By David Warren
A hat-tip to the neo-neocon. Mr. Warren's thesis: we have no idea what's going on in Libya, who are the good guys, the bad guys, what people want, and why Gaddhafi lasted so long.
The biggest reasons why Mr. Warren thinks we don't know can be traced to the nature of journalism today: journalists aren't self-critical, and journalists have to stick to the narrative so as to retain their importance. Take a look at his thesis, he (as always) writes it well.
I'll add another reason: Libya is difficult. The average western journalist doesn't speak the language, doesn't know the history of Libya, doesn't know the people, and has to trust informants, fixers, drivers and translators. The average western journalist doesn't understand the Arabs, doesn't understand tribalism and certainly doesn't understand Islam. The average journalist, even the gonzo ones, has at least a modest aversion to getting killed in his quest for a story. You don't want to get your Pulitzer posthumously.
Warren notes the history: "Eastern Libya, or "Cyrenaica" as it was anciently known, is in reality a different country from "Tripolitana," or western Libya. East and west are attached by accidents of history..."
That's just point one. A journalist interested in figuring out Libya could consult history, ignore the present narrative, and try to understand whether 'Libya' will be a single nation-state in five years. That journalist would try to understand why Cyrenaica got away from Gaddhafi so quickly, and why Tripolitana held out for so long. That journalist would try to understand what appeal al-Qaeda might have to the young in each part of the country, and whether either group would cotton to the West at all.
Or that journalist could just file some dreck and move on. I know which way I'm betting. |
|