In a lead editorial, yesterday, the fourth most widely circulated newspaper in the United States unequivocably called for an end to Bush's Iraq War:
Having invested so much in Iraq, Americans are likely to find disengagement almost as painful as war. But the longer we delay planning for the inevitable, the worse the outcome is likely to be. The time has come to leave.
The editorial begins by reframing the very terms of the debate: we cannot lose Iraq, because it was never ours to lose! It then goes on to reassert, as some do, that we have achieved some major goals in Iraq- getting ride of Saddam, and helping Iraq through the first steps towards Democracy. I agree with the reframing, but disagree with the attempted cheerleading, however well-intended. The Times then gets to the real point:
But what now? After four years of war, more than $350 billion spent and 3,363 U.S. soldiers killed and 24,310 wounded, it seems increasingly obvious that an Iraqi political settlement cannot be achieved in the shadow of an indefinite foreign occupation. The U.S. military presence — opposed by more than three-quarters of Iraqis — inflames terrorism and delays what should be the primary and most pressing goal: meaningful reconciliation among the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.
Exactly! Our presence in Iraq is not only continuing to waste lives and resources, it is making things worse! The evidence abounds, daily. And as the Washington Post reported, yesterday:
A senior U.S. commander said Sunday that the military was bracing for a rise in the casualty rate in the coming months, as an ongoing security offensive attempts to tame the devastating violence and stabilize Baghdad.
It's worse, and it's going to continue getting worse! And the Iraqis continue to suffer! From the AP:
In all, at least 68 people were killed or found dead nationwide Monday, police said. They included the bullet-riddled bodies of 30 men found in Baghdad -- the apparent victims of sectarian death squads.
And the political situation continues to deteriorate. From the same article:
In an interview with CNN, Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi said he would lead a Sunni walkout from the Cabinet and parliament if changes are not made to the constitution by May 15. He also said he turned down an offer by Bush to visit Washington until he can count more fully on U.S. help, CNN said on its Web site.
A walkout by the Sunnis, who control 44 of the 275 parliament seats and five Cabinet posts, would plunge Iraq into a political crisis.
Meanwhile, Iraqi radio stations are being attacked by gunmen and destroyed by arsonists; and as they were, under Saddam, Iraqi doctors are being prevented from fleeing the country! Furthermore, there are almost no medical facilities to treat wounded Iraqi soldiers! It's a living hell, day after day, every day. And Republicans in this country are talking about a September deadline for progress to be made? Right. That's another two-thirds of a Friedman Unit, and every American service member, and every Iraqi who dies in those four months will have died for no reason!
The Los Angeles Times has been no dissident on the war. As their editorial made clear:
This newspaper reluctantly endorsed the U.S. troop surge as the last, best hope for stabilizing conditions so that the elected Iraqi government could assume full responsibility for its affairs. But we also warned that the troops should not be used to referee a civil war. That, regrettably, is what has happened
The Times gets it, now. David Broder may be having an attack of the vapors, but when a major mainstream media outlet makes such a strong statement, the momentum has dramatically shifted. Once again:
Having invested so much in Iraq, Americans are likely to find disengagement almost as painful as war. But the longer we delay planning for the inevitable, the worse the outcome is likely to be. The time has come to leave.
The Los Angeles Times supports the troops! The Overton Window has moved from "Sensible" to "Popular." You know what comes next!