I advised a friend over lunch last week that his "weariness" with the war in Iraq is unwarranted. If the United States stays with it, we will win. The problem is the way in which our domestic morale has been undermined by incomplete reporting. I saw it in relation to the elections of 2004 when I visited Baghdad. The Iraqis were upbeat about voting, the media cynical, not bothering, apparently, to find out from the people whether they cared about voting. Millions did, of course.
The media did warn about a "civil war" between the Sunnis and the Shia, and that was a valid concern. But the analysis of causes was not adequate. Behind the strife were two forces trying to force conflict: Al Qaeda (and former Baathists) and Al Sadr's Shia militia. Each provoked the others.
Now one sees that the average Iraqi is quite fed up with both extremes and recognizes that the United States does not want to hang around as an occupier--that the greater danger, in fact, is that we will leave too soon--and that Iraq cannot trust the Muslim extremists.
Now we are finally beginning to get some media reports that dare to diverge from the negative line laid down so long. John Burns, NY Times bureau chief in Baghdad, has long been giving an opinion that contrasts sharply with the snide sarcasm and defeatism of his employer's editorials. Now comes an op-ed (and congratulations to the Times for running it) by two think tank observers from the liberal Brookings Institution.
Someone once pointed out to me a sad condition of conservatism; namely, that writers at the National Review didn't used to believe something unless they saw it in the NY Times, even though they disliked the Times. (I hope that day is past, but sometimes I wonder.) But perhaps in a similar vein, liberals also won't believe good news about long term prospects in Iraq until they see it in the Times. Is that possibly happening now?
Leave a comment