Tuesday, April 06, 2004
The WaPo nails it, but does the New York Times?
Read this morning's Washington Post editorial on the Al-Sadr uprising and the Fallujah engagement. Money quote:
Mr. Sadr, who has a base in the slums of Baghdad, is a young cleric with a considerably smaller following and reputation than other Shiite leaders, like Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani of Najaf. Precisely for that reason, Mr. Sadr has sought to gain support by adopting a hard line against the occupation and the United States. That the coalition had a prepared but unimplemented strategy for dealing with him was indicated by yesterday's announcement in Baghdad that an Iraqi judge had issued an arrest warrant for Mr. Sadr on murder charges some time ago. An associate was arrested recently, providing a pretext for the assaults on coalition forces. U.S. officials wouldn't say when they might seek to arrest the cleric, who reportedly has taken refuge in a mosque surrounded by his heavily armed militiamen. But now that the conflict with the Mahdi Army has begun, U.S. commanders should not hesitate to act quickly and with overwhelming force.
Meanwhile, over at the Times, the editorial board seems to think that the Sadr uprising is all about defending a free press:
Nothing about the way the occupation forces have handled recent troubles inspires much confidence in their ability to navigate the much trickier challenges to come. Shutting down the newspaper loyal to the radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr was a recklessly bad idea that accomplished nothing but to inflame Mr. Sadr's followers. Once his militias took to the streets in bloody assaults on occupation forces, authorities announced that an unnamed Iraqi judge had issued an arrest warrant for Mr. Sadr, in the murder last year of Ayatollah Sayyed Abdul Majid al-Khoei, a rival Shiite cleric. The murder was horrific and justice should be served, although it is not reassuring that the warrant was made public only after the weekend's violence.
Shutting down Sadr's paper was a "recklessly bad idea"? Once formed, Sadr's militia was going to be used. I think it is better to call them out now, and disarm or destroy them now, than leave this mess for the new government of Iraq to clean up later. If the Post's version is to be believed, Sadr has been seeking this confrontation. Shutting down the paper made it at a time of our choosing, rather than his.
Unlike many of TigerHawk's dispersed but omnipresent readers, I actually pay for, read and even occasionally enjoy the New York Times. But this editorial, which is really about the June 30 deadline, is nothing more than micro-criticism of small tactical judgments made by the U.S. military and the CPA. How can the Times board possibly know that these judgments were incorrect?
Mr. Sadr, who has a base in the slums of Baghdad, is a young cleric with a considerably smaller following and reputation than other Shiite leaders, like Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani of Najaf. Precisely for that reason, Mr. Sadr has sought to gain support by adopting a hard line against the occupation and the United States. That the coalition had a prepared but unimplemented strategy for dealing with him was indicated by yesterday's announcement in Baghdad that an Iraqi judge had issued an arrest warrant for Mr. Sadr on murder charges some time ago. An associate was arrested recently, providing a pretext for the assaults on coalition forces. U.S. officials wouldn't say when they might seek to arrest the cleric, who reportedly has taken refuge in a mosque surrounded by his heavily armed militiamen. But now that the conflict with the Mahdi Army has begun, U.S. commanders should not hesitate to act quickly and with overwhelming force.
Meanwhile, over at the Times, the editorial board seems to think that the Sadr uprising is all about defending a free press:
Nothing about the way the occupation forces have handled recent troubles inspires much confidence in their ability to navigate the much trickier challenges to come. Shutting down the newspaper loyal to the radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr was a recklessly bad idea that accomplished nothing but to inflame Mr. Sadr's followers. Once his militias took to the streets in bloody assaults on occupation forces, authorities announced that an unnamed Iraqi judge had issued an arrest warrant for Mr. Sadr, in the murder last year of Ayatollah Sayyed Abdul Majid al-Khoei, a rival Shiite cleric. The murder was horrific and justice should be served, although it is not reassuring that the warrant was made public only after the weekend's violence.
Shutting down Sadr's paper was a "recklessly bad idea"? Once formed, Sadr's militia was going to be used. I think it is better to call them out now, and disarm or destroy them now, than leave this mess for the new government of Iraq to clean up later. If the Post's version is to be believed, Sadr has been seeking this confrontation. Shutting down the paper made it at a time of our choosing, rather than his.
Unlike many of TigerHawk's dispersed but omnipresent readers, I actually pay for, read and even occasionally enjoy the New York Times. But this editorial, which is really about the June 30 deadline, is nothing more than micro-criticism of small tactical judgments made by the U.S. military and the CPA. How can the Times board possibly know that these judgments were incorrect?
0 Comments:
