NYT Might Finally Get It

In the stop-the-presses category, the NYT has a story about how al-Qaeda in Iraq has shifted gears. It is now aiming not so much at the U.S. military but at the Iraqi government. In other words, al-Qaeda doesn't want to see success in Iraq. The terrorists don't want Iraqis to vote. The terrorists don't want democracy in the Middle East or Arab world. AQI wants chaos. Really? That's news to the NYT? No wonder their circulation is down!

Had the paper being paying attention to what's going on in Iraq, it would not have viewed that bit of information as news. Also, it would not have been impressed with this tidbit:

"In parallel with the attacks, General Jacoby said that Al Qaeda inMesopotamia was also waging a propaganda campaign centered on thenarrative that the militants were forcing the United States to leave Iraq and to abandon the Iraqi government." You mean it never occured to them that al-Qaeda would view the departure of U.S. troops as a victory to the terrorists?

Guess not. And to be even more informative, the NYT's story says: "He said the United States must forcefully counter that narrative by repeatedly explaining that the drawdown of American combat forces inIraq by September 2010 and the complete withdrawal of all troops by the end of 2011 were painstakingly negotiated with the Iraqi government, and that the United States would remain a staunch ally of Iraq even afterits troops returned home."

Good to know that the NYT is following the news so carefully. The paper finally gets it that al-Qaeda is against ordinary people, not just the George Bush White House. If it were not so busy making fun of President Bush when he said all this earlier, maybe the paper would not jump on this as new information. Guess they were so busy struggling to prove their own foolish argument was correct to notice the real story. Wonder if it occurs to them how much damage they did when the NYT and other papers called Iraq a failure. And I can't help but wonder whether politicians such as Pennsylvania's Murtha thinks about how much damage he did when he called the U.S. soldiers criminals. Guess that's the problem, they don't have a conscience.

Zakaria Shifts Position on Iraq

Hey, check out who sneakily wrote a positive piece about Iraq. Guess Fareed Zakaria thinks most of us don't have a memory. In his latest op-ed he makes it sound as though he knew all along that Iraq would be a success story. Of course he did. You know, he makes it sound as though he has known that Iraq would be something Americans could be proud of helping along. The writer says:

"Let's review some history. The surge in Iraq was a success in military terms. It defeated a nasty insurgency, reduced violence substantially and stabilized the country."

Speaking of reviewing some history. Isn't this the same dude who not too long ago wrote that Iraq should be written off? "It is time to call an end to the tests, the six-month trials, the waiting and watching, and to recognize that the Iraqi government has failed. It is also time to face the terrible reality that America's mission in Iraq has substantially failed."

Substantially failed? How substantial could the failure have been if so soon after he himself is using the word "success?" Zakaria tries to cover himself by adding this:

"The costs of the Iraq war have been great and perhaps indefensible," hey who could disagree that war is expensive? He goes on to say: "But Iraq could still turn out to be an extraordinary model for the Arab world."

Yes, he did write those words. A model for the Arab world. He even makes Iraqis sound pleasant: "Its people are negotiating their differences for the most part peacefully; its politics is becoming more pluralistic and democratic; its press is free; its provinces have autonomy; its focus has shifted to business and wealth creation, not religion and jihad."

It's curious that Zakaria, who for a long time thought so little of Iraq and its people, is the same Zakaria who wrote this today:
"Politics in Iraq feels different from other Arab countries. Friday sermons in Baghdad are mostly about the corruption and competence of Iraq politicians, not the evil designs of America of the perfidy of the Jews. It could be the weakening of the victim complex in which the Arab world has been stuck -- forever seeing itself as acted upon by foreign forces and never in charge of its own destiny."

Hey, thanks man. But if we had listened to your so-called expertise back then Fareed, you yourself would not have been able the following graph:

"In 2010, the Obama administration has a window of opportunity to push these positive trends forward. If they stay engaged, are successful, and get lucky, perhaps this is what America will ultimately be remembered for in Iraq."

I'd love to say Zakaria had been siding with the Iraqi people all along. But like most so-called experts and commentators, he did not. That's why back then I said it didn't really matter what the likes of Zakaria had to say. Iraq will be fine. Yes, it is good that Zakaria finally sees Iraq through normal glasses. But I'd respect him more if he admitted that he completely misunderstood Iraq.

