Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
Back to Main

September 23, 2008
Iraq Off The Menu

The probably best coverage of the War on Iraq is by McClatchy’s Washington Bureau.

But Iraq, despite continuing daily carnage there, has now mostly fallen off the radar in U.S. news. The Washington Bureau followed that general move and eliminated the years-old Iraq link from its main menu.


McClatchy Washington Bureau a few days ago (bigger)

—


McClatchy Washington Bureau now (bigger)

Instead of news from Iraq we now get ‘Polls’. The most recent one says Most Americans think U.S. is losing war on terrorism.

Will eliminating Iraq from news frontpages change that opinion?

The direct URL http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq/ still leads to the McClatchy Iraq coverage page. But there is no link to it from the homepage.

McClatchy’s Baghdad bureau chief Leila Fadel is back in Iraq and
again blogs about the daily disaster. She is a damned good reporter and
this is probably a setback for her. Please give her some nice comments.

Posted by b on September 23, 2008 at 08:05 UTC | Permalink
Comments

The situation on Iraq is quiet as we’re waiting for after the US elections. Then there’ll be something momentous. Maliki has refused to sign what used to be called the SOFA, but apparently that is not the correct description. Jan 1st, the US occupation is going to be illegal. So what is the US going to do about it? Zebari is now saying, as reported by Juan Cole, that maybe they will have to go back to the UN and extend the mandate (Zebari, FM, Kurd = pro-US partisan). I posted this possibility, perhaps here at MoA, but perhaps not here, back in early July, as it seemed to be a way for the US to extend without Iraq having a voice. I didn’t understand at that time that Iraq has to write a letter to the UN asking for the extension. If Maliki is not signing the ex-SOFA, then he will not write a letter to the UN. The point is that he would be committing himself on paper, and he can’t do that. I don’t know what solution the US will go for, but I should think there’ll be a clash.

Posted by: Alex | Sep 23 2008 10:43 utc | 1

ever since mcclatchy bought out Knight-Ridder, there has been a slow, almost imperceptible drift to the right – or at least toward a pro-current administration / conservative position. remember, it was KNIGHT RIDDER that called out the bullshit that the bushites were spewing about Iraq, NOT mcclatchy.
case in point > when Russia applied the bitch slap / smack down to georgia when georgia attacked South Ossetia at the usa’s instigation, whoo boy did mcclatchy almost blow a vein in its collective forehead. the nasty vitriol just poured forth all over mcclatchy – i was quite surprised / taken aback but then i recovered my senses and said “ahhhh that’s quite the telltale shift”. another case in point is mcclatchy’s absolute hatred of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela – almost to the point of stalking obsession – beyond embarassing.
i wonder what the old Knight Ridder hands think / feel about all of this – i know what i think / feel. i no longer visit the mcclatchy web site – that rightward drift has become too nauseating for me to stomach – you no longer see the hard hitting investigative / analysis pieces that you did with Knight Ridder.
plus mcclatchy, along with the REST of the usa Mainstream Media, are just BURYING ANY and ALL coverage of the Qwagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan – my Dad says he never sees or hears any mention of either on the big 3 or pbs / npr.
So that’s why mcclatchy has removed the Iraq tab from its menu bar. Big F***ing Surprise there.

Posted by: mcclatchy Has Gone In The Tank | Sep 23 2008 13:12 utc | 2

mcclatchy is closing in on the Associated Propaganda, oops, Press in the largest amount of Propaganda per Square Inch of Copy that can be spewed on a daily basis.
Don’t get me started on how horrible the associated Propaganda news organ has become – just disgusting and a real threat to the country.

Posted by: The Spin We’re In | Sep 23 2008 13:29 utc | 3

it goes against the ‘iraq is improving everyday and we have succeeded because of the surge’ meme to include iraq in news reports. we are benign in iraq now, supposedly.

Posted by: annie | Sep 23 2008 13:59 utc | 4

The best one can hope for from good journalists working in large media organizations is a glimmer of depth and reality when covering these events. Nothing gets resolved anymore and nothing gets remembered. One crisis gets buried by the following crises.
The typical arc of reporting goes from:
1. Event
2. Government or institution spin
3. Actual gathering of facts
4. Revised government or institution spin
5. Some background information (usually distorted)
6. Revised government or institution spin
7. Connecting the dots
8. Revised government or institution spin
9. Assigning actual responsibility
Most readers tune out after 1 or 2. By the time 9 comes along it’s ancient history with the public thinking that surely somebody must have taken care of things by now. You won’t get many return customers if you greet people with all the festering shit into which we’re sinking.

