 |
|
 |
| [-] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
Prev | List | Random | Next |
The NY Time's editorial, 27 April 05:
The millions of brave Iraqis who risked their lives to vote in January didn't expect that nearly three months later, their squabbling politicians would still be struggling to form a government. As a result, precious momentum has been lost, and a briefly improving security situation has again started deteriorating. The Sunni-based insurgency seems to have drawn fresh encouragement from the inability of the victorious Shiite and Kurdish parties to put the future of their country ahead of their narrow political agendas.Let's emphasize that last line: The Sunni-based insurgency seems to have drawn fresh encouragement from the inability of the victorious Shiite and Kurdish parties to put the future of their country ahead of their narrow political agendas. "Seems" is the weasel-word in this bile, a legalism that lends deniability to the writer who's made an utterly ridiculous statement of cause-and-effect, with no support available. Are we to seriously consider that at some point in the debate over the exact form of a new government, terrorists who were about to give up murderous rampages for a life of quiet and ease suddenly were re-inspired to forego dental school and become pilots of suicide car bombs? That some leader of this group declared - after some arbitrary time limit was exceeded - that a new wave of kidnappings was needed? That some previously agreed-to deadline had been crossed?
Of course not. Terrorist Violence never went away in Iraq, as readers here well know. Terri Schiavo starved slowly to death, an old Pope passed away and a new one was selected, then front-pages rediscovered Iraq. And this was to be the new mantra of failure, and all the lesser papers would follow the lead of the Times: The Sunni-based insurgency seems to have drawn fresh encouragement from the inability of the victorious Shiite and Kurdish parties to put the future of their country ahead of their narrow political agendas. So it was written, so shall it be.
Except for one thing. On that very day the elected representatives of the people of Iraq announced the cabinet had been chosen. How painful for the Times, who couldn't even stop editorializing in their page one coverage of the news:
BAGHDAD, Iraq, April 27 - Iraq's new prime minister announced Wednesday that he had submitted a full list of cabinet members, opening the way for a multiethnic government to assume power and end a three-month political stalemate that has appeared to be fueling violence.Emphasis added. Note the weasel word "appeared".
One thing we can't accuse the New York Times of is wasting time . Having had the rug yanked from under them by a reinvigorated government in Iraq, their argument has now morphed overnight into a slightly new variation on the theme. First paragraph, today's editorial:
Three months of jockeying among Iraq's victorious Shiite and Kurdish parties have finally produced a cabinet that won quick ratification from a legislature where those same parties dominate. The January election that began this process was inspiring. The months of petty haggling that followed were not, and while the formation of an elected Iraqi government is a historic moment, its makeup is far from ideal. Crucial choices have been needlessly delayed, and an incomparable opportunity for drawing patriotic Sunni Arabs away from the insurgency was largely squandered.Squandered! Squandered I tell you. This will be the new critical narrative of the defeated - the opportunities of the elections were squandered. Those crucial three months are gone, and cannot be reclaimed. If you wonder why the Times is so eager to declare an elected, sovereign government of a foreign nation a failure, you need only note that the victory of the Iraqi people was an undeniable success for those who support freedom everywhere, and a strong indicator that the war in Iraq was worth the sacrifice. All this is in direct opposition to the editorial policy of the New York Times, and three months is all the opening they needed to reinvigorate their attacks. Insurgents can't respond to events in that narrow time span, can't recruit, re-arm or re-invigorate, but editorial writers can.
There's another aspect of the Times narrative that most people will find repulsive. As noted before, the Times has no problem with the inability of the US Senate, a body drawing on over 200 years of history and tradition, to approve presidential appointments in this country. (For the record, my opinion in both the Iraq and American examples is business as usual. Such is the price of democracy.) Their double standard is inexcusable, and in leering down their noses at the struggling people of Iraq the Times comes dangerously close to accusing "those people" of being incapable of self-government, or sustaining democracy. But sneering at Iraq while ignoring obstruction on the US Senate floor reveals the underlying reality that it's the elected government of the United States that the Times can't abide - the people of Iraq are just collateral damage in their attack, future corpses who's photos will one day help sell newspapers - and fuel more cries of failure.
Least we forget, here's the NY Times on the Iraqi elections, on the day of the elections:
Nearly 22 months after American troops captured Baghdad, lighting a fire of enthusiasm for the freedoms Iraqis had craved so long, it is a measure of how much has gone wrong that Iraqis committed to Western-style democratic ideals can differ so sharply over the best way to secure them. Much of the problem is that the elections are being held under the dominion of the United States.Let's close with a word of praise: The Times is certainly consistent.Many Iraqis, interviews in recent months have shown, do not accept that fundamental choices about the shape of their future political system should be made by a foreign power, particularly one they regard as a harbinger of secular, materialistic values far removed from the Muslim world's.
But questions over the election go far beyond the American stewardship, to issues that touch on whether it was ever wise or realistic to think that Jeffersonian-style democracy, with its elaborate checks on power and guarantees for minority rights, could be implanted, at least so rapidly, in a country and a region that has little experience with anything but winner-take-all politics.
