Jonathan S. Landay (above) made his image as part of a duo with Warren P. Strobel. Like most media myths, their image was questionable. The two really don't like writing together and the two really weren't responsible for all of the pre-Iraq War reporting by Knight-Ridder. There were four reporters doing serious work and they were Landay, Strobel, Margaret Talev and John Walcott. The last two got forgotten and ignored. That's especially surprising with regards to Walcott who was Bureau Chief so often had his hands on pieces even when his byline wasn't present.
But Landay and Strobel were presented as the Donny and Marie of the investigative journalism circuit. Strobel had more experience (both as media and in front of media) and managed to keep his head straight. Landay quickly became Gloria Swanson, forever making a desperate bid for one more close up.
He thought he was close up ready on the second hour of Friday's Diane Rehm Show (NPR).
Jonathan S. Landay: It's pretty sure that there's going to be some kind of a troop presence [in Afghanistan] but it's going to depend on the outcome of these negoations. Uh, the negotiations over this Status of Forces Agreement, one of the major parts of which will determine where the American troops go as well as whether or not the American troops stay there are subject to Afghan or United States military law -- uhm, that is a issue that
Diane Rehm: Big sticking point.
Jonathan S. Landay: Well it's -- it's -- We don't know yet in Afghanistan. We know in Iraq it resulted in the fact that all of the American troops came out. I'm not sure it's going to work in Afghanistan because the situation there is so much more critical. You've got an ongoing insurgency, no political progress at all on an agreement and the Americans would like to keep some kind of a presence there -- not just training presence but a counter-terrorism presence to be able to deal with the remnants of al Qaeda.
Can we get something to cover the lens? Cause what we're seeing is ghastly.
"We know in Iraq it resulted in the fact that all of the American troops came out."
We know that?
This is the guy who's credited with getting Iraq right. So when he gets it wrong, it's especially harmful.
And you can't get more wrong than Landay.
Apparently, having achieved fame, Landay now eschews reading or even following TV news.
All American troops did not leave Iraq at the end of 2011. It was a "drawdown" (Pentagon's term), not "withdrawal." December 12, 2011, Ted Koppel filed an important report on Rock Center with Brian Williams (NBC) about what was really taking place in Iraq. Excerpt.
MR.
KOPPEL: I realize you can't go into it in any detail, but I would assume
that there is a healthy CIA mission here. I would assume that JSOC may
still be active in this country, the joint special operations. You've
got FBI here. You've got DEA here. Can, can you give me sort of a, a
menu of, of who all falls under your control?
AMB. JAMES JEFFREY: You're actually doing pretty well, were I authorized to talk about half of this stuff.
JSOC is "Joint Special Operations Command." That's the one to zoom in on but it's also true that US military 'trainers' for equipment purchased remain as do military guards for the US Embassy.
Not only does Landay not watch NBC News, he also doesn't read The New York Times. From the April 30th "Iraq snapshot:"
December 6, 2012, the Memorandum of Understanding For Defense Cooperation Between the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Iraq and the Department Defense of the United States of America was signed. We covered it in the December 10th and December 11th snapshots -- lots of luck finding coverage elsewhere including in media outlets -- apparently there was some unstated agreement that everyone would look the other way. It was similar to the silence that greeted Tim Arango's September 25th New York Times report which noted, "Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to [US] General [Robert L.] Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence."
December 6, 2012, the Memorandum of Understanding For Defense Cooperation Between the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Iraq and the Department Defense of the United States of America was signed. We covered it in the December 10th and December 11th snapshots -- lots of luck finding coverage elsewhere including in media outlets -- apparently there was some unstated agreement that everyone would look the other way. It was similar to the silence that greeted Tim Arango's September 25th New York Times report which noted, "Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to [US] General [Robert L.] Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence."
Yes, September 25, 2012, Tim Arango reported in The New York Times that he had spoken with US General Robert Calsen about the agreement being negotiated (that the Memo of Understanding signed December 6, 2012) to send more US troops into Iraq ("the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training mission") and that "a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence."
Is that confusing for Jonathan S. Landay?
