|
The thought of the AP downplaying improvements in Iraq isn't news. It's noteworthy, though, to see how they report the good news from Iraq. Here's how Anne Flaherty described the progress:
No matter who is elected president in November, his foreign policy team will have to deal with one of the most frustrating realities in Iraq: the slow pace with which the government in Baghdad operates. Iraq's political and military success is considered vital to U.S. interests, whether troops stay or go. And while the Iraqi government has made measurable progress in recent months, the pace at which it's done so has been achingly slow.
The White House sees the progress in a particularly positive light, declaring in a new assessment to Congress that Iraq's efforts on 15 of 18 benchmarks are "satisfactory", almost twice of what it determined to be the case a year ago. The May 2008 report card, obtained by the Associated Press, determines that only two of the benchmarks, enacting and implementing laws to disarm militias and distribute oil revenues -- are unsatisfactory.
I'd love to ask Ms. Flaherty a few questions. Here's a few right off the top of my head:
- Why is dealing with significant, verifiable progress in Iraq a frustrating thing for the 44th president?
- Isn't the fact that the Iraqi government doubled the amount of benchmarks met in a year a sign that the government is finally getting its footing?
- Why is distriibuting oil revenues on this list? While it's true that they haven't passed that constitutional amendment, it's equally true that oil revenues are being shared. They've been shared for quite some time, in fact.
It isn't until the fourth and fifth paragraphs that Ms. Flaherty admits that significant progress is being made:
In the past 12 months, since the White House released its first formal assessment of Iraq's military and political progress, Baghdad politicians have reached several new agreements seen as critical to easing sectarian tensions.
They have passed, for example, legislation that grants amnesty for some prisoners and allows former members of Saddam Hussein's political party to recover lost jobs or pensions. They also determined that provincial elections would be held by Oct. 1.
Question for Ms. Flaherty: If "Baghdad politicians have reached several new agreements seen as critical to easing sectarian tensions", then why shouldn't we take an optimistic view of what's happening?
Lest you think that the rest of Ms. Flaherty's article is optimistic, here's the next three paragraphs:
But for every small step forward, Iraq has several more giant steps to take before victory can be declared on any one issue.
Amnesty requests are backlogged, and in question is whether the new law will speed the release of those in U.S. custody. It also remains unclear just how many former Baath members will be able to return to their jobs. And while Oct. 1 had been identified as an election day, Baghdad hasn't been able to agree on the rules, possibly delaying the event by several weeks.
Likewise, militias and sectarian interests among Iraq's leaders still play a central role in the conflict. And U.S. military officials say they are unsure violence levels will stay down as troop levels return to 142,000 after a major buildup last year.
Overall, this is just another AP article designed to create pessimism about Iraq. That's almost unnewsworthy.
Comments welcome at LFR. |
