Because nothing says “fair” and “objective” like having someone who used to pledge his loyalty to a vicious tyrant cover the war which ousted said vicious tyrant:

When reporters write in the first person, the result is rarely good. . . .

Today’s coverage of the Iraqi government’s fight for Basra is a clear example of the rule.

First of all, who is Qais Mizher, who owns the byline on the piece? Well, he tells us this in passing: “Calling on my experience as a captain in the Iraqi Army before the 2003 invasion and essentially a war correspondent since then…” Got that? The New York Times reporter was an officer in Saddam’s army. Nice. By the way, officers were not drafted (that’s how the enlisted ranks were filled). Officers had to be selected and regularly vetted for loyalty and effectiveness. So Saddam decided that he could trust our intrepid correspondent and so did the New York Times.

Makes you wonder: Would the Times have hired former Nazi officers to cover the three-year insurgency against the American presence in Germany in the late 1940s? Even if they spoke the language, knew the countryside well and said they “never really believed” in that evil ideology?

And is it smart to send an Iraqi Army captain from the Saddam era to cover the actions of the new Iraqi army? Are they likely to welcome him? Is likely to view them fairly?

Hey, at least they were forthcoming about who this guy’s former employer was.  Really, though, how does the New York Times see “former officer in Saddam’s army” on a person’s resume and say to themselves “Hey, let’s have this guy cover the war.”