So, one could be swayed to wonder why so many examples exist within the mainstream media depicting Zarqawi et al as insurgants, or militants, when neither their actions nor their goals represent an improved lifestyle for the vast majority of Iraqis. The most common interpretation is that the American "left" is in political opposition to George Bush, and any acknowledgement of his success could weaken the forces of opposition.
I think that's a touch simplistic, and I actually think it goes much deeper. The two most prominent philosophies in the world now can be reasonably accurately caricatured as Bush vs. the UN, even setting aside the amazing mound of evidence implicating Annan, Sevan et al in unprecedented fraud. The UN approach essentially assumes that the only means of enacting progressive change is through some form of miltilateral tolerance, and if that tactic fails (say Saddam Hussein or the Mullahcracy are still mean), then that means that there is, in fact, no solution at all. The Bush doctrine ignores that, and presumes that the failure of the diplomatic tactic simply indicates that more people need to be killed, and more things need to be broken.
If Iraq gets at all normalized, then the multilateralist theory has been disproven, and I think that it is the inability to see this potential that keeps the NYT fixated on the failures in Iraq, rather than the successes. I think they honestly cannot assimilate that progress might happen, when their worldview (expressed most ironically in the question of why we're in Iraq if we're not liberating ALL of the world's oppressed people, implying their relative comfort with inaction on that front) does not allow for such a possibility.
- Moishe Potemkin
Posted by MoisheP at November 20, 2004 10:38 PM