Blog 2a

The first article that I came across was one out of the New York Times, and it discussed a battle that took place between American and Iraqi soldiers against Shiite militias in Baghdad this past Sunday (April 6). After the fighting stopped 3 U.S. soldiers had been killed and 31 wounded; 20 Iraqi soldiers were also killed. But the main point of this article is that the Shiite and other renegade militias, after five years, can still induce a decent amount of damage on U.S. troops in Baghdad and other areas. "The Green Zone attacks were, symbolically at least, a sign that forces hostile to the United States are still able to strike at the American nerve center and seat of government power in the capital of Iraq."
The attacks came as Iraq's National Security Council intensified pressure on Moktada Al-Sadr, an anti-American Shiite cleric, telling him to disarm immediately. The attacks also took place one day before a Congressional testimony from David H. Petraeus, the senior American commander in Iraq, and his plans for political reconciliation and improved security in Iraq. This is said to be valuable evidence for Democrats who argue that no progress is being made in Iraq after five long years.
I feel that this article has a left-wing bias, but that's okay because pretty much all news except for Fox News is leftist, so I expected it. But as for not making any progress in Iraq over the past five years, that's just inaccurate. We have to give these guys some credit: they're being shot at from every which way in 120-degree heat by guys riding camels and wearing old laundry on their heads. That's just embarressing. I feel that we need to stay in Iraq for as long as it takes. As for reducing American casualties, our air force should be doing most of the dirty work by dropping bombs and missiles from miles away. If we eliminate everyone over there, we eliminate the problem. Call me an asshole or whatever, but I'd rather see 10 dead Iraqis civilians than one dead U.S. soldier.
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/world/middleeast/07iraq.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

The second article that I came across came from the LA Times, because I wanted to see what differences there would be between east coast and west coast news & info. In it, the article describes that the main problem in Iraq is not America's presence, but the hostile relationships between the Sunni Arabs, the Kurds, and the Shiites. American soldiers frequently get caught in the middle of these three militant groups, and it turns out bad on our side almost every time. We don't know who is on our side, and we don't know who isn't. While my first article was mostly about how America is failing in Iraq, this second article is saying that American isn't failing, it's just that these crazy Shiites and whoever else is just getting in the way of what we're trying to accomplish. When we first went to Iraq in 2003, I never heard about a Shiite or a Sunni, but now that's all I hear about.
This article really doesn't have a bias, or at least one that stands out. It is basically sympathizing with American troops, which is something that we as American citizens can't and should not avoid. They need our support and we need them to win. Different from the first article, I can agree with this one.
Link:http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-mosul5apr05,1,2383830.story