[Dean's World] Dave Price: Hysteria and Cluelessness on Iraq From The NYT

[notify at powerblogs.com]

Posted by Dave Price:
Hysteria and Cluelessness on Iraq From The NYT
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1183923930.shtml


   Dave Schuler already mentioned the NYT editorial below, and Sharansky
   does a nice job of rebutting it. Nevertheless, let's take a look at
   some of the more egregious examples of [1]Pinch's paper's purple
   prose:

     destroying Iraqâs government, army, police and economic structures
     ...
     dangerous diversion from the life-and-death struggle against
     terrorists
     ...
     betrayal of a world that needs the wise application of American
     power and principles
     ...
     keeping troops in Iraq will only make things worse
     ...
     One of Mr. Bushâs arguments against withdrawal is that it would
     lead to civil war. That war is raging, right now

   To say that this is a polemic would be too kind. Saddam's "government,
   army, police and economic structures" existed solely to enrich and
   empower Hussein and his cronies, and for that purpose they invaded 2
   countries to seize their oilfields, fought two brutal civil wars from
   which mass graves are still being dug up, and killed an average of
   7,000 people a month over the 24 years of his reign, far higher than
   even the worst death tolls since the coalition invasion; destroying
   them was the most humane thing America has done in my lifetime. As for
   terrorism, the regime was second only to Iran in supporting terrorist
   groups, and after their fall former regime elements hopped right into
   bed with Al Qaeda, making Iraq the central front in the terrorism
   fight by any reasonable estimate. The last two points run so counter
   to everything the military says they might as well be insurgent
   talking points -- and in fact, the notion that U.S. troops are the
   problem is exactly what people like Moqtada Al-Sadr have been saying
   all along.
   But in all the moral vacuity and fact-challenged analysis of this
   editorial, worst of all is this:

     The most compelling obligation is to the tens of thousands of
     Iraqis of courage and good will â translators, embassy employees,
     reconstruction workers â whose lives will be in danger because they
     believed the promises and cooperated with the Americans.

   Promises the NYT is now insisting we must break -- and it's much worse
   than they allow here. It's not just Iraqis working directly with the
   coalition that are in danger if we abandon Iraq. It's everyone who's
   currently cooperating in places like Baqubah, Ramadi, and Fallujah --
   newly formed police, merchants, average people pointing out IEDs. When
   we've chased Al Qaeda and former regime elements out of these places
   in the past, they tell the locals anyone who cooperates with us will
   die horribly when they return, which is why we're now establishing
   permanent combat outposts when we clear an area. The NYT would have us
   sign the death warrants of every decent Sunni Iraqi trying to make
   Iraq a decent place to live, and hand Al Qaeda credibility at American
   expense.
   And for what? Leaving won't save any American lives. If we allow AQ to
   establish unchallenged bases in Iraq, they will use them to train
   terrorists to kill more American civilians and we'll have to send our
   soldiers back in again -- and the locals won't be as willing to help
   next time, assuming any who would be willing are even still alive.
   Finally, they issue two last pronouncements that just don't make any
   sense:

     For this effort to have any remote chance, Mr. Bush must drop his
     resistance to talking with both Iran and Syria....Civil war in Iraq
     is a threat to everyone, especially if it spills across Iraqâs
     borders.

   Isn't it blindingly obvious that people fomenting civil war in Iraq
   might have something to gain from civil war in Iraq, like a Shia
   Islamic state?

     Or we can insist that American troops are withdrawn as quickly and
     safely as we can manage â with as much effort as possible to stop
     the chaos from spreading.

   Again, this is utterly clueless. It's like saying "Let's all jump in
   the pool, while remaining as dry as possible." The two are mutually
   exclusive.
   So how does the most prestigious newspaper in the country get it so
   wrong? There are three factors in play here:
   1) They don't believe the military's version of events; by all
   indications, they don't even bother to listen to it. There's no way to
   square these arguments with what the men and women of America's armed
   forces are teling us, as anyone who regularly reads [2]Bill Roggio or
   [3]Michael Yon can attest.
   2) Their own coverage gives an impression of total chaos and
   extravagant carnage in Iraq, but ignores the context of the much
   greater death and dysfunction of the Hussein era. We might think of
   Iraq as hell on Earth, but [4]a majority of non-Sunni-Arab Iraqis says
   life is "quite good" or "very good;" relative to their lives under
   Hussein current conditions aren't that bad. Iraq has three elections
   deemed free and fair, hundreds of independent media, and by many
   reports [5]a quietly booming economy. Violence continues, but a
   culture of acquiring power through violence is the legacy of decades
   of rule by a military strongman; only by ignoring what life was like
   under Hussein can the aftermath of the invasion be painted as a
   failure to achieve progress.
   3) And, of course, naked partisanship underlies much of the selective
   blindness in the above two points. The NYT is infamous for
   consistently reversing their position on the filibuster depending on
   which party uses it, and similarly chooses the facts to fit their
   predetermined conclusions on Iraq.

References

   1. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/opinion/08sun1.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5088&en=48e5d6fcc8a1ef0a&ex=1341547200&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
   2. http://www.billroggio.com/
   3. http://www.michaelyon-online.com/
   4. http://www3.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf
   5. http://www.nypost.com/seven/12262006/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_boom_outside_baghdad_opedcolumnists_amir_taheri.htm?page=0