Posted by: biklett | Sep 23 2008 15:39 utc | 5

This is as predictable as it is inhuman. By the start of the so called surge in mid 2006 it was obvious that both the tweedledum and tweedledee parties favoured an Iraqi operations plan with a central object of getting Iraq issues out of the public consciousness by November 08.
Remember the dem party had control of congress during this time. They had the power to prevent the quiet subjugation of the Iraqi people, especially since it wasn’t just the right thing to do, it was in their interest to fight the rethugs on the destruction of Iraq.
Since public concern over the war in Iraq was the main reason the dems attracted votes in 06, we can see that the dems are truly a party of empire. That is the furtherance of the aims and objects of the amerikan empire trump any other concern – even winning office.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Sep 23 2008 19:42 utc | 6

what is also noteworthy / ironic is that the work at Knight-Ridder used to be linked to from ALL OVER the Blogosphere.
Now ?
not so much. until this post, i had not seen any reference to the mcclatchy site in over a month, at least. that should tell you that they are NOT reporting on / covering what the informed / educated citizenry want to read.
that’s what a move to the right ( reich ) will do to your product – completely f*** it up.
but what is even more deeply ironic ( and infuriating ) is that mcclatchy just whiiiiiiiiiiiiines about dropping profit, hoorible forecasts blahblahblah.
note that Knight-Ridder was doing okay until that one investor bastard made them sell themselves and now the reading public and the american citizen is stuck with bupkus.
dammit all to hell.

Posted by: A Word From Our Sponsors | Sep 23 2008 20:43 utc | 7

My gut feeling is that it doesn’t matter too much if Iraq has fallen off the US public radar. The US was never going to evacuate Iraq for military reasons – the disparity in armed power is too great, and the Iraqis have no powerful allies. Therefore only for political or US internal reasons. The anti-war movement in the States has not turned out to be that strong, even when Iraq was on the radar. So it’s the economy, or other engagements, such as Afghanistan (and Pakistan, if they extend the war there). Can the war be afforded? As we see, the economy is indeed the big issue in the election.
The trick here, as none of the US pols have noticed – not publicly, but I think also in their private discussions – is that it is never going to be possible to draw down US forces to a Korea or a Germany. I have said it for months, but nobody else, certainly not the professional analysts, has got that far. The Iraqi public is 90% opposed to the occupation (Kurds excepted). The only way to control them is by full military occupation. Curiously, Bush has decided in the last few weeks not to draw down US forces. That will continue, and continue, under the new administration.
Maliki has been pretty clever here, in refusing to sign what was formerly called the SOFA. I would imagine he did not predict what was going to happen to the US economy. His reasons were certainly public feeling in Iraq. But as a result the US is in a quandary. Re-surge is impossible. Depose Maliki, and impose a military dictator (who?): maybe that would work for a while, but not long, given Iraqi public sentiment. The US future in Iraq is really blocked, if they don’t want to agree to the Iraqi conditions of withdrawal by 2011.
As a side issue, I would like to say that what really pleases me about present-day world politics is the way that popular sentiment is coming back and forcing politicians to obey. Conspiracy theories and ‘Great Games’ don’t work that well. Maliki does what he does because that’s what Iraqis think. Zardari would like to bend the knee to the US, but he can’t. Even in the US, we are going to see that resentment against the bonuses in Wall Street is going to derail Paulson’s solution of bailing out the financial elite with taxpayers’ money.

