1115.org

The NYT has produced another of its biased Iraq war pieces, putting a negative spin on developments that should rightly be judged as mildly positive, at the very least.

Despite the slant the NYT gives its story, it’s clear that the Iraqi Army is slowly and steadily learning how to do things the American way. Who knows, well before McCain’s famous 100 years are over — maybe even before they start? — Iraq may defy world opinion, and the UN, to invade and occupy another country. That would surely bring tears of parental-pride joy to the cheeks of George Bush and Don Rumsfeld, among others?

But I’m getting ahead of myself. First, the baby steps Iraq is already taking, and then why they still have a way to go:

An $833 million Iraqi arms deal secretly negotiated with Serbia has underscored Iraq’s continuing problems equipping its armed forces, a process that has long been plagued by corruption and inefficiency.

The deal was struck in September without competitive bidding and it sidestepped anticorruption safeguards, including the approval of senior uniformed Iraqi Army officers and an Iraqi contract approval committee. Instead, it was negotiated by a delegation of 22 high-ranking Iraqi officials, without the knowledge of American commanders or many senior Iraqi leaders.

That “without competitive bidding” must have drawn at least a smile and an “Attaboy!” from that brilliant man, Dick Cheney?

But these guys are still a little tentative in their follow-through, still lacking a little something:

The deal drew enough criticism that Iraqi officials later limited the purchase to $236 million.

What’s up with that? That’s practically the first principle the Bush administration has tried so hard to teach them by example: you never ever allow yourself to be swayed by criticism. Criticism comes only from the misguided and the deluded; it only confirms that what you did was fitting and proper and right. Criticism only hardens your resolve. In this context, the only proper response to criticism would have been to increase the size of the contract. But, no doubt, the Bushie-Cheneyites have tactfully reached out to their Iraqi counterparts and offered them this friendly piece of constructive criticism already.

Here’s some of the unbelievable spin the NYT managed to put on this story:

An anatomy of the purchase highlights how the Iraqi Army’s administrative abilities — already hampered by sectarian rifts and corruption — are woefully underdeveloped, hindering it in procuring weapons and other essentials in a systematic way. …

Such weaknesses mean that five years after the American invasion, the 170,000-strong Iraqi military remains under-equipped, spottily supplied and largely reliant on the United States for such basics as communications equipment, weapons and ammunition, raising fresh questions about the Iraqi military’s ability to stand on its own.

It’s clear that, any day now, the NYT is going to call for the Bush administration to publicly disavow its longstanding goal of being there for the Iraqi government (if not the Iraqi people, who are somehow extremely non-grateful for all our help) till it can sustain, govern, and defend itself. They are going to call on the Bush administration to scale back that definition of victory or success. And replace it with something like: a government that can feed itself and wipe its own behind.