Friday, June 04, 2004
Progress in Iraq
The most positive indicator of progress in Iraq that I have seen was revealed by the New York Times this morning: There was no mention of Iraq on the front page!
Less clear but in my mind positive was the reaction of Ayatollah Sistani to the new interim government. Most of the media thought that it was significant that he did not condemn the new government. Instead of condemnation, he said that it would have been better if it had been elected (that has been his position for a long time) but that he hoped that it would govern efficiently and honestly. The Times chose to see this in a negative light. In its daily summary it only mentioned that he had "expressed dissatisfaction". In its slightly longer piece it concluded that he had "offered more caution than support". The rest of the media saw his statement as a somewhat grudging acceptance of the new leadership. Under a Washington Post and AP byline we read that Sistani "guardedly endorsed the new government". This piece pointed out that his statement was much more positive than anything he had said about the Governing Council. It expressed wishes for God's help for the new administration and emphasized that it must "provide security in all parts of the country and end all organized crimes and other criminal acts." Considering his position and the pressures on him, I would say this is pretty positive. It offers a thoroughly Iraqi basis on which we might construct a workable system and achieve the security and total sovereignty both we and he strive for.
The most positive indicator of progress in Iraq that I have seen was revealed by the New York Times this morning: There was no mention of Iraq on the front page!
Less clear but in my mind positive was the reaction of Ayatollah Sistani to the new interim government. Most of the media thought that it was significant that he did not condemn the new government. Instead of condemnation, he said that it would have been better if it had been elected (that has been his position for a long time) but that he hoped that it would govern efficiently and honestly. The Times chose to see this in a negative light. In its daily summary it only mentioned that he had "expressed dissatisfaction". In its slightly longer piece it concluded that he had "offered more caution than support". The rest of the media saw his statement as a somewhat grudging acceptance of the new leadership. Under a Washington Post and AP byline we read that Sistani "guardedly endorsed the new government". This piece pointed out that his statement was much more positive than anything he had said about the Governing Council. It expressed wishes for God's help for the new administration and emphasized that it must "provide security in all parts of the country and end all organized crimes and other criminal acts." Considering his position and the pressures on him, I would say this is pretty positive. It offers a thoroughly Iraqi basis on which we might construct a workable system and achieve the security and total sovereignty both we and he strive for.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
