Friday, February 24, 2006

Let's Not Call Out The Iraqi Version Of Ken Burns Yet

The Iraqis are amid a civl war. Haven't you heard?

Well, at least that's what the media would have you believe. And given that the media-left seems a little more ideologically cozy with the people who bombed the Samarra Mosque, it stands to reason that that's how they'd report this.

What I mean by that is that they have taken every opportunity to play up every setback in this war. And given that they tend to be militantly anti-war, to use an appropriate oxymoron, the idea of a civil war in Iraq is just dandy. Hundreds of thousands, up to millions, will be killed, rather than living peaceably in a democracy. But to the media-left, the bloodshed is a mere detail to the ultimate objective of making the Bush Administration look bad and advancing Democrats and liberalism. But per my brother in law, who is stationed in Samarra, here's what took place the day after the blast.

In all reality, civil war has always been a risk of our involvement in Iraq. The reason is pretty simple. The majority Shi'ites knew that the moment that they stepped out of line, the Ba'ath government under Saddam Hussein would be waiting to gleefully exterminate them. Likewise, the Sunnis knew that they only held any degree of respect because Saddam was one of them in name only. People knew in that Stalinist state that one did not step out of line and that nobody had anything but a glowing opinion of their dictator if they wanted to remain alive.

But freedom brings with it scores of new ideas, not all of them good. And among those ideas are those of settling old scores. It was inevitable in Iraq. Sunnis cared not for Shi'ites, and after years of Saddam's oppression and pogroms, the Shi'ites were similarly interested in evening things up. And so al Qaida, eager to do anything to prevent the loss of a state that was so supportive for so many years is doing anything it can to stoke those flames. If these people are setermined to settle old scores, then there is little we ever could have done about it. Freedom does not necessarily mean freedom to do what the Nobel Committee would have people do. It also means freedom to behave however one wants. And like a kid sent off to college for the first time, largely accountable to nobody, the Iraqis will learn to coexist by whatever means seem appropriate to them. And we can't prevent all contingencies, as we cannot stay there forever.

But today, stories like this and this, and a development like this lead me to believe that cooler heads may prevail.

There is no telling what will happen, but the gleeful and giddy attitude of the media that they may benefit politically from bloodshed, and that a nation may fall into a horrid civil war is morally reprehensible.


Blogger ELAshley said...

I believe the media sees, all too well, just how well things in Iraq are going. Their problem I think, is pride; they simply cannot admit publically that they have been wrong... their credibility is at stake. They find themselves in the unenviable position of being fully invested in America's defeat. To retreat now would be to lose face.

But then, perhaps I give them too much credit. Honor in media [I speak of the institution itself, not the individual]... it's simply not there anymore. And I can't point to a specific time when it fled for warmer, more hospitable climes.

5:07 PM  
Anonymous amr said...

Whenever I read about what horrid things that are occurring in Iraq and are being condemned by the US press, usually somehow finding fault with US in the reporting, I think about the settling of scores and the like after our revolution was over. The formation of our country required two constitutions and a few problems such as Shayes Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion in a reasonably homogeneous society. In a country with no modern history of the rule of law and historical religious strife, our media expect instant results or everything is a failure.

11:49 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home