De misplaatste Obamamanie van de "New York Times" andermaal onthuld (Vincent De Roeck)

Vandaag ervaar ik opnieuw een grote dichotomie tussen de berichtgeving in de Verenigde Staten en die in ons eigen land. Niet enkel inzake de arrestatie van Radovan Karadzic (zie later), maar vooral inzake de politieke gekleurdheid van de traditionele media en het latente gebrek aan diepgaande ideologisch geïnspireerde discussies, gaapt er een enorme kloof tussen de ronduit subjectieve aanpak in Europa en de (ietwat) objectievere toestand in de Verenigde Staten. Op de Amerikaanse TV-stations kan men vandaag niet enkel een aantal nuancerende geluiden horen ten overstaande Karadzic (in Europa nergens), maar ook de McCain-NYT-heisa krijgt er enorm veel persaandacht.

In de VS is de weigering van de “New York Times” (bekend voor zijn linkse berichtgeving én onverwijlde steun aan Barack Obama, en ondanks deze duidelijke “bias” toch één van de belangrijkste nieuwsbronnen voor de eigen Europese media, maar dit geheel terzijde natuurlijk) om een opiniestuk van John McCain te publiceren, een belangrijk thema onder de “pundits” in de verschillende talkshows vandaag. Bij ons heerst volledige radiostilte. In Europa vinden we het immers normaal dat dit soort praktijken gebeuren, zeker ten aanzien van “fascisten” als Filip Dewinter of andere VB-mandatarissen, en kraait er al lang geen haan meer naar. In de VS is deze vorm van censuur echter veel minder aanvaard.

Ik begrijp de beslissing van de NYT-redactie om McCains vrije tribune te weigeren niet. In de NYT van gisteren mocht Barack Obama wel een vrije tribune wijden aan zijn wedervaren in (de zwaarbewaakte kazernes van) Irak en Aghanistan, respectievelijk zijn tweede en eerste bezoek aan die landen, en aan zijn beleidsplannen over de toekomst van Amerikaanse overzeese interventies. Het opiniestuk van John McCain was dan ook in de eerste plaats een “recht van antwoord” op de vermeende leugens en naïviteit die Obama eerder wel vrij ten toon mocht spreiden in die New Yorkse kwaliteitskrant.

Volgens McCain is dit het ultieme bewijs voor de uitgesproken voorkeur van de NYT voor Obama, en ik kan hem daar eigenlijk niet eens ongelijk in geven. Buiten eigen politieke voorkeuren zie ik geen enkele objectieve rechtvaardiging voor deze beslissing. John McCain is de presidentskandidaat van één van de twee grootste politieke partijen in de VS, zijn opiniestuk gaat over een thema waarin hij een gigantische expertise heeft, én zijn belangrijkste politieke tegenstander kreeg een dag eerder in de NYT wel een opiniestuk gepubliceerd. En ook al wordt de NYT-redactie misschien integraal bemand door linksmensen, ik kan moeilijk geloven dat de lezers van de NYT niet geïnteresseerd zouden zijn in McCains kijk op deze zaak.

Via de website van “Fox News” (wie anders?) kon ik het bewuste opiniestuk van John McCain terugvinden. Het ging als volgt:

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80 percent to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains. Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted. Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City - actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance. To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military’s readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops. No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama. Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely. I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war - only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.