After the success of the Bush surge in Iraq became undeniable, it became necessary for critics to readjust their talking points. The fallback position for the New York Times and others was to point to the lack of political progress. But this no longer holds. In the long run of history, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki may have more staying power than failed U.S. presidential candidates like John Edwards and Chris Dodd who have both been caught up in scandal. An article about the Iraqi city of Nasiriya demonstrates, perhaps inadvertently, that there has been political progress after all…
Well sure, the troop surge was successful, but Iraq remains hopelessly mired in sectarian violence and political progress has not followed behind military success. This is the argument The New York Times made once it became apparent the Bush strategy had met with considerable success.
The fallback position for opponents of the war turned on the tension and disunity within Iraq’s central government. While there was certainly good cause for legitimate criticism back in the 2007-2008 timeframe, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s coalition has met important benchmarks that should be acknowledged in upcoming reports.
Looking back on the final two years of the Bush Administration, The Times was dismissive of the idea that Iraq could have turn into a functioning democracy replete with competitive political parties and meaningful elections.
The following few paragraphs from a Dec. 2007 report entitled: “U.S. Curtails Its Political Goals for Iraq” captures the attitude and tone the paper had toward the Maliki government immediately after violence began to abate.
“There have been signs that U.S. influence over Iraqi politics is dwindling, after the recent improvements in security – which remain incomplete, as shown by a deadly bombing Friday in Baghdad. While Bush officials once said they aimed to secure “reconciliation” among Iraq’s deeply divided religious, ethnic and sectarian groups, some now refer to their goal as “accommodation.”
“Officials in Washington and in Baghdad share the view that military gains alone are not enough to overcome the deep distrust among Iraqi factions caused by nearly five decades of dictatorship and war. And in both capitals there are leaders who continue to hold out hope for broad political gains, eventually.”
There’s another interesting piece that delves into how Democratic presidential candidates began to shift their tone once it became clear that military progress against the insurgency was becoming too difficult to deny.
“Advisers to Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama say that the candidates have watched security conditions improve after the troop escalation in Iraq and concluded that it would be folly not to acknowledge those gains,” the report says. “At the same time, they are arguing that American casualties are still too high, that a quick withdrawal is the only way to end the war and that the so-called surge in additional troops has not paid off in political progress in Iraq.”
But even as the unexpected military advances complicated the Democratic Party’s message, The Times remain convinced that a stable, functioning legitimate government would ever emerge through the political divisions.
Even as the Democrats began to modify and shift their rhetoric, The Times was quick to chime in and tell readers that despite all the efforts of Gen. David Petraeus and others Iraq was most likely beyond all hope.
“At the same time, there is no assurance that the ebbing of violence is more than a respite or represents a real trend that could lead to lasting political stability or coax those who have fled the capital to return to their homes. Past military successes have faded with new rounds of car bombings and kidnappings, like the market bombing that killed at least eight on Friday in Baghdad.”
Fast forward to Feb. 2010 and The Times has a fascinating article that explores the political jockeying between Shite factions in the city of Nasirya. It’s very unclear which coalition will prevail in the upcoming elections and one has to ask if The Times does not see the irony here.
This is very well-written, well-sourced pierce that highlights the kind political progress that the paper strongly suggested would never materialize. But that was back when Bush was president.
“Nasiriya’s Shiite parties have fielded some of the most powerful politicians in Iraq: a vice president, a minister, prominent lawmakers and the closest advisers to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki,” the reporter observes. “Many share an intimacy fostered in exile or in years spent fighting Saddam Hussein’s government in the southern marshes, the equivalent here of the Sierra Maestra in Cuba.”
It appears The Times has inadvertently acknowledged that Iraq is turning into a functioning democracy inclusive of the all gamesmanship and jockeying that make our politics so much fun.
We’ll take it.
Popularity: 1% [?]
