AP Goes Neo-Con
OK, al-P and reasonable people might dispute that.
But try as it might to discuss where we are five years on without giving Bush any props, the Associated Press has to admit that we have some leverage, and a substantial national interest, at stake in that nascent democracy won with the blood of many thousands of Iraqis and Americans, wedged between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
I give you … “Stable Iraq could influence the Middle East.” AP analysis:
BAGHDAD (AP) — As violence in Iraq recedes, neighboring states are pondering how to deal with an unwieldy country that could re-emerge as a key player along with Saudi Arabia and Iran in one of the world’s most strategic regions.
The role of regional power broker may seem far-fetched for Iraq — a devastated land best known for car bombs, death squads and suicide attackers.
Still, countries of the Middle East cannot ignore the potential role of a resurgent Iraq, a nation of 28 million people, bordering Iran to the east, Syria and Jordan to the west and sitting on one of the world’s major pools of oil.
For those reasons, the United States cannot afford to lose focus on Iraq, which will remain a strategic and important country even after the last of the 140,000 American soldiers have gone home.
Just as it was before they got there. I’d excerpt the whole damned thing, but you know how pissy AP’s been lately about that kind of thing. These excerpts are strictly for purposes of media criticism. I could criticize the AP all day, and have, but I agree with that part above absolutely, and that’s no mean critique. Except maybe the “far-fetched” part.
OK, here’s another place where we part, if only briefly:
The Middle East has long confounded forecasters, and the rosy predictions from the Bush administration that Iraq would emerge as a beacon of Western-style democracy in the Arab world have been long discredited.
However unlikely it may seem today, a relatively stable Iraq would have all the cards necessary to emerge as a major player in the Persian Gulf, where Saudi Arabia and Iran are competing for leadership.
You can’t begrudge the AP a little boilerplate Bush-bash, even at this late surge date, but I wouldn’t be so quick to discredit. A couple of cards AP neglects to mention.
Iraq is a democracy. Just yesterday, the democratically elected government of Iraq approved regional elections, in a deal that made important concessions to its minority populations. That’s more of the political progress Obama doesn’t think has been happening. It couldn’t have happened without the most important political progress of all. I don’t mean some agreement between pols. I’m talking about the decision of the Iraqi people to reject the terrorists in their midst. To recognize their own interest and try to work past fear and hatred to advance it. Think about it. Astraddle the Middle East, in a position to play Saudi Arabia and Iran, if deftly enough even to dominate them: A democratic Arab nation that has rejected terrorism. Sounds like a beacon to me. Sounds like a neo-con’s dream. And it’s approaching, at long bloody last, reality.
You will want to read the whole thing.
The news agency that more terrorists prefer you’ll recall was rather late to the surge table, if not nearly as fashionably late as Obama. The Associated Press and the scribbler of this particular analysis, Robert H. Reid, were still neck deep in body counts and failure-mongering when al-Qaeda was out of Anbar and on the run in Diyala in mid-2007. AP’s Baghdad bureauistas were asiduously scribbling everything they could to avoid or obscure the terrible truth of the surge’s growing success. But despite its shortcomings, Reid’s latest analysis does a relatively good job of laying out our vital interests in Iraq. And I’ll risk one of those shitty lawyer letters from the free-speech advocates at the AP to give you one more little bit, uncritically:
All these uncertainties will probably encourage Washington to pay close attention to Iraq for years.
“All Americans should be and are proud of the achievements in Iraq and the American role in bringing about the change,” U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker said recently.
Losing interest in Iraq, he warned, risks paying “a major long-term price.”
(Welcome, Weekly Standard, Instapundit, etal. Heard about the AP’s terrorism whitewash and its claim that Palin is a bigot? Bucket of gall here.)
Ha … good one in comments:
Name me one of the top 30 democratic countries like the USA, Britian, Germany France etc that have to have 160,.000 foreign troops and 30000 dropped into their capital so that they have a “stable democracy” ?
OK. Britain, Germany, France, etc. Though if you like, I’ll give you Britain, and we don’t have to dicker about whether, without several million American troops, they’d have a stable democracy there or not.
Then there was that other business.
OK, back to Iraq. Previously:
Lazy, Stupid or Willfully Ignorant?
Sprechen Sie Deutsches Mit Einer Tauben Welt
AP Analysis: War is Hard, We’re Depressed (Can We Leave Now?)