Shoe Thrower Update

If anyone has doubts about why Montathar Al Zaidi threw his shoes at President Bush last year, the infamous shoe thrower makes it clear that he did it for the money. In an article in the Guardian, the man complains that he is still poor despite promises of riches, women, and so on. Sad but true.

Had Al Zaidi been the patriot he claims to be, he would have focused on the difficulties that Iraq continues to endure instead of his own woes. But no, he whines about his bank account. Doesn't sound like hero material at all. Does it?

Iraq's Refugees

The Atlantic magazine has a moving pictorial about Iraqi refugees. The slide show is accompanied by this commentary: "It has been almost seven years since the U.S. invaded Iraq. While the war is officially over, another crisis continues to unfold, attracting far fewer headlines and less public debate. All across Iraq, civilians are fleeing their homes. There are nearly three million of these refugees, according to various NGO and relief-group estimates."

No Iraqi would begudge the attention these people are getting. But some of us can't help but ask where this thoughtful commentary was when we were forced to leave Baathist Iraq? Thank God for the agencies that help the great number of refugees who fled since 2003. But trust me, the story is incomplete.

Iraqis do not have a tradition of emigration the way the peoples of the Levant do. Most Iraqis left in the 1980s and 1990s. Certainly the last several years resulted in the deaths of countless Iraqis leading to refugees next door. But so did the Iran-Iraq war. Also, Saddam kicked out, chased out, and murdered millions. Otherwise, travel was not possible. Saddam had all sorts of rules about how and when anyone could travel -- if allowed to leave Iraq at all. I don't remember anyone losing sleep over the artists, the musicians, the scientists, and scholars who had to start life over again far away from home. I know first hand what it's like to leave the life you know and start all over again. My heart goes out to those mentioned in magazine.

Many people left in recent years for serious reasons. But those of us who left earlier also had serious reasons to leave. I do recall countless articles about the well-connected political people, but there was nothing about ordinary people. One reason is probably that the fear of the Baathists was so strong that Iraqis lived quietly. That same fear remains so strong that many continue to do so. It sounds to me as though if one opposes Saddam and the Baathists, his plight is not as interesting as one who opposes the United States. My question to The Atlantic is simply why?

Allawi's Chances

After talking with so many people who said they would vote for Al Maliki, I began to wonder. Does this mean that Al Maliki will get re-elected? A family friend who's nature is to be negative gave his take today.

The man said the street is angry. He said not to believe those who say they will not vote. Because when it comes down to election day, the Shiites will especially go to the polls and cast their ballot for whoever their religious leader instructs them to vote for. Does that mean the Shiite Alliance will win? "I don't know," he said. OK. What chance does Allawi have?

Allawi has a good chance because people are tired of the car-bomb attacks by al-Qaeda, and they are tired of the smaller bombs set up by the Shiite militias. "A lot of Iraqis will vote for him because he's a tough guy," he said. "And they think he can crack down on all the violent groups and stop them once and for all." What about his Baathist connections? "That's a real problem," he said. "His alliance with Mutlak will hurt him," the man said. "Mutlak is the spokesman for Izzat Al Douri," he explained, referring to the only remaining member of Saddam's inner circle.

Iraqis are disappointed in Al Maliki because he has presided over an extremely corrupt government, and he has failed to prevent terror attacks. This makes them look elsewhere, the man said. Does the fact that Allawi is secular play a role? "Not really," the man said. He said it will take years before people give up religion. "The Shiites are looking at this as we finally are in power, and the Sunnis want to take it away from us."

Hmm. What about when Basra banned alcohol a few months ago only to see the ban lifted a couple of weeks ago. Seems like there are a lot of seculars here, no? "Maybe," he said. "But I still think Iraqis need to reach the point where they absolutely hate religion in order to move forward." Why? "Religion hold people back," he said. "It prevents people from thinking for themselves."

The man said young people don't know that Iraq was a good country before it was destroyed by Saddam. "Remember the invasion of 2003?" the man asked. "Iraqis welcomed the Americans and threw flowers at them." He stood up to make his point. "Do you know anyone who would welcome an invader?" I don't know. "A people would have to be reduced so much in order to throw flowers at invading troops."

So who will the man vote for? "I don't know," he said. "But at least I have a choice."

Sadr City Perspective

Some day labourers from Sadr City were eager to share their political opinion. The men said they had no respect for "the thieves" in parliament, as they called them. All of them? All of them, they said. What about the Al Hakim group, the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council?

