Ignore Previous Reports, Please

On February 22nd, I noted that the Times was giving prominent play to a Reuters story that the Taliban was biding its time only until a winter thaw before it struck again. After all, the Taliban spokesman said, there was nothing whatsoever to any rumours that there was a government amnesty program, much less that it might actually be working. As I noted at the time, Reuters was making no effort to confirm the claims the Taliban spokesman was making about the amnesty program, and therefore the Times was not confirming those claims -- this was merely a restatement of terrorist propaganda.

Well, surprise, surprise, here we are almost one month to the day later, and what should we find in today's Times -- with no mention of the previous article whatsoever -- but an article on the amnesty program that seems to suggest it's going quite well.

Being the New York Times means never having to say running articles that do little more than tell the world what the latest terrorist propaganda line is may not turn out to have been all that smart.

By the way, notice the question Captain Ed was asking at the time:

Will anyone report that the war is over when the Taliban come out of the hills and join the free Afghan people? Doubtful. The American media have all fled the success of Afghanistan and only one or two reporters remain to document Karzai's bold and effective initiative to entice lower-level Taliban to come in from the cold. Only Mullah Omar and around 150 or so terrorist leaders have no eligibility for the amnesty program, and former officials held in high regard such as Salam have campaigned to draw the eligible into it. (My emph.)

Now, al Queda aren't the Taliban, and they aren't offered amnesty, and they're still wandering around, so I don't know that it's fair to say that this means the war's literally over. But this is still a pretty big deal, don't you think?

But he's right about the answer. If an enemy gives up in the mountains, and no camera crew is there to see it . . .