Post-modernism or wishful thinking?
Yesterday, I pointed out how the Washington Post, in a display of post-modern thinking, had discerned a lack of progress in Iraq from the government’s decision to attack rogue Shiite militias. In the old days, the existence or absence of progress would be gauged by the success of the new military campaign, not the decision to launch it.
Not to be outdone, the New York Times has jumped in with its own post-modern approach to evaluating the government's campaign. It concludes that Moktada al-Sadr’s call to his followers to stop fighting in Basra represents “a serious blow for Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.” A less sophisticated observer might have thought that a rogue leader’s call for a halt in fighting is more plausibly viewed as a blow to the rogue leader.
The Times compounded its post-modernism by declining to send a reporter to Basra. Instead, the paper is relying on unidentified Iraqi stringers, at least according to this account which paints a very different account of the situation in Basra than the one that appears in the Times.
It’s possible, of course, that al-Sadr came out of the latest round of battle in decent shape notwithstanding his eagerness to stop the fighting. He has made certain demands of the government. If these demands are honored he will, at a minimum, have saved face. But according to the Times’ story, it's "not clear" whether the government is willing to agree to al-Sadr’s demands. Yet the paper can't resist presenting him as the victor.
Via Abe Greenwald at Contentions.
To comment on this post, go here.
