Am I the only one to think that the estimable New York Times Baghdad Bureau chief, John F. Burns, may hold opinions about the Iraq War that are at variance with the editorial policies of his employer? I have suspected so for some time. Burns’ stories have a texture of close familiarity that are lacking in the ideological emissions from Times Square. Now the Sunday online Times carries a video of an interview that Burns gave the Canadian Broadcast Channel on “The Battle for Baghdad,” and it says several remarkable things.
Click here to watch all three short installments of the video series, "Battle for Baghdad".
Among them, Burns suggests that, yes indeed, there is—and apparently was—a tactical alliance between Saddam’s Baathists and al Qaeda and that, further, some two billion dollars of Baathist funds help fund al Qaeda even now.
In the course of three short installments, the interview also indicates that Iraqis, both Sunni and Shia, want the American troops to stay on to help stabilize the country. This is the “only way” that stability can be achieved in Iraq, Burns says. The alternative is a civil war “that will bring in the neighbors,” including not only Iran, but also Saudi Arabia and even Turkey, destabilizing the whole Middle East. If Iraq has a full blown civil war, King Abdullah in Jordan may fall, and if he does, Israel will be in greater danger.
When it comes to the Surge, then, there is “no choice but to try and make it work.” Burns obviously is critical of much of the war and the way it has been waged, but he still comes to the conclusion that the U.S. should not give up.
Such counsel, ladies and gentlemen, is wise, but it is not the wisdom of the editorial page of the New York Times. It is also not the thrust of reporting by the MSM or the political posture of the Democrats in Washington.