Nir Rosen: his book Aftermath

I had trashed Nir's first book on Iraq.  I said it sucked big time.  I did not know what to expect: I was teasing him on Facebook that I am relishing the opportunity to trash another book of his.  Unfortunately for me, I really really liked this book.  I highly recommend it and it is probably if not certainly the first book on Iraq and Afghanistan in which the natives come out as full human being with blood in their veins.  It is the best attempt by a Western reporter to carry the vies, pains, wishes, aspirations, and suffering of the occupied.  His treatment of the US military occupiers was refreshingly non-worshipful.  He also is not lazy: in covering Lebanon, Iraq, or Afghanistan, he travels around.  He rightly observes that Western reporting on Lebanon is deficient--highly deficient--because they don't travel beyond the narrow "green zone" (whether in Beirut or Kabul or Baghdad).  In each of those countries, the Westerners develop and reside in a "green zone." Nir does not shy away from writing about the destructive and (war) criminal role of the occupiers: and how they treat the natives. You don't read about that in the Western press.  I would only suggest that in the paperback edition, Nir ads another chapter to his 600 page volume: a conclusion. The book cries out of a wrap-up: a conclusion in which he gives his final thoughts, conclusions and analysis, as much as he may not like that.  The reporter grew so much from his last book: he is more sensitive without being ever naive (you can't say that he went "native" as they say because he is open eyed about what people may say about themselves to impress a Western reporter).  His language is sensitive: i loved when he said: in Arabic, and in other languages, etc (he was talking about a form of insult).  I was talking to an American film maker about Nir's book the other day in Washington, DC: he felt that Nir should have stressed more the US role in the sectarian conflict in Iraq.  I felt he did, although when he went to the details he may have lost track of it a bit.  Nir became a better reporter when he gave up on the ambition to be a mainstream reporter.  That has been so good for him: carrying mainstream ambition in reporting in the US media is very unhealthy: because there are so many political and ideological constrains on you especially if you want to cover the Middle East.  Every word is weighed as to not offend the Israeli occupiers.  Nir is so free of mainstream journalistic ambition that he frees himself from the ideological-terminological baggage of Western reporters: I don't read in other Western reporters references to Iraqi resistance as "resistance" (and now we are not talking about Al-Qa`idah, and that is another thing: the Western media have promoted the notion that only Al-Qa`idah is violently opposed to the American occupation.  Early on he sets the stage when he says: "A foreign military occupation is a systematic imposition of violence on an entire population." (P. 23)  Oh, Nir: the reason why Shi`ites believe that Ali should have succeeded Muhammad is not ONLY because he was a "relative" of Muhammad.(p. 46)  It is much more than that.  Shi`ite believe in a divine opinion in the matter.  Nir's reporting on Lebanon is rather unique: so different from what you read in the Western press. I agree with a point he makes: that the Western coverage in Lebanon suffers from the fact that most reporters stick to Beirut and don't venture outside.  Look how March 14 is portrayed in the Western press (including in the Economist):  that they are all some liberals and secularalists.  You need to travel to North Lebanon, to Beirut in Tariq Jadidah, and to Biqa` to know that March 14 has another major element: the Salafites and Bin Ladenites. These are important elements in the fighting force of March 14 which did not fare very well on May 7, 2008 but fared better in sectarian fighting in Tripoli.   He managed to give a full portrayal of the plight of the Palestinians in Lebanon, and even of the poor Syrian workers there.  Oh, and reference to Hizb Al-Lat is not as you say on p. 418 "party of Lot", it is a reference to a goddess from pre-Islamic pagan Arabia.  Now the light stuff, we learn that Nir traveled in Iraq with a bodyguard (named Hadi), a driver, and a hair stylist, and a guy who he refers to as "shampoo boy."  Did you read that, Robert Fisk? You brag about one driver you have?   Nir's transliteration of Arabic are consistently inconsistent.   (Just as in the previous book).  He still confuses between Baqir and Bakr in Iraqi names.  Oh, and there is a bit of immodesty when you say early on on page of 23: "the secret to my success as a journalist in Iraq..."  Leave the judgement about your success to others.  OK?  The title is not good: it should be Ongoing and not Aftermath because war and occupation continues.  Oh, and you are obligated to deserve a blender from me to devote a whole book to Israeli crimes.  By the way, I really really enjoyed the wonderful translation of the Mahmud Darwish poem in the opening of the book.