I was impressed with this story in today's New York Times about Iraqi attitudes toward the American occupation. In fact, I was so impressed I thought I would include the first few paragraphs. And just for fun, I thought it might be interesting if anyone else noticed the subtle New York Times' imprimatur on the story...not only in what they include but even more importantly, in what they "forget" to include.
Iraqis Expressed Ambivalence About Direction of Country
By EDWARD WONG
Published: June 28, 2005BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 28 - Haydar Farman strode from a back room in the office where he had been eating grilled chicken with other engineers. Sipping from a can of Diet Pepsi, he began trying to sort through feelings about his country that were as intricately wound as the concertina wire running through these streets.
It had been exactly a year since the Americans had handed over sovereignty to the Iraqis. A year of bombs and ballots, of hopes realized and dashed.
"Sure, there are differences since the handover of sovereignty; there are negative and positive changes," said Mr. Farman, 34, a clean-shaven mechanical engineer. "The most important thing is the success in holding elections despite the difficult situation."
"As for the security situation, it is less than our expectations," he added.
But were the Iraqis really running the show now? Were they masters of their own house?
"The major decisions, especially military ones, are still in the hands of the Americans," Mr. Farman said.
In dozens of interviews across the sweltering capital today, Iraqis expressed ambivalence about the direction the country was heading, the American presence here and the two governments that have taken power since the handover of sovereignty. Their feelings were often murky, their words contradictory - an indication, in other words, of the ever-shifting nature of the war and the fog over the political landscape.
In this unscientific survey, one thing was clear, though: The sense of triumphalism that some Iraqis had seized on during the handover itself, and later in the parliamentary elections of January, had given way to an acceptance of hard reality.
"I don't feel there is an Iraqi government, and the changes are so small and slow," said Thamir Muhammad, 41, a computer operator sitting by a keyboard in a building near Mr. Farman's office. "I believe the power is still in the hands of the Americans because there have been no significant changes.
"The Americans should give the Iraqis the authority to make major decisions, and in return they can receive guarantees to ensure their interests."
A year ago, Ayad Allawi, a secular Shiite Arab close to the Central Intelligence Agency, took the office of prime minister. He was followed by Ibrahim al-Jaafari, a religious Shiite whose party, with the backing of powerful clerics, had won big in the elections. No matter which of those administrations the Iraqis talked about, they generally had the same complaints - no electricity, no water, and, worse of all, no security.
I don't read the Times as often or as carefully as I used to but a couple of things stand out in this article.
In the rest of the article (it is a two page article and my quote is only the first half of page one) there are some of the typical New York Times memes: there is the obligatory listing of all the explosions and deaths caused by "insurgents" which we have come to expect in the MSM. There are more quotes of Iraqi ambivalence about the occupation with some additional identifying data. There is some discussion of the advisability of the United States setting a "date certain" for withdrawal with some Iraqis supporting and some opposed. However, all of these various issues and discussions require much more context in order to fully appreciate what is going on in Iraq.
Iraq is a tribal society. Tribal affiliations can even trump religious affiliations, though religious affiliations remain crucial for much of the population. So, one wonders:
How can the New York Times present a story about the attitudes of Iraqis toward the American occupation, with emphasis on the views of Haydar Farman and Thamir Muhammad, without mentioning religious or tribal affiliations of either man? The Times clearly recognizes the importance of religion because they mention it in terms of Ayad Allawi, described as "a secular Shiite Arab close to the Central Intelligence Agency" (obviously, political connections are important as well and the Times doesn't miss that), and Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the current Prime Minister.
Anyone can find individuals anywhere who are ambivalent about anything! Without some context, attitudes are merely curiosities, with no greater meaning to be gleaned from them. We read this article and discover people are not as euphoric as when we arrived, some want us out immediately, others don't believe we will ever leave, some are mildly optimistic. I suppose they couldn't find anyone who is actually pleased we are there and worried we might leave prematurely. Iraq the Model must be too obscure for the Times.
Essentially, this article is totally meaningless. The Times is killing trees for this???
Recent Comments