Remembering Steven Vincent's Murder, August 2, 2005
Nick Gillespie | August 2, 2006, 6:55am
A year ago today, freelancer Steven Vincent became the first American journalist to be killed in Iraq by insurgents. His murder remains unsolved, though almost certainly was the work of Shia extremists in Basra, where he was living "in the Red Zone." Just days before he was abducted and shot to death, he had written a piece for The New York Times in which he detailed how Shia militia had infiltrated the British-trained police force in Basra, even writing of "death cars" driven by off-duty cops cruising the streets.
Vincent, a strong though critical supporter of the invasion of Iraq, wrote several feature stories for Reason (go here and here), including 2004's, "Faith, Shame, and Insurgency: Life in Occupied Iraq," which was a haunting portrait of that place even before his murder. Near the beginning of his report, he wrote:
I'd come to Iraq to test my beliefs. Back in New York, I'd been a firm and vocal backer of the war, though not necessarily of the Bush administration. After witnessing firsthand the horrific events of 9/11, I felt the civilized nations of the world had to take on terrorism at its roots -- roots that included the Middle East's legacy of poverty, hopelessness, and despotism, epitomized by, among other tyrants, Saddam Hussein. Saddam may or may not have contributed to the murder of 3,000 people in downtown Manhattan, but I believed a free and prosperous Iraq, spreading ripples of democracy and the rule of law from Damascus to Riyadh, was a key element in preventing similar attacks in America or elsewhere.
What I saw and heard surprised, delighted, and horrified me in ways I could never have predicted. I still support the war -- even more so, in fact. But I'm less optimistic than I was on April 9, 2003, the day the statue of Saddam fell in downtown Baghdad, when, through my tears, I believed the good guys had won.
That whole story, as relevant today as when first published, is here. His contributor's note is here.
His book and blog, both called In the Red Zone, are online here.
Kesher Talk has a roundup of remembrances here.
Reason eulogized him as a journalist whose "work transcended ideology" here. Even if you disagreed with him about the invasion of Iraq--as I did--he was an exceedingly rare journalist, one who was not only open about his biases and presumptions but also about the times he changed his way of thinking. In that, he remains a model for the profession.
His widow, Lisa Ramaci, has established a foundation that aids the families of freelance journalists killed while doing their jobs. For more information, go here.
lisa ramaci-vincent | August 2, 2006, 4:52pm | #
"Saddam may or may not have contributed to the murder of 3,000 people in downtown Manhattan..."
To those of you taking such delight in maligning my husband because of this one part of a longer sentence, why don't you read the rest of it:
"...but I believed a free and prosperous Iraq, spreading ripples of democracy and the rule of law from Damascus to Riyadh, was a key element in preventing similar attacks in America or elsewhere."
and try to understand that Steven was NOT saying Saddam DID contribute, only that whether he did or not, Steven thought that deposing him was the right thing to do? Whether or not you agree with him personally, and you have every right not to do so, you do NOT have the right to ascribe opinions and thoughts to him when you never even met him.
And that goes for you, too, Spur, with your "fucking his translator" bullshit. What a pathetic, miserable lout you must be - viciously maligning a dead man and a living woman on a memorial post that his wife then reads. Check out my response to Juan Cole on this subject, or my interview today at National Review Online, and tell me those are the words of the wife of an adulterer. And don't think I'm one of those simps who doesn't see reality when it bites me on the ass, if anyone would have known whether or not Steven was having an affair, believe me, after being with him for 23 years, that would have been me.
You have no idea what you are talking about - either you OR Joe. So why don't you just keep your completely rude, incorrect and irresponsible opinions to yourselves and let people who appreciate what Steven did have the floor, instead of adding your smarmy comments? Then maybe you can look in the mirror someday without cringing. Morons.
Stevo Darkly | August 2, 2006, 8:26pm | #
I think spur's comment was totally inappropriate.
I also think the reaction to joe's initial comment was an overreaction.
Honestly, and in general, I'm probably more likely to agree with John than with joe. But in this case, I think John projected things onto joe that joe wasn't saying.
Here's what I got from joe's first comment:
By 2004, the consensus understanding was that Saddam had no meaningful ties to Al Queda and had nothing to do with the 9-11 attack.
Steven Vincent's quoted statement indicates that he did not accept that consensus, or at least not without some doubt, which appears to imply either:
1) This journalist had not yet caught up to the consensus, implying that he lacked information that was common knowledge at the time.
or
2) Perhaps as a result of his travels in Iraq, Vincent picked up some information, or maybe just a "hunch," that made him hesitant to accept the prevailing consensus.
Either possibility has interesting implications and may therefore be worth commenting upon.
I think maybe joe's comment, coming so soon after spur's, is suffering from "halo effect."
-------------------------
That said:
Ms. Ramaci-Vincent, my condolences for the loss of your husband. I haven't read his writings yet, but it appears he was a very remarkable man. I'm very sorry that the first comment you read here was so insensitive and inflammatory.
Nick, my condolences for the loss of your remarkable friend.
