The New York Times' Imbecility

The egression of Iraq's post-Saddam government has been dampened at every step by naysayers and pessimists. The latest comes as the NYT neglects the importance of a centralized oil-revenue sharing law. The proposal "touches so directly on the interests of all Iraq’s warring sectarian groups, and therefore the future of the country." It is clear to the simplest mind that this tangible benefit is paramount, bringing optimism based on a nationalistic interest.

And so, the Times (in its infinite wisdom) decided to insert its skepticism with an absurd analogy. "The (proposal) come with several additional cautions, not the least of which is that in Iraq’s chaotic wartime environment, even laws that do get passed can have little impact. In one example of a document arrived at through similar negotiations, Iraq’s Constitution, it remains unclear what effect many of the fastidiously negotiated clauses are having in the governance of the country."*

An abstract philosophy, such as constitutionalism, can not be equated, in any way, with a measurable financial instrument. When passed, this statute will directly impact every Iraqi, giving them all a fiscal interest for intercepting saboteurs and foreign insurgents (think neighborhood-watch). Put another way, it is far easier to understand dollars and cents than to comprehend freedom.

* Quotes from James Glanz's "Draft Law Keeps Central Control Over Oil in Iraq"