Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Dumb Iraq Question, I Realize

Why are scribblers like David Brooks assuring us of the success of "the surge" when the issues in Iraq, "surge" or no "surge," continue to be the extent and scope of the US occupation and the status of huge no-bid oil contracts for Exxon, Mobil, Shell, Total, and BP?

This seems like a big deal -- far bigger than the adjectives we choose to qualify "the surge":

[A]ides to Mr. Maliki from his Dawa Party said that American negotiators were demanding continued control of Iraqi airspace, immunity for American soldiers and security contractors, authority for more than 50 long-term bases, and the right to continue to carry out unimpeded military operations.

Iraqi officials object to those terms, and are particularly insistent about limiting immunity for security contractors and ensuring that future American military operations are restricted and have the blessing of the Iraqi government ...
Call me crazy, but the prospect of turning Iraq into a long-term ward of the United States and granting long-term contracts for controlling its most vital resources seems rather significant.

With such matters at hand, isn't it a rather bad time to massively scale back news coverage of Iraq, and spend whole columns prattling on about "the surge"?

No comments: