Time for another installment of "what's wrong with this article?"...
Here's the article: NY Times: "US may be forced to go back to UN for Iraq mandate"
"The Bush administration, which spurned the United Nations in its drive to depose Saddam Hussein in Iraq, is finding itself forced back into the arms of the international body because other nations are refusing to contribute peacekeeping troops or reconstruction money without United Nations approval."
-Note the difference between the headline & the opening statement -- "may be" vs "is". Now, "may be" while somewhat suggestive still has some squeeze room to pass as an objective statement; "is" is clearly opinion. But I don't see the words "opinion" anywhere in here, do you?
-So we went in without UN approval...and? No matter what one thinks about the war, to operate with the view that the UN even has the power to actually stop wars is a sign of delusion. Plenty of things happen without UN approval every day.
-The author of this article seems to believe that the nations witholding aid are completely justified. He can believe that all he wants, but if this is intended to be an objective article he cannot insert that viewpoint into it, and must instead remain neutral. Personally I'm on the fence about it: while it's pathetic to expect people who didn't support our action in the first place to assist with the cleanup, it's equally so to politicize the plight of the Iraqis in the name of internationalism. The only people who's opinion mattered in deciding this was our own representatives (who probably would've went in on even less) & the iraqis, who we couldn't exactly ask until now...
And that's just from the first sentence.
"With the costs of stabilizing Iraq hovering at $4 billion a month and with American troops being killed at a steady rate, administration officials acknowledge that they are rethinking their strategy and may seek a United Nations resolution for help that would placate other nations, like India, France and Germany."
Define "steady rate". A number would've been more fair than using a term that inherently escalates the perception of damage.
"Administration officials contend that they are being practical, but within their ranks are policy makers sharply critical of the United Nations and those who would consider it humiliating to seek its mantle after risking American lives in the invasion that ousted Mr. Hussein."
-Being critical of the UN is labelled as impractical. Brilliant.
-"consider it humiliating"...as if saving face is automatically more important than getting the job done. Granted, there's probable cause for such a charge, but again, a "straight news" article is not the place for it.
"Mr. Powell said Security Council Resolution 1483, which was approved in May and calls on all members to assist in Iraq's reconstruction, should be enough "cover" for countries to claim an endorsement from the United Nations. But he acknowledged that the nations that matter most are not buying that."
"There are some nations who have expressed the desire for more of a mandate from the United Nations, and I am in conversations with some ministers about this, as well as with the secretary general of the United Nations," Mr. Powell said. "
-If it was approved then it is enough "cover". Ironically, for them to not help out according to that resolution is to engage in "anti-globalist unilateralism" or whatever the World System Theorist buzzphrase of the day is. Speaking of which...
-I guess it's OK for other countries to scoff at UN resolutions but not the US. Nice double standard.
-"the nations that matter most"...which would be ________? And doesn't the idea that some nations are more important than others fly in the face of the point of an aspiring world government?
"Even supporters of the administration's policy say its efforts are in jeopardy, and minute military planning gave way to disarray once the major combat ended.
"It's increasingly clear there was really some underestimation of the number of people who would be required after the regime fell, and the length of time required to stay there," said Paul Saunders, director of the Nixon Center, a nonpartisan research organization whose honorary chairman is Henry A. Kissinger."
Named after Nixon, Honorary Chairman is Kissinger. Nonpartisan?
I guess "Mr. Marquis" (I hate how they constantly address heads of state as if they were grade school principals, it's annoying and smacks of sucking-up. I could care less who they are, I'll calll them by their first name if I feel like it) decided that to allieviate his already-huge Left bias he should throw the right-wingers a bone. Either that or he's been sniffing glue.
And this guy more than likely doesn't even realize that his position is showing through.
Anyone still out there that thinks true objectivity is possible? I've got a bridge to sell you...