To be fair, the core lie in the sentence belongs to Dick Cheney, not to John Burns, the author of the Times article. But Burns' drift down the river of Cheney's speech shows something about the object in what folks call objective journalism:
After a day of talks here with Iraq's fractious political leaders, Vice President Cheney said Wednesday that he detected a 'greater sense of urgency' among them in tackling a list of divisive issues that the Bush administration sees as the key to any sustained progress against the country's insurgent and militia groups."
(John Burns. 5/10/2007 A12 NY TIMES)
Where does one begin?
Iraq's fractious political leaders -- Being fractious, the leaders are resistant to authority. We mean that they're not being quick or efficient enough about obeying the Americans. So if George Bush is not an Iraqi leader, then the term must apply to the leaders of the resistance forces that fight the Americans. Yet the only Iraqi that Burns will mention as a leader is Al Maliki, whom Bush periodically threatens to fire.
On the other hand, fractious may call to mind fractions, fragments and factions: terms that one might take to refer to divisiveness. So maybe Mr. Burns waxes poetic. Perhaps he wishes to indicate that the Iraqi leaders don't agree with each other like leaders in, say, Washington.
greater sense of urgency -- Let's picture this. Five years into war, with over 600,000 Iraqis known dead and casualty rates still rising, utilities still out, water still fouled, rates of cancers and deformities rising with the background radiation from the depleted uranium arms, Cheney pops over for a little surprise visit to catch his Iraqi charges off-guard and see whether they're motivated to get down to work. Anyone else in a similar situation would be panicked or homicidal, but Cheney appears to consider his Iraqis a particularly unruffled bunch, more concerned about a vice-presidential frown than the grocery store exploding with half a city block of a Saturday.
It might be worth mentioning that while Burns mentions "divisive issues" many times throughout the article, there's no mention of what those issues might be. Did Cheney see fit to mention these, whereas Burns felt they didn't mention publication; or did Cheney not mention them at all, and Burns saw little reason to ask?
Either way, in this article, the speed at which the issues might be addressed was important; the issues themselves were not. This seems particularly interesting in that the article indicates throughout that the issues have not been addressed either quickly or slowly.
sustained progress against . . . insurgent and militia groups -- Which militias, which insurgents? Progress, and particularly sustained progress suggests forward movement, undebatable improvement. But what direction can be considered improvement here? Cheney says "against insurgent and militia groups," but since Iraqis want the Americans to leave, surely they must prefer the insurgents and the militias or someone of that nature, even if it's only a matter of voting for the lesser of two evils, like voting democrat in an American election. Leaving aside the claims for "democracy in Iraq" as rhetorical flourish, progress against "insurgents" can hardly mean anything other than progress against the Iraqis. Of course, given the nature of conflicts in general and the history of this conflict in particular, it's hard to see how even this can constitute something "sustained" or "progressive."
Have I erred in trying to read this as an objective statement? After all, if no one expects me to believe a statement, is it really a lie? But the article is not on an editorial page, not marked out visually in any way to distinguish it from other news articles that purport to be objective.
Reading speculatively, between the lines, I suspect that Burns wishes to give the impression that Mr. Cheney is off in Iraq watching after my money, that those Iraqis are mischievous lesser partners who much be watched after, who fritter away the company money getting shot and squabbling while hardworking Blackwater people caretake them with slowly diminishing patience.
"Ah, this is a fine mess you've gotten me into."
I suspect further that Cheney and perhaps Burns and the Times have an idea that Americans may be losing patience with them, that this latest love-letter must mean that it's all those Iraqis' fault, but that Cheney's working on it and that they're promising to come around. Of course, the Times has the right to promote any idea or fantasy they wish, should this be their intent. But it seems a pity to promote it with all signals of being a news article, especially when falsehoods emerge from the wording itself in ways that one suspects must have been obvious to the professional editors who reviewed it.
No comments:
Post a Comment