A recent article by David Sanger & Eric Schmitt in The New York Times (NYT) about the proposed U.S.-Afghan security pact obscures more than it informs, and as a result, the unsuspecting reader is left with a distorted view of reality. Journalism should be aimed at empowering the public through relevant information, and here at the Fourth Estate Watch (FEW) we believe in aggressive journalism that both empowers readers and holds authority to account. Below are just some of the more serious flaws in the NYT article:
- The entire article is ostensibly devoted to the U.S.-Afghan security pact and the potential repercussions if President Obama is “forced to pull all American troops out of Afghanistan by the end of the year[.]” Afghan President Karzai is generally portrayed as something of a grouch or spoiler in the security pact negotiations, as he “delays signing the security accord and poses new demands to the United States.” Unfortunately, the article never explains why ratification of the new security pact has stalled. The reason for this is left to the reader’s imagination, since the NYT never bothers to elucidate the underlying reason for the lack of agreement aside from implicitly condemning Karzai as a tough negotiator who may be biding his time so that “he may be able to strike a better deal.”
- The reporting by Sanger & Schmitt is unnecessarily misleading. Although the NYT doesn’t explain it, the actual reason the security pact has not been signed is because the United States demands immunity for U.S. troops as a condition of the agreement. Lesley Wroughton and Jessica Donati previously reported for Reuters that negotiations regarding the pact ended since Secretary of State Kerry and President Karzai “could not agree on the issue of legal immunity for U.S. troops.” Similarly, David Cloud wrote in the Los Angeles Times (LAT) that the pact “provides legal immunity to U.S. troops.”
- In short, it appears a major sticking point in the security pact negotiations is that the US demands immunity for its troops. Given that U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan have been videotaped urinating on deceased Afghanis, have killed civilians in numerous instances, and have sent drone strikes to various Afghan villages, is it any wonder the Afghan government would hesitate to sign an agreement that affords U.S. soldiers immunity? How would the people of Afghanistan benefit from this?
- Indeed, a previous piece by David Zucchino in the LAT detailing the results of a drone strike in Afghanistan—“There were pieces of my family all over the road,” according to one person—made clear that the grief and rage felt by villagers after a strike may “help explain the approval among some Afghans of President Hamid Karzai’s thus far non-negotiable demand that civilian casualties cease if he is to sign a proposed 10-year security agreement with the United States.” (emphasis ours). Readers of the NYT article, however, are left entirely unaware of the legal immunity the U.S. is demanding from Afghanistan.
- The NYT piece also fails in aggressive, adversarial journalism since it allows a logical inconsistency to stand unchecked. David Sanger and Eric Schmitt write that, in tomorrow’s State of the Union address, President Obama “is expected to say that by the end of this year the Afghan war will be over[.]” In literally the very next sentence, however, they note that “Mr. Obama’s hope is to keep 8,000 to 12,000 troops … in Afghanistan after the NATO combat mission ends this year” (emphasis ours). How can a war be “over” if thousands of troops are expected to remain in Afghanistan?
- Marine Corps Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr.—the U.S. commander in Afghanistan—plans to ask President Obama to keep 10,000 troops in the country after the year is over. Again, in what meaningful sense can a war be said to be “over” when thousands of troops will remain? The NYT never bothers to question what President Obama means by “over” or how the notion of ending a war squares with maintaining a presence of thousands of troops on the ground. Why didn’t the NYT explore these apparent inconsistencies, or at minimum raise the issue to empower their readers?
- Lastly, the NYT engages in a bit of revisionist history when it refers to “the American decision to withdraw all its troops from Iraq” (emphasis ours). In a parallel to what’s currently happening in Iraq, the US government wanted to reach an agreement with the Iraqi government to allow some U.S. soldiers to remain in that country. As Scott Wilson and Karen DeYoung reported for The Washington Post, however, “[t]he negotiations foundered over the U.S. demand that American troops receive legal immunity for their actions[.]” (emphasis ours). In short, the US “decision to withdraw” from Iraq was, in large part, motivated by their inability to obtain immunity from U.S. soldiers in the country. It appears a similar sequence of events is playing out presently in Afghanistan, although readers of the NYT would never know it.
Fourth Estate Watch 