"Especially them!" One burly man said. "Haven't you heard?" he asked. "They call Ammar Al Hakim Uday Al Hakim!" After Saddam's eldest son. "He bought up most of Karrada!" Said a thin, weary man. The men, who were on hire to do odd jobs, barely make enough to get by. But somehow they've managed to have multiple wives.

These men definitely have a different view. For example, to illustrate the absence of Sunni-Shiite issues, one skinny man said he had three wives, one Sunni, one Shiite, and one Christian. What? "It's just the way things are," his elf-size co-worker said. "I have one wife, and my mother is trying to get me to marry another time."

What about Moktada Al Sadr? The entire group laughed and said no way. No way! The idiot is worth nothing, they said. He used to hang out in a T-shirt and jeans eating falafel all day long. They said his father was respectable, but he is not at all respectable. Why not? "He never did anything for Iraq," said one worker. "He is now in Iran and will stay there where he belongs," said another. "He's related to the Lebanese Hassan Nasrallah," said one guy. "They all belong in Iran," he said.

So who will you vote for? The burly man said he will not be voting. Why not? "What's the use?" he asked. "What will it change?" Most of the ones who will take part in the upcoming elections said they would vote for Nouri Al Maliki. Why? "Because he is not an extremist."

They put down their handsaws and other odd-looking tools and sat down in a circle. They spread out their sandwiches and invited me to join them for lunch. "Iraq is a good place," said the youngest among them. "I went to Syria for just two days and couldn't stand it." I said why? Syria is a nice place. "Maybe," he said. "But Iraq is home."

The Trucker's Perspective

A guy who drives a delivery truck says the problem is all our neighbours hate us. Why? Because they don't know much about us. He said Saddam kept us isolated; he made sure nobody knows anything about us. "It's basically fear," he said.

The old man has grey hair and a wrinkled face. He speaks with the gravely voice of someone who has been smoking no-filter cigarettes for decades. I didn't ask why, but he smokes girly, thin cigarettes with pink filters. They're called "Affair." But back to business.

The man said countries nearby are afraid of the elections. He said Iraqis will not tolerate religious leadership. "No extremists are welcome here," he said, explaining that there is no basis for a Sunni-Shiite divide here. He said it was stirred up by outsiders. "The proof," he said, "is in the fact that things are back to normal here."

So who will he vote for? "Al Maliki," he said right away. "Because he put sectarianism behind us." That's why our neighbours hate us, they want to see religious divisions, and we don't want religious divisions. He said if Iraq stabilizes, our neighbours will rise up and demand the same of their leaders. He said Saudi Arabia is frightened of this. Jordan and Syria are frightened. Turkey is scared. And Iran? "From the face they are a mirror, and from behind they are a thorn," he said using an old saying that means they cannot be trusted. They're two-faced. "Not really a thorn," he said. "But a sharp knife."

The religious alliance will not succeed here, he said. "Because they come from Iran." Nobody trusts them. "And I'm telling you this as a Shiite," he said. "If you have a dinner, everyone who attends will have lost a brother, a father, an uncle in the Iran-Iraq war."

Inshallah the elections will bring good things to Iraq, he said. The country has a lot of potential, and the oil will bring in so much money that the Gulf people will come here asking for jobs. Iraqis work hard, he said. "We will make this country great."

More Attacks and More Questions

Today's bombings in Baghdad were different from last week's attacks, but the reaction was no different. This morning's bombers are believed to be not suiciders, but killers who fled after parking cars at lots near the Ministry of Defence, near the Iranian embassy, the Foreign Affairs Ministry, and the ministry of immigration and emigration. About nine people were killed and several injured.

We heard the boom, which was not as loud as before. And people continued to discuss the attacks at work and other gathering places. A co-worker said it was al-Qaeda, "Because at the same time there were two bombings near churches in Mosul," she said referring to the intolerance of the attackers. "And the explosion near the Iranian embassy also sounds like al-Qaeda," another colleague said, meaning the Iran-funded militias are less likely to attack near the embassy that supports them.

It doesn't take an expert to figure out that al-Qaeda does not want Iraqis to vote in the upcoming elections. Why the killers are threatened by people voting is difficult for Iraqis to understand. And one of my colleagues said, "If they would target foreigners, I would disagree with them but I could understand they want the foreigners to leave," he said. "But when they kill Iraqis, where do they want us to go?" he asked. "This is our home."