BLUEPRINT FOR A WHAT?
Diana of Letters from Gotham (apparently back from the blog-dead for the 8 quadrilltionth time, but for how long?) links to a NY Times article titled, in the Times' inimitably fair and balanced way, Blueprint for a Mess. It's about Iraq, after Saddam and during the present rebuilding/occupation phase. That article has already gone into archive land, meaning I'd have to pay to read the whole thing, and I ain't paying to read it. No need, and no Paypal love lately anyway. Its title and opening paragraph are enough to get the gist, I think:
On the streets of Baghdad today, Americans do not feel welcome. United States military personnel in the city are hunkered down behind acres of fencing and razor wire inside what was once Saddam Hussein's Republican Palace. When L. Paul Bremer III, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, leaves the compound...
...he has to wear seven layers of body armor. He has to surround himself with the entire Fourth ID with close air support from A-10s and Predators. Whatever. Funny that those same unwelcome Americans can jog up and down the streets of Baghdad unmolested, though. And funny that GIs seem to be getting themselves in hot water for marrying Iraqi women, in the country that doesn't want them around.
Diana links to this story as though it should dispel anyone's idea that anything in Iraq is working, or that the American troops there are seen as liberators by any actual Iraqis, nevermind a majority. Even though recent polls do show a clear majority of Iraqis are generally optimistic about their future now, and are generally hoping that we stay there long enough to help them rebuild. Never mind all that--one Times reporter has all the facts she needs. She calls out Glenn Reynolds and Andrew Sullivan, suggesting they read something they can't easily dismiss.
Problem is, the story is pretty easy to dismiss. Granted I haven't read it all, but Diana and her vaunted Times reporter obviously haven't read or absorbed anything that might counter their opinions. But to take things in some detail, obviously Bremer has to travel with tight security in Iraq, magnet for every crackpot terrorist in the MidEast these days. You know what--President Bush, most of his staff, and every single candidate to replace Bush have to travel with pretty tight security, right here in the US of A. The Secret Service details security to all of 'em (which should be a sore spot in at least one respect--we're paying big bucks to keep a bunch of well-trained agents around Dennis Kucinich when he doesn't have a snowball's chance of actually winning a single primary, much less the White House). It's no surprise that Paul Bremer has to have beefed up security in a war zone. Remember, the UN rejected US offers of enhanced security around its compound, and look where it got them. They got a bloody nose and got the heck out, blaming us all the way.
Secondly, while Baghdad is indeed dangerous, it's apparently less dangerous in some ways that East Baltimore or Washington, DC. Trust me on that. I once got lost trying to get out of DC and ended up in Anacostia. Yikes. I was wishing for Popemobile-type bulletproof glass while I figured out how to get my car on the right road to get me home post haste. There's no way I'm going jogging in that area, in broad daylight or any other time.
Third, what about all the contrary information coming from Iraq itself, plus the glaring fact that the Times consistently fails to mention any of it? Thousands of Iraqis demonstrated for the US presence and against terrorism yesterday--where is the Old Gray Liar's story about that? Sorry--it doesn't exist. Why? Should we detect a hint of bias, or just assume that the Times is right and the people that actually live in Iraq are wrong? Diana seems to trust the Times and big media to the hilt. Having worked in the media and been around it enough to know how it operates, I do not. I don't trust it at all. I've seen too many ideologues in reporter drag to ever really trust the media to handle much fairly.
Diana, it's nice to have you back blogging again. I can't say that I always agreed with you before, and will probably agree with you less now that you seem to have jumped the anti-Bush shark for good, but you're always interesting and you do have a knack for keeping us warblogger types honest. Stick around this time.