Still following the evolution of the Iraqi governing
coalition. Today, I read a handful of reports, all published within an hour, from three different sources, with very different characteristics.
First the NYT reports:Iraqi Factions Try to Undercut a Plan to Isolate Extremists 10:15 AM
The NYT tells us that:
Several Iraqi political groups on Thursday maneuvered to undercut an American-backed initiative that would create a multisectarian bloc intended to isolate extremists like the Shiite cleric and militia leader Moktada al-Sadr.
But, then they go on to tell us there's one group and how the rest of parliment will never be able to meet their new demands (not bothering to mention them). Oh, and the negotiations have stopped.
The report then goes on to tell us:
- SecDef Gates visited Iraq to discuss sending more troops.
- 38 bodies were found.
- Three bombs were set off.
- Saddam's trial was adjourned until Jan. 8.
- Sadr's maneuvering, has some control over Maliki, has paralyzed the gov't, and might rejoin the talks.
- Then back to Gates.
- Then back to more troops.
- Then a dig at the incompetent Iraqi troops.
Wow. That was a, confusing, mouthful. So, the point is, the NYT asserted that Iraqi Groups were undermining the talks and then didn't back it up. There's one group according to their own report.
And all of this is followed up with gloom and doom, talk of more US Troops, and incompetent Iraqi support.
Second, the BBC:Iraq Shia press for Sadr return 10:12 AM
This reports describes attempts to convince Sadr to re-enter the political process during ongoing talks in Najaf with Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most prominent Shia cleric in Iraq.
No mention of ongoing talks by the NYT eh?
Iraq tribes 'taking on al-Qaeda' 10:18 AM
The tribal chiefs in the Iraqi province of Anbar joined forces in September in an attempt to defeat al-Qaeda...
"We are fighting the terrorists because they have caused the violent chaos in the country, the instability. They are killing innocent Iraqis and killing anyone who wants freedom and peace in Iraq," he explained...
The sheikh said some of the al-Qaeda fighters and weapons came from neighbouring Arab countries, Syria and Saudi Arabia mainly, but some were from more distant Arab countries and from Afghanistan.
No mention of anything like this in that expansive NYT piece eh?
Third, and finally, the TimesOnline:Shia leadership agrees deal over sectarian killers 11:12 AM
Two of the senior Shia political leaders in Iraq agreed in principle to crack down on death squads within their own ranks yesterday. The rival Shia factions struck the deal in an attempt to salvage the country from collapse, said Haidar al-Abadi, a Shia MP in the Dawa party, who is close to Nouri al-Maliki, the Prime Minister...
Last night a delegation was on its way to the shrine city of Najaf intent on convincing the anti-Western cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, whose Mahdi Army militia is blamed for much of the widespread killing of Sunnis, to join the crackdown. Officials close to Hojatoleslam al-Sadr said he had agreed to rejoin the Iraqi Government.
Although the two parties are agreed on the need for a crackdown, the accord could easily fall apart if Hojatoleslam al-Sadr cannot be persuaded to back it and if Sunni parties fail to take similar steps.
According to the TimesOnline, major Shia parties agree (sans al-Sadr), who agrees but will probably only play if the Sunnis do. No droning on about dooma and gloom. No hints at more troops, no digs at the poor, incapable Iraqi troops. The Times sticks to the story at hand.
Conclusion (or, Questions):1) What's the political landscape in Iraq relative to the governing coalition?
While it's not crystal-clear, it seems fairly promising. Sure there's some posturing. The fundamental questions is, what will Sadr do?
2) Why the dramatic difference in reporting?
...
Related:
GroundworkWhat Next?