Douglas Valentine's Scathing Review of Jeremy Scahills 'Dirty Wars'

[David Guyatt]

Doug is definitely on a roll ::coolrock:: and he definitely has a point. But fortunately it's not the only point as Dawn and Peter point out.

I have the highest respect for DV and nothing that follows is meant as criticism of him. That said, I believe all of us who are in the know about the hidden secrets and players of the Deep Political Powers/Events [certainly more powerful and influential than the 'ordinary' visible politics and politicians], have different levels of awareness [lets call it depth we can see or have explored into the Deep Political shit], as well as different approaches of how to best bring this to the alarmed attention of the Public, at large. While someone who's analyses are wrong or in the enemy camp should be vilified, IMHO, brutal attacks on those who only differ in approach or who have a less-deeply enlighten view of events and powers, past and present, should be critiqued, criticized, but not pilloried. There are many in society who just can not or will not listen to those of us who have a more radical [if more realistic] stance/outlook. Just my two cents. It will take all progressive forces and persons to turn this mess around and save the Planet and human societies from total destruction at the hands of the growing neo-fascism/neo-feudalism, Worldwide. IMHO

Nicely said, Pete.

[Marlene Zenker]

Doug is definitely on a roll ::coolrock:: and he definitely has a point. But fortunately it's not the only point as Dawn and Peter point out.

I have the highest respect for DV and nothing that follows is meant as criticism of him. That said, I believe all of us who are in the know about the hidden secrets and players of the Deep Political Powers/Events [certainly more powerful and influential than the 'ordinary' visible politics and politicians], have different levels of awareness [lets call it depth we can see or have explored into the Deep Political shit], as well as different approaches of how to best bring this to the alarmed attention of the Public, at large. While someone who's analyses are wrong or in the enemy camp should be vilified, IMHO, brutal attacks on those who only differ in approach or who have a less-deeply enlighten view of events and powers, past and present, should be critiqued, criticized, but not pilloried. There are many in society who just can not or will not listen to those of us who have a more radical [if more realistic] stance/outlook. Just my two cents. It will take all progressive forces and persons to turn this mess around and save the Planet and human societies from total destruction at the hands of the growing neo-fascism/neo-feudalism, Worldwide. IMHO

Well said Peter. I think maybe we shouldn't be such purists because as long as the message is getting out there, even if it isn't as thorough or correct as we may like, it's a good thing. I often think about how we are so happy to criticize Hartmann and Waldron for example, I don't agree with them, but it beats "the Warren Commission was right" books. Maybe we should start seeing the forest for the trees...

[Marlene Zenker]

Doug is definitely on a roll ::coolrock:: and he definitely has a point. But fortunately it's not the only point as Dawn and Peter point out.

I have the highest respect for DV and nothing that follows is meant as criticism of him. That said, I believe all of us who are in the know about the hidden secrets and players of the Deep Political Powers/Events [certainly more powerful and influential than the 'ordinary' visible politics and politicians], have different levels of awareness [lets call it depth we can see or have explored into the Deep Political shit], as well as different approaches of how to best bring this to the alarmed attention of the Public, at large. While someone who's analyses are wrong or in the enemy camp should be vilified, IMHO, brutal attacks on those who only differ in approach or who have a less-deeply enlighten view of events and powers, past and present, should be critiqued, criticized, but not pilloried. There are many in society who just can not or will not listen to those of us who have a more radical [if more realistic] stance/outlook. Just my two cents. It will take all progressive forces and persons to turn this mess around and save the Planet and human societies from total destruction at the hands of the growing neo-fascism/neo-feudalism, Worldwide. IMHO

Well said Peter. I think maybe we shouldn't be such purists because as long as the message is getting out there, even if it isn't as thorough or correct as we may like, it's a good thing. I often think about how we are so happy to criticize Hartmann and Waldron for example, I don't agree with them, but it beats "the Warren Commission was right" books. Maybe we should start seeing the forest for the trees...

In retrospect, Waldron/Hartmann was a stupid example ; ) but my point still stands.

[Magda Hassan]

I ended up watching this at long last a few nights ago. Doug Valentine is pretty spot on actually.