Is he so in love with his own media image that he can't see anything else?
If he can put down the hand mirror long enough, he might try reading the most recent US Congressional Research Service report on Iraq entitled "Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights." In the report written by Kenneth Katzman, Landay will find the following:
General [Martin] Dempsey's August 21, 2012, visit focused on the security deterioration, as well as the Iranian overflights to Syria discussed above, according to press reports. Regarding U.S.-Iraq security relations, Iraq reportedly expressed interest in expanded U.S. training of the ISF, joint exercises, and accelerated delivery of U.S. arms to be sold, including radar, air defense systems, and border security equipment. [. . .]
After the Dempsey visit, reflecting the Iraqi decision to reengage intensively with the United States on security, it was reported that, at the request of Iraq, a unit of Army Special Operations forces had deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence, presumably against AQ-I. (These forces presumably are operating under a limited SOFA or related understanding crafted for this purpose.) Other reports suggest that Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) paramilitary forces have, as of late 2012, largely taken over some of the DOD mission of helping Iraqi counter-terrorismforces (Counter-Terrorism Service, CTS) against AQ-I in western Iraq. Part of the reported CIA mission is to also work against the AQ-I affiliate in Syria, the Al Nusrah Front, discussed above.
Reflecting an acceleration of the Iraqi move to reengage militarily with the United States, during December 5-6 2012, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy James Miller and acting Under Secretary of State for International Security Rose Gottemoeller visited Iraq and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed with acting Defense Minister Sadoun Dulaymi. The five year MOU provides for:
* high level U.S.-Iraq military exchanges
* professional military education cooperation
* counter-terrorism cooperation
* the development of defense intelligence capabilities
* joint exercises
The MOU appears to address many of the issues that have hampered OSC-I from performing its mission to its full potential. The MOU also reflects some of the more recent ideas put forward, such as joint exercises.
See, we haven't been lying the last year and a half. We've been telling you that all US troops didn't leave. But we're not rushing to pontificate on every subject under the sun (or getting them all wrong) on The Diane Rehm Show.
Landay declared on National Public Radio that all US troops were out of Iraq when not only had all US troops not left Iraq but more had been sent in.
And we are not talking obscure publications. This was NBC News, this was The New York Times.
McClatchy Newspapers has done damn little to be proud of but coasts on the Knight-Ridder reputation. (In 2006, McClatchy bought Knight-Ridder.) Knight-Ridder's reputation is for having been right about Iraq.
So when Landay goes on The Diane Rehm Show and acts the fool in public, he doesn't just embarrass himself, he destroys the only cachet that McClatchy has.
Seriously, they live in fear that a report is done on Iraq.
Not by Landay who didn't go there. But by another outlet wanting to explain how the newspaper chain 'rewarded' their Iraq reporters.
For most of the period that they covered Iraq, their correspondents were stuck in Baghdad. So Sahar Issa, Laith Hammoudi, and many others were the reporters. They were the ones out in the streets. They didn't get bylines for most of that time. (Reuters by contrast tends to list all involved in an Iraq piece with credits, for example, "Reporting by Mustafa Mahmoud and Raheem Salman; Writing by Isabel Coles; Editing by Angus MacSwan.") McClacthy's by lined reporters in, for example, 2007 were largely just people who spoke to US military brass.
Not only did the Iraqis risk their lives to report stories -- and fail to get credit on the bulk of their writing -- but when McClatchy decided to shutter the Baghdad operations, they did so in a way that was cruel and callous to the Iraqis who had given so much. It's not a pretty story.
The Iraqis were paid pennies so the decision to close it down was very surprising to them.
But, again, McClatchy is not Knight-Ridder. Many fools online make the mistake of assuming it is. McClatchy is just another media outlet that tries to get in good with those in power. In fact, Landay's worst moment on The Diane Rehm Show isn't even above. If Landay had acted then as he does now, he'd have no name today. But that's for part one.
Part II is just about how one-half of "The Reporting Team That Got Iraq Right" (Huffington Post) has not just tarnished his own name but that of his employer.