Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (33642)	3/9/2004 3:57:24 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793903

IMPROVING IN IRAQ Glenn Reynolds I mention below that things in Iraq seem to be going rather well. The real proof of that, of course, is that neither John Kerry nor Katie Couric want to talk much about events there, or about the new Iraqi constitution and what it means. But Fareed Zakaria notes the progress: Consider the progress of Al Qaeda and affiliated terror groups over the past three years. For a decade they had attacked high-profile American targets only—embassies, a naval destroyer, the World Trade Center. Once the United States mobilized against them, and got the world to join that fight, what have they hit? A discotheque, a few synagogues, a couple of restaurants and hotels, all soft targets that could not ever be protected, and all outside the Western world. As a result, the terrorists have killed mostly Muslims, which is marginalizing them in the world of Islam. . . . In political terms they have fared even worse. Support for violent Islam is waning in almost all major Muslim countries. Discussions from Libya to Saudi Arabia are all about liberalization. Ever since September 11, when the spotlight has been directed on these societies and their dysfunctions laid bare to the world, it is the hard-liners who are in retreat and the moderates on the rise. This does not mean that there will be rapid reform anywhere—there are many obstacles to progress—but it does suggest that the moderates are not running scared anymore. This is not, as some might argue -- if they deigned to discuss the subject at all -- a fortunate byproduct of the invasion of Iraq. This consequence was the primary goal of, and reason for, the invasion. War critics are focusing on the lack of weapons of mass destruction because it's the only thing on which they can make any argument at all, given that all their predictions of disaster -- massive U.S. and Iraqi civilian casualties (ironically, often due to the very WMDs that war critics were then sure Saddam had), the "Arab street" in revolt everywhere, and a massive upsurge in Al Qaeda terror -- didn't materialize. Why haven't we heard more about those failures of intelligence, or more about the success of the Bush plan in Iraq? It's almost as if people want us to fail. In fact, as Oxford blogger David Adesnik notes, it really is as if people want us to fail. Adesnik looks at doomsaying reports from the Washington Post and New York Times regarding last weekend's Iraqi constitutional negotiations, and then points out that the same reporters neglected to mention how wrong those reports turned out to be by Monday. He observes: So, did the NYT report today that Friday's "major embarrassment" didn't materialize? Or that Paul Bremer has been successful in encouraging Iraqis to work together? And what about the WaPo? Did it report that the Shi'ites' compromise is an indication of how ethnic and religious divisions may not be as profound as originally thought? Since those were all rhetorical questions, I won't bother telling you the answers. The fact is that professional journalists have a remarkable habit of overlooking their own short-sightedness. Unsurprisingly, the same correspondents at the Times (Dexter Filkins) and the Post (Rajiv Chandrasekaran) covered both the Shi'ite walkout on Friday and the Shi'ite compromise earlier today. Their coverage demonstrates how committed both men are (subconscioulsy, I think ) to telling the story of how America is going to fail in Iraq. Of course, it's hard to tell a consistent story when the facts keep getting in the way. Let's be honest here: There are a lot of people in the media, and in American politics, who would rather see the United States fail in Iraq, if it means getting George Bush out of the White House and John Kerry in. And if that failure doesn't materialize on its own, they'll do their best to portray what's going on in Iraq as a failure even when it's not. Keep that in mind as you peruse the coverage, and listen to the debate.