All of which brings me to my review.
Dirty Wars
Dirty Wars is a post-modern film by Jeremy Scahill, about himself, starring himself in many poses.
The film owes more to Sergio Leone and Kathryn Bigelow than Constantinos Gavras. Scahill certainly is no Leslie Cockburn: there is no Tony Poe telling how the CIA facilitates heroin shipments; no Richard Secord suing him for unraveling the financial intrigues of the CIA's secret operators. The CIA is rarely mentioned.
There is no reference to the Guerra Sucia in Argentina.
Scahill is no Franz Fanon documenting the devastating psychological effects of racism on society. There are no cameos by Jean Paul Sartre advocating violent retribution on Hollywood, no mingling with the Taliban in their caves as they conspire against their Yankee oppressors at the Sundance Film Festival.
We get the first taste of his self-indulgent idiocy when he says it is "hard to tell" when the Dirty War began. He does tell us, however, that he is on the "front lines" of the war on terror.
Scahill (hereafter JS) brags that he wasn't going to find the front lines in Kabul, although he could have, if he knew where to look. Instead he just looks around furtively on his way to the scene of a war crime. We see a close-up of his face.

Yep. Very postmodern and with all that limitation and decontextualisation and irrelevance.

The film ends and I wonder what he could have produced if he hadn't melodramatized and spent so much time and film on close-ups. I wonder what he could have done if he'd read a few history books.
Ultimately, the film is so devoid of historical context, and so contrived, as to render it a work of art, rather than political commentary.

Indeed. It would have been a far better movie with an historical context in which to place the current Dirty War/s. People who don't know that history wont notice though. Nevertheless a powerful work of art and some good storytelling told. Definitely a must watch.

[Peter Lemkin]

I ended up watching this at long last a few nights ago. Doug Valentine is pretty spot on actually.

All of which brings me to my review.
Dirty Wars
Dirty Wars is a post-modern film by Jeremy Scahill, about himself, starring himself in many poses.
The film owes more to Sergio Leone and Kathryn Bigelow than Constantinos Gavras. Scahill certainly is no Leslie Cockburn: there is no Tony Poe telling how the CIA facilitates heroin shipments; no Richard Secord suing him for unraveling the financial intrigues of the CIA's secret operators. The CIA is rarely mentioned.
There is no reference to the Guerra Sucia in Argentina.
Scahill is no Franz Fanon documenting the devastating psychological effects of racism on society. There are no cameos by Jean Paul Sartre advocating violent retribution on Hollywood, no mingling with the Taliban in their caves as they conspire against their Yankee oppressors at the Sundance Film Festival.
We get the first taste of his self-indulgent idiocy when he says it is "hard to tell" when the Dirty War began. He does tell us, however, that he is on the "front lines" of the war on terror.
Scahill (hereafter JS) brags that he wasn't going to find the front lines in Kabul, although he could have, if he knew where to look. Instead he just looks around furtively on his way to the scene of a war crime. We see a close-up of his face.

Yep. Very postmodern and with all that limitation and decontextualisation and irrelevance.

The film ends and I wonder what he could have produced if he hadn't melodramatized and spent so much time and film on close-ups. I wonder what he could have done if he'd read a few history books.
Ultimately, the film is so devoid of historical context, and so contrived, as to render it a work of art, rather than political commentary.

Indeed. It would have been a far better movie with an historical context in which to place the current Dirty War/s. People who don't know that history wont notice though. Nevertheless a powerful work of art and some good storytelling told. Definitely a must watch.

I'm not saying that DV didn't have some valid points - he did....but I don't think JS is on the 'other side'....and we [the progressive community] have a history or goring our own - while the neo-fascists all march pretty much in lockstep -despite their differences; the reasons, I think, are obvious, but something the left and especially the far-left need to keep in mind and under control. IMHO

[Magda Hassan]

I'm not saying that DV didn't have some valid points - he did....but I don't think JS is on the 'other side'....and we [the progressive community] have a history or goring our own - while the neo-fascists all march pretty much in lockstep.

No I don't think he is either. Definitely one of the good guys.

[Peter Lemkin]

I'm not saying that DV didn't have some valid points - he did....but I don't think JS is on the 'other side'....and we [the progressive community] have a history or goring our own - while the neo-fascists all march pretty much in lockstep.

No I don't think he is either. Definitely one of the good guys.

