Iraqis unsure about US’ future role
The Washington Post writes this morning, under the headline “Iraqis Condemn American Demands” in regards to negotiations with the Iraq government for our security plans in Iraq. Since the Washington Post has a habit of changing their headlines after I write about them, I took a screen cap;
The article doesn’t really support the headline (which I learned in my journalism class the first day is one of three places a journalist tells the story). The headline implies that all Iraqis are of that mind. In fact, the article only names a few;
“The Americans are making demands that would lead to the colonization of Iraq,” said Sami al-Askari, a senior Shiite politician on parliament’s foreign relations committee who is close to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. “If we can’t reach a fair agreement, many people think we should say, ‘Goodbye, U.S. troops. We don’t need you here anymore.’ “
Most Iraqis realize that we don’t want a colony – most of the world knows that our history doesn’t support that contention, but that doesn’t stop the Post from injecting a single quote from a single Iraqi.
The use of the term “American Demands” doesn’t fit either;
President Bush has spoken directly to Maliki about the issue in recent days and instructed his negotiating team to show greater flexibility, Iraqi politicians said. U.S. officials circulated a draft of the status of forces agreement over the weekend without many of the most controversial demands, buoying hopes that a deal could be reached, according to Iraq lawmakers.
“Greater flexibility” doesn’t sound like the US is making “demands” on the Iraqis at all. Further along in the article is this quote:
“Now the American position is much more positive and more flexible than before,” said Mohammed Hamoud, an Iraqi deputy foreign minister who is a lead negotiator in the talks.
Yeah, why wasn’t that in the headline? I’m pretty sure I’ll get to hear or read some nit-witted Leftist screaming that the Iraqis don’t want us there anymore. All they seem to read are the headlines. Like this commenter at the WaPo story;
irae wrote:
“Let Freedom reign!” Unless, of course, it leads the Iraqis to assert independent control of their “sovereign” nation. This fiasco will appear on the historic list of our national embarassments, like the Native American genocide and the internment of U.S. citizens during WW II. Thanks, Republicants!
Or this bubblehead at Counterpunch;
A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the U.S. presidential election in November.
The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to this reporter, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq.
If you want to talk about demands, maybe the Post was thinking about this paragraph;
In Washington, the White House hastily organized a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill on Tuesday after Sens. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and John W. Warner (R-Va.), the chairman and ranking minority member of the Armed Services Committee, respectively, demanded Monday that the administration “be more transparent with Congress, with greater consultation, about the progress and content of these deliberations.”
Yes, the Democrats who’ve sabotaged every move the administration has made in Iraq wonder why no one will let them take part in the discussion. Maybe we can have Leaky Leahy make daily reports through the WaPo of the closed door meetings – that should make the Iraqis more trustful of the process.
If the Iraqis truly want us leave, I’d be the first to say we should go, but this article focuses on the same Shi’ites who’ve been calling us an occupying force since al Sadr formed the Mahdi Army to drive us out. They’ve been beat politically and militarily, so they turn to their only ally – the American media.
I’d like to see fewer troops in Iraq, but I already predicted we’d be back in Iraq at the end of the Gulf War when Iraqi bullets were still ricocheting off of my Bradley turret when the ceasefire took effect and ending our presence there again might force a future generation back – depending on who we elect in the interim. And the Iraqis should take that into consideration, too. The next President might abandon them like we abandoned the South Vietnamese when they needed us most in 1975.
UPDATE: Gateway Pundit reports that President Bush says we don’t permanent bases in Iraq. Quoting the President;
And as I said clearly in past speeches, this will not involve permanent bases, nor will it bind any future President to troop levels. You know, as to — look, Eggen, you can find any voice you want in the Iraqi political scene and quote them, which is interesting, isn’t it, because in the past you could only find one voice, and now you can find a myriad of voices.
Category: Foreign Policy, Media, Politics, Terror War
