Losing Ground in Iraq

[acmavm]

Published: April 27, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/27/opinion/27wed1.html?th&emc=th

<snip>

he 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.

The Bush administration has, understandably, stopped trying to disguise its frustration and concern. Granted, Iraq's politicians are new to the challenges of parliamentary give-and-take. But if they manage to squander the aura of democratic legitimacy conferred on them by January's election, it will become radically harder to bridge ethnic and religious divides, build a national army and police force, and repair a still shattered infrastructure.

Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have personally intervened with Iraqi political leaders in hopes of ending the damaging stalemate, and an announcement of at least a partial cabinet list is now reported to be imminent. Washington's influence is considerable, but must be used wisely. Getting directly involved in negotiations over cabinet posts or imposing some kind of arbitrary timetable would be a serious mistake. Instead, the United States needs to put its full weight behind the basic democratic values President Bush has embraced for a new, freer Middle East.

<snip>

The only plausible reason for keeping American troops in Iraq is to protect the democratic transformation that President Bush seized upon as a rationale for the invasion after his claims about weapons of mass destruction turned out to be fictitious. If that transformation is now allowed to run off the rails, the new rationale could prove to be as hollow as the original one.

-MORE-

*********************************************************************
The New York Times just needs to hire Gannon/Guckert and be done with it. They're both whores.

[Benhurst]

1. I think you are being a bit unfair,

comparing Gannon/Guckert with the New York Times. He, at least, is somewhat open about being a whore.

[acmavm]

2. That's true. But they both wrap themselves in this 'cloak' of phony

respectability that would be funny if it weren't so harmful and pathetic.

[bemildred]

3. NYT needs to pay better attention.

The Bushites have screwed up EVERYTHING they have every touched,
without exception, each and every one of their pretexts and
justifications have turned out to be lies and delusions, each and
every one of their predictions has failed to come to pass.

Now, in this situation, how do you bet on the current sets of
rationales and the current predicted outcomes? Why does NYT then
assume that the "democratic transformation" argument is real when
all that went before it is lies?

Because it lacks the moral and intellectual cojones to deal with the
realities of power and who holds it in the USA, and it prefers it's
fantasy world, no matter how tattered, to performing it's function of
keeping the people informed as to who claims to rule here, and how
they rule.