He might have some 'ego problems' and/or got bad advice [or took his own bad advice] on how to make and style the video. It still tells an important story, not told by the controlled/embedded/muzzled media. ::

[Magda Hassan]

I'm not saying that DV didn't have some valid points - he did....but I don't think JS is on the 'other side'....and we [the progressive community] have a history or goring our own - while the neo-fascists all march pretty much in lockstep.

No I don't think he is either. Definitely one of the good guys.

He might have some 'ego problems' and/or got bad advice [or took his own bad advice] on how to make and style the video. It still tells an important story, not told by the controlled/embedded/muzzled media. ::

Well, he would be well advised to hang out with Doug for a while and a few others too. It would make for a better story. More context and historical continuity. Less arty maybe. More meat.

[Kara Dellacioppa]

I think this is really outrageous. Mother Agnes is one of the few figures who work on the ground in Syria with refugees and victims... She is kicked off a panel on peace because she is accused with no evidence of being an intel agent of Assad.

Investigative Journalist' Scahill Takes Swipe at Mother Agnes

Posted on November 17, 2013 by Richard Edmondson
Jeremy Scahillsuffering from cognitive dissonance?


Jeremy Scahill, the "investigative journalist" who once publicly expressed his belief in the official 9/11 story, says he won't take part in an international antiwar conference scheduled for later this month if he has to share the same platform with Syrian nun Mother Agnes.
"I've informed organizers of @STWuk that I will not participate in their conference if Mother Agnes is on the platform," Scahill tweetetd on Friday.
"@STWuk" is the Stop the War Coalition, which will hold the all-day conference in London on November 30, and which had apparently extended an invitation for Mother Agnes to speak, along with roughly a dozen or so other speakers.
The conference is to include a session on "The Syian war in context," and obviously Mother Agnes, who has struggled so hard to end the bloodshed in her country, would have provided a valuable perspective for all in attendance. But she will now no longer speak. In response to the controversy surrounding her participation, she has withdrawn. Blessed are the peacemakers.
Scahill, it seems, isn't the only speaker in the lineup with an apparent disliking for the Syrian mother superior. British writer Owen Jones, a columnist for The Independent, reportedly also threatened to withdraw should she not be axed from the program.
Mother Agnes is head of the Syrian organization Musalaha (reconciliation). In October she played a key role in the evacuation of more than 5,000 people, mainly women and children, from the besieged town of Moadamiya. An account of the evacuation can be found here. In order for the operation to succeed, it was necessary for Mother Agnes to gain the trust both of government troops as well elements of the Free Syrian Army who were holding the town. Remarkably she seems to have pulled it off. Click here to watch a video of her sharing a dish of olives with one of the rebel leaders and some of her evacuees.
But it isn't her relationship with the Western-backed mercenaries that has gotten her in trouble. In fact, had she been their vocal champion, she probably wouldn't be near the controversial figure she is today. But Mother Agnes has seriously undermined the Western narrative of Bashar Assad as a brutal dictator intent on "killing his own people." In September she published a report suggesting that insurgents, rather than the Assad government, were responsible for the August 21 chemical attack and that videos uploaded immediately after that attack had been staged and doctored. And for her trouble she has been maligned as an "apologist" for the Syrian government and worse. In September the New York Times published a highly-critical piece on her which is analyzed here by blogger Stephen Lendman.

Scahill, an author and frequent contributor to The Nation, is taking heat for his postion. Owen seems to be taking heat as well. Both are heavily criticized in an article by blogger Phil Greaves:

Following the news that Mother Agnes Miriam, a nun who heads the Musalaha (reconciliation) initiative in Syria, was due to speak at the Stop The War conference in London, two journalists also due to speak at the event, Jeremy Scahill and Owen Jones, decided to withdraw participation unless Mother Agnes was removed from the speaking list. At the time of writing, neither "journalist" has offered to explain their act of public censure and decision to bolster Zionist-led smear campaigns; aside from a few tweets expressing their "concern" over sharing a platform with an evil Assad-supporting nun. It seems baseless conspiracy theories are more than acceptable in the higher echelons of "professional" journalism, as long as the target of said conspiracy is a supporter of an enemy state of the west and Israel.