Topics: America, Bush, Iran, Iraq, media, middle east, saudi arabia
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 1:15 am Comments (9) on Saturday, October 4, 2008
9 Responses to “AP Goes Neo-Con”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
October 4th, 2008 at 6:05 am
Well, you can only hit a stubborn mule between the eyes with a two-by-four so many times before it finally decides it had better get with the program.
October 4th, 2008 at 9:29 am
[...] Jules Crittendom who’ll analyze it for you so you don’t have to read [...]
October 4th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Maybe you can’t begrudge the AP a little Bush bashing in an article that basically backs the Bush doctrine, though I would think they maybe got it out of their system in the thousands of other Bush bashing articles they’ve published. At least they had the decency to be utterly incoherent about it–the second paragraph directly and completely contradicts the first.
October 4th, 2008 at 11:52 am
“the rosy predictions from the Bush administration that Iraq would emerge as a beacon of Western-style democracy in the Arab world have been long discredited.”
Bullshit on two counts.
First, I’m quite sure that Bush never said that Iraq would be a beacon of *Western-style” democracy. In fact, I’m not even sure he said “beacon of democracy” at all, though certainly the sentiment was there. If somebody knows the original source for this supposed quote, that can be found all over the place, I would love to see it, because I can’t find it.
But what about those “rosy” predictions of instant democracy? It was all going to be so easy, according to Bush, right? Um, no:
“It will be difficult to help freedom take hold in a country that has known three decades of dictatorship, secret police, internal divisions, and war. It will be difficult to cultivate liberty and peace in the Middle East, after so many generations of strife. Yet, the security of our nation and the hope of millions depend on us, and Americans do not turn away from duties because they are hard. We have met great tests in other times, and we will meet the tests of our time.”
- President Bush, February 26, 2003
“The United States, with other countries, will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land. And the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace.”
- President Bush, March 17, 2003
But wait! I sense a clash of narratives here! Didn’t we invade Iraq purely because of WMD? That’s what we used to be told. Later, we were told that Bush turned to the democracy in Iraq argument because the WMD’s weren’t found. Yet here he is, talking about democracy and freedom as a major goal, right in the two most important speeches before the war. So strange!
Second, since when was the potential for democracy in Iraq “discredited?” Iraq has only been liberated from Saddam for 5 years. Their first free elections were held only 3 1/2 years ago, and that was to set up their interim government. It’s only been a year since the insurgency was neutralized enough to put Iraq into a state of stability. Let’s inject a little realism here. In just five years they have moved from from a brutal dictatorship to a stable democracy, certainly not a perfect one, but still far better than most people imagined could exist in the region. That is amazing progress, and certainly proves that the potential for democracy in the middle east is far from “discredited.”
October 4th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Thank God for President George W. Bush. One of our Great Presidents. I am so happy for the Iraqi people.
October 4th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Trackback: “As a rule, I don’t use sources from the Associated Press (for obvious reasons), but their article on Iraq’s role in stabilizing American power in the Middle East is noteworthy…
October 4th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Fatty bolger said “In just five years they have moved from from a brutal dictatorship to a stable democracy, ”
Does a “stable democracy” require 160.000 foreign troops in it’s country?
Does a “stable democracy” require 30000 troops parachuting into it’s capital city to put down internal violence a “stable democracy”
If you are going to tell the “big lie” you have to REALLY tell the big lie and you have to have MILLIONS of people telling the “big lie” with you.
Name me one of the top 30 democratic countries like the USA, Britian, Germany France etc that have to have 160,.000 foreign troops and 30000 dropped into their capital so that they have a “stable democracy” ?
October 4th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
vladislaw
I can only think of 2 countries that needed large numbers of troops to become stable democracies, Germany and Japan in the first decade after the end of World War II.
October 4th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Vladislaw, what are you talking about? There were hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in Germany and Japan for half a century after WWII, not to mention many, many other countries such as Italy and France. (France alone had 50,000 US troops for decades.) We still have hundreds of thousands of troops in other democracies, not counting Iraq. Germany was occupied for 10 years after WWII, and Japan for 6.
South Korea – (still has about 26,000 US troops)
Japan – (still has about 50,000 US troops)
Germany – (still has 60,000 US troops)
Bosnia/Herzegovina – (had 15,000 troops to stabilize an area far smaller than Iraq in size and population, and they still have thousands of US troops)
Italy – (still has over 10,000 US troops)
Maybe this will enlighten you a little, but I doubt it:
http://www.heritage.org/research/nationalsecurity/cda06-02.cfm
“There are fewer troops deployed on foreign soil today than during the average year of the late 20th century.” Interesting, huh?