Our news sources affect our worldview

Listening to National Public Radio last night, I heard a couple of stories on Iraq that I thought notable. One story was about a poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press; the other was a news story about a group of employees at an Iraqi security company who were kidnapped and killed.

The story on the Pew poll was predictable -- it stated that public support for the Iraq war, as well as support for President Bush, was low and continuing to fall. The thing that caught my ear, however, was the poll's exploration of the partisan divide in views toward the war. According to Pew, 74 percent of Republicans (down from 83 percent in December) and 34 percent of Democrats (down from 39 percent) believe the U.S. will succeed in Iraq. A similar divide is found when asking if we're making progress in:

• Training Iraqi forces (76-46);
• Rebuilding the infrastructure (74-44);
• Establishing democracy (77-34);
• Preventing a terrorist base for attacks (67-29);
• Defeating the insurgents (61-20);
• Reducing civilian casualties (46-16); and
• Preventing a civil war (41-12).

Why is this divide so pronounced? I think the other story on NPR provides some answers, and it has to do with where people get their news.

First, note that the headline on NPR's website reads: Iraqi Forces Kidnapped, Killed Security Employees. Maybe that could be read generically, as in "Some group in Iraq kidnapped, killed security employees," but I think the suggestion is clear by NPR that members of the US-friendly Iraqi army are responsible.

But then, if you listen to the story by Anne Garrels, you find out that white pickup trucks, "the kind used by the Shiite-led interior ministry police," pulled up in front of this security company. You find out that "armed men dressed in the uniforms of the police commandos," got out and took away roughly 50 people. You also hear that officials of the interior ministry denied any involvement, blaming it on "terrorists dressing themselves up as policemen." Garrels continues:

On background, however, Iraqi ministry officials insisted, such an operation had to have had some sort of official backing. How else could so many vehicles travel heavily-patrolled city streets? Why else, they said, would guards at the security company not fight back?

To wrap up that portion of the report, she notes (emphasis by Garrels):

The police commando units in particular are largely made up of members of Shiite militias loyal to the most prominent Shiite political parties. The security company which was raided was run by Sunni Arabs, many of whom had worked in the intelligence divisions of Saddam Hussein.

So there is some evidence of Shiite involvement against Sunnis, but the incident is not as clearcut as the headline would lead you to believe. (By the way, one has to question the accuracy of Garrels' reports when she admitted here that when she's in Iraq "she rarely goes out on her own anymore. She relies heavily on her Iraqi staff.")

For about the last third of the report, Garrels then launches into a negativity spree about the new Iraqi government (emphasis by Garrels):

All this comes against the background of escalating sectarian violence and an inability to form a new government. Three months after elections, Iraq's new parliament was finally sworn in today, but with political parties still deadlocked. The first session was little more than a formality. As the oldest member of parliament, Adnan Pachachi, opened the session, he described a country in crisis, saying the danger of civil war is still looming. The head of the Shiite alliance tried to stop him, but Pachachi continued. Today's parliament session was over after less than half an hour, with no indication when it will meet again. There is no agreement among the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds on the key posts of speaker, president and prime minister.

Are we depressed yet? It's no wonder the American public wants U.S. troops to come home.

But remember what I said about news sources? Maybe Republicans are more optimistic about Iraq because we don't listen solely to the mainstream media. Here's the report by Omar at Iraq the Model (Omar lives in Iraq and, it's a fair bet, gets out a whole lot more than Garrels) on the first day of parliament:

The new Iraqi parliament met for the first time a few hours ago marking the birth of the constitutional state in Iraq. An incomplete birth and a stumbling child but it is a step that hopefully will become a bridge over the current political and security mess.

The session was not more than a ceremonial one and it was limited to gathering and reading the oath and short speeches from the chairman of the former National Assembly and from the eldest member of the new parliament Adnan Pachachi who didn't set a deadline for the next session but said in a later statement to the press that the next session will commence after the major blocs reach an agreement on the key issues of dispute which are the structure of the three main councils (presidency, premiership and chairmanship of the parliament).

Almost all the statements given by various prominent politicians to the press after the session ended were optimistic and they all spoke about consensus on forming a government of national unity yet some of them admitted that there's a serious trust issue between the major blocs.

Jafari-and in an earlier time Talabani-expressed their confidence that forming the government will not take more than another month. Jafari also said something that can be regarded as a preparation for an honorable retreat when he said that "if the people asked me to step down, I shall do that".

Meanwhile meetings among the major blocs continued in Baghdad and several members of these blocs said that meetings are discussing the government posts and their corresponding jurisdiction rather than the people who are going to occupy these posts which I think is a smart alternative because it is easier to reach compromises this way and I must say that I feel that our politicians are submitting to the guidelines stated by the constitution and are doing their best to find solutions but the problem is that I doubt their best is good enough because most of them are not qualified to handle the responsibilities they're entitled to.

But that's not the politicians' mistake, it's in my personal opinion the people's mistake for they have elected those unqualified politicians and now the people must accept the fact that they will have to live with a government below their expectations for four years but I have hope that the people will learn from this experience and make better choices when the next time comes…that's if Iraq survives these four years and I believe it will.

Rose-colored glasses? Certainly not. It's realistic. It notes the challenges still ahead. But it's not the gloom and doom that Garrels and her MSM friends would lead you to believe.