Here's a sampling of clips from England, Eygpt, Iran, Russia, and Pakistan reporting on the war in Iraq.
From
The Guardian in London:
Tony Blair conceded last night that western intervention in Iraq had been a disaster. In an interview with Al-Jazeera, the Arabic TV station, the prime minister agreed with the veteran broadcaster Sir David Frost when he suggested that intervention had "so far been pretty much of a disaster".
<snip>
Mr Blair's remarks came hours after his trade and industry minister, Margaret Hodge, was reported to have described Iraq as his "big mistake in foreign affairs" and criticised his "moral imperialism".
John McDonnell, the leftwing MP who has pledged to challenge for Labour's leadership, said the prime minister's concession was "staggering" and urged him to bring forward Britain's exit strategy.
Pakistan's English language Dawn adds to the Blair story. Do you detect any media bias in the last paragraph?
However, the prime minister continued to appear in total denial of the real situation in Iraq as his answers tried to pass off symptoms as the root causes of the continued violence in that country which is reported to have taken a toll so far of over 600,000 lives, mostly civilian.
"You have got Al Qaeda teaming up with Sunni extremists, you have got Iranian backed Shia militia and the problem that we have, which is the problem of terrorism trying to displace democracy. It is not a problem that is arising by accident, it is a strategy, it is a deliberate strategy, it is the same strategy as the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan," the prime minister told his questioners who were asking questions also on behalf of those who had posted their queries on the 10 Downing Street website.
The prime minister said one could debate forever and a day whether for example on the disbandment of the army or debaathification you could have proceeded more slowly and we could have a large debate about that, but the principal reason there is a problem in Iraq today is that people are deliberately giving us a problem.
From the answers he gave on the future strategy in Iraq it appeared as if Mr Blair was still trying to achieve the impossible--build Iraqi capability to a point where it is advisable to get out.
From Al-Ahram Weekly in Eygpt:
The Kurdish community received news of the outcome of the United States elections with obvious concern. But most Iraqis didn't have much to say about the loss of the Republicans. Most refuse to believe that the Democratic control of the Congress is going to improve their lives in any tangible manner.
The Sunnis remain sceptical about the performance of Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki, and some have threatened to leave the government. The Sunnis are particularly worried about the worsening security situation. And not only the Sunnis are disenchanted with the performance of the Shiite prime minister. Mohamed Ihsan, a minister in the Kurdish government, said that the prime minister is failing to act on Article 140 of the constitution, which calls for full normalisation in the country.
<snip>
Living conditions in Iraq are steadily worsening. Gasoline is now 1,000 dinars ($0.6) a gallon, rather expensive by Iraqi standards. A bottle of liquefied gas costs 30,000 dinars ($20) and lasts an average family about a week. Electricity and water supply are irregular. Students are afraid to go to school. And many families are moving out of their neighbourhoods because of sectarian violence. Some are spending the cold winter in stadiums, now turned into open-air makeshift camps
From the Tehran Times in Iran:
On October 20, 2006, Sunni and Shiite religious scholars (ulama) from Iraq signed a 10-point declaration in Islam's most venerated city - Makkah -- aimed at putting an end to sectarian violence in Iraq. The declaration, called the Makkah Declaration on the Iraqi Situation, was adopted under the auspices of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).
<snip>
Of course, declarations and meetings alone are not enough. What really matters is the ability to translate lofty intentions into concrete actions. Are the ulama and the politicians capable of preventing their followers from fighting and killing one another? So far there is very little evidence to show that they are.
Nonetheless, it is commendable that the OIC is making some moves. Perhaps it should now demand with one voice -- in the wake of the recent Republican defeat in the mid-term congressional elections -- that the United States and its allies withdraw immediately from Iraq and that the OIC itself, with the cooperation of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), will provide a peacekeeping force that will restore stability and security in a land that is bleeding to death.
Finally, Pravda has this analysis recycled from the USA:
The US-led invasion of Iraq has been criticized from the very beginning even by those who supported the invasion. Some of the U.S. military with hands-on knowledge of combat operations strategy also leveled their harshest criticism at the government. More critical voices could be heard as the congressional midterm election was drawing near. Predictably enough, the Republicans lost the election. A small article that appeared in the volume 4 of the 2006 Joint Force Quarterly, a magazine published by the National Defense University's Institute for National Strategic Studies, is the latest example of a constructive and consistent analysis of the weaknesses in U.S. foreign policy examined from the military standpoint.
The National Defense University (NDU) is an institution of higher education established specifically for the U.S. military, and therefore it would be difficult to suspect NDU of any kind of disloyalty toward the U.S. government. NDU operates under direct leadership and control of the Pentagon. It has long become one of the major U.S. institutions specialized in training of mid-level and senior military officers. On the face of it, the article penned by Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall looks quite loyal to the Pentagon too. Sherwood-Randall served as deputy assistant secretary of defense under the first Clinton Administration (1994-1996). In an apparent attempt to dispel any doubts about her patriotism, Sherwood-Randall solemnly declares at the beginning of her analysis that today's United States is the 'world's most powerful nation, the only superpower.' However, she begins to touch on lots of ifs, ands or buts thereafter.
<snip>
In light of the results of the latest midterm congressional election, Sherwood-Randall seems to reproach the Bush U.S. Administration by writing about the importance of a continuous dialogue to be maintained under current conditions between the U.S. and its allies, which should not be simply advised of cut-and-dried decisions by the Americans. From her point of view, the U.S. could strengthen its legitimacy in the international politics through such a dialogue coupled with consideration of a wide variety of opinions. It is well-known that any claims for dominance in the international politics must be backed by support of the members of the international community.
Read widely; get smarter!