Another blogger, Joe Emersberger, has issued the following appeal to Scahill:

Dear Jeremy,
I read your book "Dirty Wars" and admired it greatly. It led to me to obtain a great deal of respect for your courage and poltical judgement.
You tweeted that you "informed organizers of @STWuk that I will not participate in their conference if Mother Agnes is on the platform."
If you haven't already, I think you shoud provide a very clear public explanation for your publicly announced stance.
There are extremely nasty allegations being circulated about Mother Agnes based on zero evidence.
For example, this piece accuses Mother Agnes of helping the Asaad regime assassinate journalists in Syria.
To avoid lending any credibility to toxic crap like this, I think you should elaborate on your position regarding Mother Agnes.
Joe Emersberger

So far as I'm aware, Scahill has not issued the "clear public explanation" that Emersberger has called for.
In a letter dated November 16, the day after Scahill posted his tweet, Mother Agnes notified the Stop the War Coalition of her decision to withdraw from the conference. Here is what she wrote:

My dear friends,
It has come to my attention that my participation in your conference has become a matter of serious contention, even prompting some other speakers to consider withdrawing. This is apparently due to a campaign of cruel and unsubstantiated accusations which seek to work against my efforts and those of the Mussalaha (Reconciliation) Initiative in Syria.
The basis of our work toward peace is reconciliation and forgiveness. This means extending an olive branch to some who may initially refuse it, and accepting an olive branch from others who are despised, even by our friends.
In the case of Syria, I am guided by the terrible events of human provenance that are reaping misery and death without end in sight. I and my fellow members of the Mussalaha movement feel compelled to find a path toward national redemption that applies the principles of reconciliation and forgiveness that is different from either the way of the sword or even the nonviolent exclusion of other Syrians, whatever their views or affiliations may be. This is by its nature a difficult path but I am a cleric and am guided by my love for all. We are all children of God.
Some may feel that an injustice will be done if I speak at your conference. Others may think that injustice will be done if I do not. Because my participation in your conference may be used by some to distract from your valuable efforts towards peace, non-violence and reconciliation, I believe it best to withdraw from participation.
I thank you for your sincere invitation, and wish to offer my blessings for a successful conference that brings together a multitude of people of good will who will work together for peace and justice through mutual cooperation and I hope we shall at a future date have an opportunity to meet and discuss this issue and the wider work of the Mussalaha in Syria.
Mother Agnes Mariam of the Cross

The letter is available in pdf format here. During the early part of November Mother Agnes has been on a speaking tour of the US. Click here to read a report by blogger Madison Ruppert of a speech she gave in Los Angeles.
In the video below, uploaded in 2010, you will see Scahill sharing his views on 9/11:
"I believe that the United States was attacked by Al Qaeda on 9/11 by men who flew airplanes into those buildings," says Scahill.
I would recommend Scahill watch the newly-released documentary September 11: The New Pearl Harbor. One of the things he will learn is that the "men who flew airplanes into those buildings" could barely pilot a twin engine plane.
In the above video you will also notice Mr. Scahill, the investigative reporter, discussing, almost angrily, his belief that efforts to determine the truth of what happened on 9/11 are "destructive" to "an honest dialog in this country about US policy," and then going on to describe such efforts as "insulting to the people who died on 9/11." Again, I would recommend he go here and watch a discussion by licensed clinical psychologists on cognitive dissonance and 9/11 denial.
See Also:
Mother Agnes of Syria: A Living Saint
Evidence of the Most Disgraceful War Crimes Imaginable
Potential US War on Syria Based on a Snuff Movie
Evident Propaganda Manipulation: Mother Agnes Issues Report on Syria Chemical Attack
Understanding Reality Manipulations in the Syrian Crisis
Also See: Short Film Clips of Mother Agnes online:

On the Rebel Uprising

[Magda Hassan]

Yes it is outrageous Kara. I am no fan of religion (or Assad for that matter) but Mother Agnes has been nothing except a stalwart defender of secular co-existence since she has been speaking in public. She is of course aware of the war on Christian and other non adherents to a very narrow form of Islam that is occurring in Syria with mostly imported mercenaries. Her vocal existence disrupts the official western narrative of Assad as the sole evil murderer of his own people. An unforgivable crime. Perhaps people like Jeremy and Owen are concerned about their credibility in the western MSM media and future official engagements as 'alternative' talking heads?

Owen Jones would have more credibility if he did something constructive about the murderers and war criminals in his own party. Maybe he can learn something from Mother Agnes about speaking truth to power?