Thank you for your interest in NBC News and this blog we're trying to get off the ground. Reconstruction is a complicated subject and, as one expert much more versed than I said, it is multi-faceted. There is construction and destruction (usually insurgent-driven), and there is also hope and despair. There are new cars and computers, but there is little power or drinkable water (at least in Baghdad). Please take a look at a spot on the subject of rebuilding Iraq, the pros and cons and the promises kept and broken, that should air on Wednesday, December 14 on NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams. This is not about "Bushbashing," it's a reality check on the great strides that have been made, and the great need that has yet to be answered. Thanks again for your contribution,
Jim Maceda
Baghdad
Name: Chris
Hometown: Frederick, MD
Comments: The world makes perfect sense to me, but our foreign policy does not. I have a few simple questions that I hope someone can answer for me....
1) Why is the U.S. not committing more forces to taking out Osama bin Laden?
2) Isn't bin Laden our #1 enemy? Shouldn't he be a higher priority than anything in Iraq, considering Saddam is gone now?
3) Are we safer now than in 2001 - keeping in mind that bin Laden attacked us then, and he is still out there now?
4) Did bin Laden attack us because we:
A) Are a wealthy nation and mostly Christian, or B) Have a military presence throughout the world? or is there an answer C) ?
5) And finally, simple, simple question: Why did Bush say "Mission Accomplished" before we caught Saddam, before it was determined there were no nuclear weapons, and before the Iraqis were able to defend themselves (which still has not occurred)?
I would just like to know simple answers to, what I think, are simple questions. Thank you.
Jim Maceda's response:
Hello Chris,
Thank you for your comments and contribution to this blog that MSNBC.com is keen to see take life. I'll take a stab at answering some of your really not-so-simple questions.
1) The truth is that the U.S. military is already so stretched that our government doesn’t believe it appropriate at this time to pump troops and materiel into Afghanistan to hunt down Osama bin Laden. The feeling is that he has been pretty much taken out of the picture since September 2002, with persistent rumors that he is sick or even dead.
Granted, remains an enormous SYMBOLIC force for al-Qaida operatives and sympathizers, but for the past two years the #2, Ayman al-Zawahri, has assumed the mantle of the "face" of the Jihadist revolution.
The problem is al-Zawahri (and possibly Bin Laden) are more likely hiding, not in Afghanistan, but in remote tribal areas inside Pakistan. And Pakistan's President Musharraf cannot afford to be seen caving into the U.S. and allowing massive American forces to launch offensives on his territory.
2) Bin Laden is in theory our #1 enemy, in reality it is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian terrorist who has morphed into al-Qaida's 'Emir' in Iraq. He's al-Qaida's hatchet-man and should be our main focus. Most sources believe he is still operating inside Iraq, but still manages to cross into Syria when his tail gets hot.
3) We are safer now in America than we were in 2001, no question. But we are much less safe (as Americans or just as Western reporters) in Iraq.
I can recall, before the war, driving down to Hilla for lunch with the local governor after breakfast in Baghdad and returning to Baghdad for dinner with yet another official, with no body guards or armored vehicles. That would be suicide to try today.
4) This is a great question: I think many of us who cover this part of the world would say that 'A' is your best answer, although there are several factors driving the Wahabi extremists. However, those who think that al-Qaida will melt away when 1) U.S. forces pull out of the Arab world and 2) Israel returns pre-1967 Palestine to the Palestinians, are missing a KEY point - al Qaida wants to defeat the West in order to establish an Islamic Empire (Caliphate) in its place.
It cleverly uses examples of "Muslim abuse by the U.S." to advance that cause. Palestine has been a story for decades, but bin Laden only began to address his Palestinian "brothers" a few years ago, when it became expedient to do so.
The Wahabis are religious, not political extremists. They are fighting wealthy Christian nations first and foremost, and liberal democracies by extension.
Finally 5) I believe (and this is based on interviews with those charged with "winning the peace" in Iraq) that President Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" because his top advisors truly believed that the Iraqis, in May 2003, after heavy combat had ended and Saddam's regime had been toppled, that the Iraqis, en masse, would then take the ball and run with it. There was a belief that the Iraqis would take charge of their own reconstruction, with gentle nudging from U.S. administrators and the Army Corps of Engineers.
That our administration did not see the Saddamists, the Arab nationalists, and the insurgents (not to mention the terrorists) charging through the desert once the dust settled is the most tragic proof of its collective ignorance of this country.
The Iraqis, however, are truly taking up the fight - I have seen it personally on a number of occasions. But we are probably three to five years away from an Iraq without a major U.S. military presence. And that should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed our missions in Bosnia or Kosovo.
Thank you again for your interest in NBC News.
Regards,
Jim Maceda
Baghdad
Ramsey Clark defends himself
EMAIL THIS
advertisement
Slide Show
- Life beyond the violence
Suicide attacks and murders due to sectarian conflict continue around Iraq. See how residents live their lives amid the attacks.
Read the Nightly News blog
