US Vice President Joe Biden (pictured above with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani) went to Iraq last week. It was a 'surprise' visit to read the US press. It was completely expected to read the Iraqi press that week or weeks and weeks back -- they'd been reporting the visit was coming since October.
And that probably catpures better than anything else the loss you're at if you're dependent upon English sources. Last week, AP announced that the NATO deal was in jeopardy over immunity -- NATO deal? It had been reported in the Iraqi press but ignored in the US press (see C.I.'s "NATO forces to be on the ground in Iraq?" for one example).
News in Iraqi media Saturday included "State of Law says US Air Force will be 'leased' to Iraq." We've yet to see an English outlet report on that.
Last week, the chasim between the knowlege provided to Arabic readers and the knowledge provided to English readers was reduced by the reporting of New York Times' Mark Landler who explained that negotiations continue and that the new year may find a new deal involving US forces.
In last week's House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee hearing (click here for a report on that hearing), Ranking Member Gary Ackerman noted that, come January, interest in Iraq is going to plummet. How very fortunate that most outlets will play along and dismiss Iraq as an issue -- in an election year no less.
The Iraqi press can't afford to 'dimiss' Iraq. They've got to keep the issue front and center because Iraq is their country and events effect their lives. But the government that made the decision to invade, the government that wrecked the country, it's going to 'officially' walk away now. And instead of calling that out, the bulk of the US press has enlisted to help the White House with that effort.