Posted by: Alex | Sep 23 2008 20:46 utc | 8

alex
the myth of the surge has really put sand in some people’s eyes
it is instructive to look at veitnam in 1965 or after the tet offensive – where the resistance determined the pace of the war. it is also true in iraq – the resistance by changing strategies has determined the scope of the occupation. it is the people of iraq who are really determining the way the war moves – when it is decided to intensify armed action all the ‘gains’ of the surge will dissapear
it is not a question of the success of the surge or the weakness of the resistance as our slothrop would have it – but it is the movement of historical forces that remains the decisive factor. i am very far from convinced that any of the alliances iraqis are making are permanant & the disparity of armed power has proved itself in the end an empty thing, strategically. like the ethnic cleansing of iraq its only power is death – its logical conlusion – anhilation. & that is simply not possible. it was not possible for the germans in the east nor is it possible in iraq

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Sep 23 2008 21:07 utc | 9

alex
the myth of the surge has really put sand in some people’s eyes
it is instructive to look at veitnam in 1965 or after the tet offensive – where the resistance determined the pace of the war. it is also true in iraq – the resistance by changing strategies has determined the scope of the occupation. it is the people of iraq who are really determining the way the war moves – when it is decided to intensify armed action all the ‘gains’ of the surge will dissapear
it is not a question of the success of the surge or the weakness of the resistance as our slothrop would have it – but it is the movement of historical forces that remains the decisive factor. i am very far from convinced that any of the alliances iraqis are making are permanant & the disparity of armed power has proved itself in the end an empty thing, strategically. like the ethnic cleansing of iraq its only power is death – its logical conlusion – anhilation. & that is simply not possible. it was not possible for the germans in the east nor is it possible in iraq

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Sep 23 2008 21:08 utc | 10

A couple observations,
It seems like the glacial stalemate in Iraq is the net result of the various powers’inability to seal any kind of resolution. So Maliki, being the pivot point, is willy-nilly charting the only course left, or available to him. He seems to be the only party capable of free agency, in spite of what appears to be a movement towards some kind of “strong man” posture.
The U.S. has lost (a huge amount of) power in the situation, the grandest illustration of which is in its inability to force a SOFA agreement, that represents a mortal threat to its long term interests of; a permanent military platform, long term contracts/PSA’s in the oil industry, and the prospects of Iraq falling entirely under Iranian influence. The U.S. in this respect is largely a victim of its own incompetent, fantasy driven strategy both in terms of its domestic justifications (preventing civil war,etc) and its tactical operations that have set the stage for the present prospects of “loosing” Iraq not by the bullet, but by being out maneuvered politically.
Firstly, through de-Baathification, and later, by ethnically cleansing Baghdad of the Sunni insurgent infrastructure, the U.S. pretty much decapitated the most significant indigenous anti-Iranian postures, while at the same time massively empowering Iranian/Badr influence within the Iraqi government and security forces.
The antidote chosen to rectify the growing Iranian influence came with the Awakening program whereby the defeated insurgency was flipped, into fighting al-Qedia in exchange for provincial security (from the Shiite militias) and cash. This ostensibly was further initiated by framing the Sadrists as Iranian influenced “special groups”, in spite of their stand down mode of ceasing military operations.
The overall effect, coupled with the “surge” increase of U.S. troops has indeed led to a post ethnic cleansing reduction in sectarian violence, whereby the main antagonists have been locked down in a tacit suspension of activity. Its in this environment that Maliki has discovered how to consolidate his own power and make it appear to be a manifestation of as new kind of Iraqi nationalism, while at the same time stringing the U.S. along, by taking all their prescribed intentions about democracy, security, no militias, no AQ, and etc. at their word and demonstrating that all have been achieved. And by the same token, he also must demonstrate to Iraqi’s themselves (especially the Sadrists on this count)that there will be no permanent US presence and there will be no privatization of resources. The U.S. will have to leave because they have used up all of the reasons to stay. And everybody in Iraq knows it.

Posted by: anna missed | Sep 24 2008 9:08 utc | 11

So when is Maliki’s contract up?

Posted by: beq | Sep 24 2008 11:13 utc | 12

@ 11 in spite of what appears to be a movement towards some kind of “strong man” posture.
It is US analysts who are taking their briefings from the US embassy in the GZ who are suggesting the “strong man” idea. Putting up simple personal ambition as the motivation is in fact the Orientalism of Edward Sa’id. Oriental potentate who makes capricious decisions on a whim. It’s a way of demeaning and sneering at the man, and avoiding understanding why he acts as he does.
The centralisation that he is undertaking is simply typical of Iraqi policy. In the end they prefer a centralised administration in Iraq: there is public demand. Only the Kurds would disagree.

