Matt Yglesies, writing at TPM Cafe, has some comments on Voices:
The book is about the ways in which first al-Jazeera and then its competitors have created a trans-national Arabic-language public sphere and the limits and possibilities of said public sphere as an engine for political reform. It's also a narrative about the content of that public sphere focused on the question of Iraq. Contrary to stereotyped portrayals of al-Jazeera content, it seems that started well before 9/11, voices associated with the Iraq National Congress (and other exile groups) or the Kuwaiti government were regularly on the air to debate opponents of the sanctions policy or, later, the invasion.
My reading of this narrative, though not necessarily the author's, was that the United States in an important way "lost" the argument about the Iraq War before Bush even took office. Neither the Clinton administration, nor the Bush administration, nor any of either administration's Arab surrogates, were able to convince most people to view the conflict our way -- the suffering of Iraqis under sanctions as Saddam's fault, rather than ours and American policy toward the region as broadly beneficial rather than driven by narrow interests.
I think that Matt is basically right about this - I started writing about Iraq during the Clinton administration, and was deeply frustrated by American inability to grapple with Arab arguments about the sanctions and about the UNSCOM process. It didn't start with Bush, even if the Bush team proved spectularly inept at making its case.
Marc, don't know if you saw my own comments earlier, as you were travelling. It's more of a summary than anything else at this point.
Regarding the Iraqi expat side of the "losing the argument" issue, to what extent do you think that there is really a sectarian divide here? As in, al-Jazeera reflecting a dominant Sunni Arab nationalist narrative, and Iraqi Shi'a and Kurds not being able to convince the audience as a result.
Posted by: praktike | January 23, 2006 at 08:49 AM