Wednesday, September 22, 2004
We don't really learn much new from this front-page Washington Post article which purports to be on the growing "supporting role" taken by the US in Iraq. Instead, the reader may actually find himself more confused. By trying to show both sides of the coin, this article is a good example of the sort of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" negativist journalism we've had to filter all of our Iraq coverage through. No wonder people think our Iraq policy is a mess, and everything's chaos. The reporting can't simply make a point and stick to it. In other words, they don't give us a story and stick to it, then perhaps have a second story, or section in the same, or better yet an op-ed (which reporting on individual person's opinions really is) with analysis - supporting or skeptical of the news.
Right away the headline has me thinking, "Well what were they supposed to do? At what earlier point exactly were the Iraqis ready for more power? We're all aware of the debates over timelines, and the many criticisms the Administration took for appearing to rush things - sometimes accused of doing so as a form of premature cut-and-run. So now the Post is implying it's already too late. Wonderful.
U.S. diplomats and military experts say the United States is now doing what it should have done a year ago: ceding authority to Iraqis; focusing on smaller, labor-intensive reconstruction projects to generate jobs rather than big ventures by U.S. companies; and assuming a low profile...
A year ago? Does anyone think the Iraqis were ready to take on authority over themselves - to say nothing of American resources - a year ago? And the large-scale reconstruction projects that have been going on for the past year and a half? That's not the place for the local contractor guy.
Can you imagine what the criticisms, to say nothing of the current state of things, would be had the US done those things?
"Obviously, Iraqis do not embrace this government as authentic or representative of them. From the beginning, they have tolerated it as something better than the occupation and as a bridge to an elected, more legitimate government," said Larry Diamond of Stanford University, an expert on democracy who served in the U.S.-led occupation. "Allawi may be an able man or the best politician around, but the fact that he was America's man seriously diminishes his legitimacy."
First, an unnamed Marine Colonel with a quote in isolation serves as the voice of the article's authors. Secondly we have the same bit of "can do no right" criticism about the government. The Iraqis are still not set up for full scale elections, how can we expect anything but a leader who;s rule has been facilitated by the occupation authorities. Later in the article it's stated that Allawi has about 60% support amongst Iraqis. That sounds pretty good to me, and to have a leader selected and who rules through some form of consensus authority - which Allawi was, we recall, selected through - compared to thirty years of brutal dictatorship with no popular consent at all...it sounds to me like a pretty good deal. See, you can't criticize without being honest about the alternatives.
This is a schizoid article. On the one hand it tells us what's actually happening, then on the other it uses individual man on the street views (sometimes anonymous like our Marine Colonel, sometimes expert like Ken Pollack and Larry Diamond, sometimes just a "supermarket owner's" opinion) to undercut its own story.
The article's conclusion:
I like Ken Pollack, his book was a great help in informing my views in the run-up to war, but does he really think there was any possibility of turning over real authority to an Iraqi government 18 months ago? WHAT Iraqi government? And just imagine the complaints had we tried to do so! I'll give Pollack the benefit of the doubt here and assume the authors, in the rush to craft their piece, haven't really done his views justice.
