Bremer's blunder.

Byline: The Register-Guard

When Saddam Hussein didn't like what he read in an Iraqi newspaper, he shut the paper down and got rid of its editors, often literally.

Things are much different now that Saddam is in jail and the Americans are in charge. When U.S. Administrator L. Paul Bremer doesn't like what he reads in an Iraqi newspaper, he shuts the paper down, but doesn't harm the staff.

If Bremer is frustrated because many Iraqis fail to appreciate the differences between press freedom in democracies and press restrictions in dictatorships, he has only himself to blame. He doesn't seem to grasp that his closure last week of Al-Hawza, a Baghdad weekly that frequently criticizes U.S. conduct in Iraq, confirmed for skeptical Iraqis that freedom will only be granted to those who toe the U.S. line.

There's no dispute that Al-Hawza violated the letter of the Coalition Provisional Authority's media law, which bans the Iraqi press from publishing stories that incite "disorder, rioting or violence against the U.S. military or support the return of Saddam Hussein's Baath party." The vitriolic newspaper is run by Muqtada al-Sadr, a militant Shiite Muslim cleric who is one of the most outspoken critics of the U.S. occupation.

Al-Hawza ran stories falsely blaming Americans for an explosion that killed more than 50 Iraqi police recruits. One headline read "America kills then apologizes" with an adjacent photo that appeared to show U.S. troops roughing up an old man. Another headline said "Bremer follows the steps of Saddam."

Combative, inaccurate and inflammatory - guilty on all counts. But will Bremer's iron-fisted reaction of padlocking Al-Hawza's doors eliminate combative, inaccurate and inflammatory criticism of U.S. actions in Iraq? Certainly not. Will banning the antagonistic rhetoric of a single Shiite cleric decrease his credibility with the Iraqi people? The opposite will occur. Will shutting down a newspaper enhance Iraqi trust in American voices touting the value of freedom and democracy? More likely we'll be seen as inconsistent and hypocritical.

The problem with Bremer's response to the security issues posed by an antagonistic, uncooperative newspaper is that padlocking the paper will produce exactly the opposite of what Bremer seeks. The lesson he wants most to teach Iraqis in this instance is that Americans are not afraid of a free and critical press in Iraq - or in the United States. In fact, it's one of the hallmarks of a healthy democracy.