Monday, October 27, 2003
More Good News From Baghdad: Ramadan Begins With A Bang
According to the WaPo, early Sunday morning:
This morning, the AP informs us:
What, you may be asking yourself, is the good news. That is the good news.
These attacks are a measure of the progress we've been making in Iraq, if the media would but tell you. That these evil ones, these terrorists, who just love to kill, and who hate progress, peace and freedom would feel compelled to attack the US occupation at its very heart, that they would target the International Red Cross, and police stations is evidence of their desperation. To quote our President:
This from the Oval Office, where the President was meeting with Viceroy Brenner, Ms. Rice, and Generals Meyers and Abizaid. There was even some good news about Iraq that didn't require being measured by the bloodiness of the resistence to our presence there.
And the world, I'm sure, is saying, you're welcome, Mr. President.
What is there to say about the use of this kind of logic, this rhetoric, so clearly PR rather than policy driven?
For a dose of reality, here's an early but detailed report of what it was like in Baghdad this morning from the NYTimes, and from the BBC, a report on the complicated reactions of actual Iraqis.
One more dose of reality, in the coordinated attack of the last several weeks on the media as deliberately witholding news of the progress being made in Iraq under our occupation, would you not agree that the unreported story most often referenced was the reopening of Iraqi schools? Here's just a small sampling of the stories covering that event that appeared at the time in the Christian Science Monitor, the BBC, another from the CSM, and yes, even Dan Rather's CBS. See what you think of the coverage.
One last question about the last two days - what was Sec. Wolfowitz doing in Iraq? Give him credit, as Atrios does, for at least staying in Baghdad, but why go there at all? Hard not to see it as a form of waving the bloody shirt, in this case, of our occupation. Mind you, I don't bebrudge the Secretary the warm welcome he received from the Kurds; their feelings of warmth towards him are perfectly understandable. But to the extent those feelings aren't as prevalent in neighborhoods in Baghdad, or in Najaf, or Karbala, to the extent he might not dare take a walk in those cities, isn't his presence in Iraq ultimately divisive in a way that impedes the result we want, a unified, democratic Iraq?
That today's suicide bombers may be foreign jihadists is hardly good news from an Iraqi point of view. What was the point of a visit that emphasized the American nature of this occupation? To reassure them that we're in it for the long haul? Somehow, I don't think that's what even the most sympathetic Iraqi is worried about.
The U.S. occupation authority abandoned the al-Rashid Hotel after it was hit early Sunday by a fatal rocket barrage fired from a launcher disguised as a portable generator. A senior U.S. Army officer was killed and 17 people were wounded in the brazen strike at the core of the U.S. presence in Iraq. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, who was in the hotel but unhurt in the attack, vowed that "we're not giving up on this job."
This morning, the AP informs us:
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Suicide bombers struck the Red Cross headquarters and three police stations across Baghdad on Monday, killing about 40 people and injuring more than 200 in a coordinated terror spree that stunned the Iraqi capital on the first day of the Islamic holy month of fasting, Ramadan.
The string of car bombings, all within about 45 minutes, was the bloodiest episode yet in the city of 5 million by insurgents targeting the American-led occupation and those perceived as working with it.
It also appeared to mark a dramatic escalation in tactics, suggesting a level of organization U.S. officials had doubted the resistance possessed. In past weeks, bombers have carried out heavy suicide bombings but in single strikes.
What, you may be asking yourself, is the good news. That is the good news.
These attacks are a measure of the progress we've been making in Iraq, if the media would but tell you. That these evil ones, these terrorists, who just love to kill, and who hate progress, peace and freedom would feel compelled to attack the US occupation at its very heart, that they would target the International Red Cross, and police stations is evidence of their desperation. To quote our President:
"The more successful we are on the ground, the more these killers will react," Bush said. "And our job is to find them and bring them to justice. Which is precisely what General Abizaid briefed us on."
"These people will kill Iraqis. The don't care who they kill, they just want to kill, and we will find them," Bush pledged.
"There's a handful of people who don't want (Iraqis) to live in freedom," adding that do not support the reconstruction, including the restoration of electricity and oil production or the rebuilding of schools.
"They'll do whatever it takes to stop this progress. And our job is to work with the Iraqis to prevent this from happening."
This from the Oval Office, where the President was meeting with Viceroy Brenner, Ms. Rice, and Generals Meyers and Abizaid. There was even some good news about Iraq that didn't require being measured by the bloodiness of the resistence to our presence there.
Bush also hailed the outcome of the donors' conference for Iraq in Madrid which raised pledges of 13 billion dollars in addition to about 20 billion dollars from the United States.
"We spent time talking about the success of the donors conference, the fact that the world community is coming together to help build a free Iraq. And we want to thank the world for the willingness to step up and to help," Bush said.
And the world, I'm sure, is saying, you're welcome, Mr. President.
What is there to say about the use of this kind of logic, this rhetoric, so clearly PR rather than policy driven?
For a dose of reality, here's an early but detailed report of what it was like in Baghdad this morning from the NYTimes, and from the BBC, a report on the complicated reactions of actual Iraqis.
One more dose of reality, in the coordinated attack of the last several weeks on the media as deliberately witholding news of the progress being made in Iraq under our occupation, would you not agree that the unreported story most often referenced was the reopening of Iraqi schools? Here's just a small sampling of the stories covering that event that appeared at the time in the Christian Science Monitor, the BBC, another from the CSM, and yes, even Dan Rather's CBS. See what you think of the coverage.
One last question about the last two days - what was Sec. Wolfowitz doing in Iraq? Give him credit, as Atrios does, for at least staying in Baghdad, but why go there at all? Hard not to see it as a form of waving the bloody shirt, in this case, of our occupation. Mind you, I don't bebrudge the Secretary the warm welcome he received from the Kurds; their feelings of warmth towards him are perfectly understandable. But to the extent those feelings aren't as prevalent in neighborhoods in Baghdad, or in Najaf, or Karbala, to the extent he might not dare take a walk in those cities, isn't his presence in Iraq ultimately divisive in a way that impedes the result we want, a unified, democratic Iraq?
That today's suicide bombers may be foreign jihadists is hardly good news from an Iraqi point of view. What was the point of a visit that emphasized the American nature of this occupation? To reassure them that we're in it for the long haul? Somehow, I don't think that's what even the most sympathetic Iraqi is worried about.