Posted by: Alex | Sep 24 2008 11:34 utc | 13

Provincial election law passed.
Visser: After Compromise on Kirkuk, Finally an Elections Law for Iraq’s Governorates

In the end, the role of the central government was confirmed, thus in some ways also confirming the diminishing parliamentary clout of the federalists in Iraq. This has apparently enabled many of the component elements of the 22 July forces – including MPs from Iraqiyya, Fadila and the Sadrists – to feel satisfaction about the passage of the law, as seen in a number of positive statements in the wake of the adoption of the law. Perhaps the more important result of the process – in addition to the fact that provincial elections may now actually be held in late 2008 or early 2009 – is the increased awareness, both inside and outside the Iraqi parliament, of this cross-sectarian bloc and the potential it represents. The big question now is whether the Maliki government is prepared to go ahead with free and fair elections given the increasing signs of a cohesive challenge from the opposition.

Posted by: b | Sep 24 2008 15:32 utc | 14

Bin Laden’s goals are achieved.
Self inflicted by USA, it should be added. For a mass murderer like Laden, with his single shot lucky strike on US soil, to get his stated objectives achieved….impressive.
Dammit, the man’s done his homework. Pretty much plotted and anticipated every move of the Americans.
2 wars later, a broken military and financially broke.
Who could have thought that would happen in 7 years?
A Hitlerian variation of Blitzkrieg and the only thing missing is the end. Is it going to be Laden or the USA?

Posted by: shanks | Sep 24 2008 16:34 utc | 15

There’s quite an amusing thread on Abu Muqawama about “Maliki the Nationalist”. Maliki gave a press conference in which he gave a detailed exposition of his views and plans. Straight down the line. The COIN nutters on that blog, however, are continuing to refuse, after three months, to believe what he says. Including the poster, professional analyst, Sam Parker (USIP), under the screen-name of Iraqologist. For them, it is shocking, shocking, that Iraq should dare dictate conditions of withdrawal to the US. In fact so impossible that it has to be laughed off. But it is true.

Posted by: Alex | Sep 24 2008 21:44 utc | 16

Recommended – Nir Rosen Theater of the Absurd: Sworn Enemies

“If I can fit one finger, it’s okay,” he told the man, whose sons were taken away, as were their phones, computer, cash, personal papers, CDs, and other objects of interest. “They probably got some propaganda in there,” a sergeant explained as he carried off a hard drive. On the way back to base, the tired US soldiers bantered in their Stryker: “You know what I hate most about detainee duty?” said one. “Watching those motherfuckers shit.”

Posted by: b | Sep 25 2008 7:58 utc | 17

Some more random speculation about Maliki:
In order to shore up his (Maliki’s) new “nationalists” position, in advance of (possible) provincial elections, he has made several significant anti-militia moves 1) against the Hakim camp and silenced the federal partition movement, 2)against the Kurd de-facto control of Northern Diyala – evicting both the pershmega and the ISCI(Hakim) governor, reflecting his ultimate position of central control over Kirkuk, 3) the “celebrated” moves against Muqtada Sadr and the Mahdi army in Basra, Sadr City, and Amarah, and finally 4) his disposition against the Sunni Awakening movement. The overall picture of which is that Maliki is willing to go against any and all militia movements that might hinder the formation of a strong central Iraqi state. Which when coupled to the dramatic reduction in violence, may indeed formulate something for the Iraqi people to get behind – all the more so if these actions can be seen as also ending the necessity of a belligerent foreign occupation.
The U.S. has been left in such a situation of pro-active executive initiative with little recourse. The occupation goes nowhere without some semblence of an operational state apparatus (in order to legalize their unstated objectives aka, SOFA), so it seems they must allow Maliki the opportunity to try and establish it in advance of elections. Especially if the results of those elections radically change the power equation in Baghdad – or worse leads to a resurgence of sectarian violence that would blow off the doors on the myth of the “surge” in advance of the U.S. elections. And he (Maliki) is also smart enough to sweeten the deal by appearing to go against those parties with the most Iranian influence, Sadr and ISIC, in the process. So, the U.S. in fear of both Iranian influence and what elections might bring are obliged to follow what Maliki is doing – and in the process enabling him to do it. Even though there is a big chance that throughout this entire period, he may have established under the table agreements with both ISIC and Sadr that after the U.S. is expelled all differences are moot, and that giant nest egg the Iraqi government has been growing will be equitably be shared amongst the winners. Maybe even the Iraqi people.

Posted by: anna missed | Sep 25 2008 9:50 utc | 18

Back to Main