BCT Editorial – 3/26/06

This page was last updated on March 26, 2006.

Retool and refit; Editorial; Beaver County Times; March 26, 2006. Though originally posted on the Times website on March 23^rd, this editorial did not appear in the print edition of the Times until March 26^th.

While I usually disagree with Times editorials, I usually get a chuckle out of their transparency. I have to admit this editorial actually made me angry. It’s simply wrong to provide encouragement to the enemy.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The United States must begin to prepare for a post-Iraq world

“As the occupation of Iraq enters its fourth year, here is the sad truth: There is no light at the end of the tunnel.

“An unintended consequence of the Bush administration’s bungling of post-invasion Iraq is that the world’s only remaining superpower has become bogged down in a war it cannot win and where none of the options it has are good.”

[RWC] What is it with liberals that they always believe the U.S. can’t win?

During the cold war, liberals constantly wanted us to appease and “make nice” with the Soviet Union because we couldn’t possibly win.

Prior to the first Gulf War, liberals told us Iraq’s “elite” Republican Guard would slaughter our military, or at least cause a huge number of casualties.

Prior to this Iraq War, liberals told us an invasion would result in tens of thousands of soldiers would returning in body bags.

Prior to Afghanistan, liberals told us we couldn’t rout al-Qaida and the Taliban because the USSR couldn’t do it. That our goal differed from the USSR seemed to escape liberals. We were attempting to return the country to its people, while the USSR was trying to conquer it.

The bottom line is, liberals don’t want us to win.

“The situation is a direct result of the pre-war and post-invasion hubris of the president and his men. Because of their arrogance, a first-class military organization has been misused and mishandled. This is no reflection of the men and women in the ranks. They are doing the best job possible under conditions that they should never have been facing.”

[RWC] This is the Times version of “we support the troops,” while despising everything they do.

On a side note, I wonder if liberals ever used the word “hubris” before President Bush took office. I say that because the liberal media seem to have informally agreed upon a group of words – including hubris – they use when referring to President Bush and/or members of the Bush administration.

“However, their leaders have failed them.

“The mess in Iraq is a direct result of this administration’s scorn for the so-called Powell Doctrine. The essence of the doctrine, named for former Secretary of State Colin Powell when he was in charge of the U.S. military during the Gulf War, is very basic: maximum use of raw power.”

[RWC] Did the editorial author(s) miss the run to Baghdad that completely overwhelmed the Iraqis? Apparently the editorial author is now the person who decides what is overwhelming force. Here’s my guess. Regardless of how many troops we put on the ground in Iraq, it would not have been enough to satisfy the “Powell Doctrine” in the eyes of the Times, or the editorial authors would have been whining about something else.

The author needs to study our government. Colin Powell was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War, but he was not “in charge of the U.S. military during the Gulf War.” According to the JCS website, the CJCS is simply “the principal military adviser to the President” and is not even in the chain of command. “The chain of command … runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense directly to the commander of the combatant command [Army, Air Force, Navy, et cetera]. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff may transmit communications to the commanders of the combatant commands from the President and Secretary of Defense but does not exercise military command over any combatant forces.” In our government, civilians are “in charge of the U.S. military.”

“It meant that whenever the United States committed its military to war, it should do so with a force that would leave no one in doubt as to who was going to control the situation from start to finish.”

[RWC] That’s not an accurate description of the Powell Doctrine because you can’t control what the enemy believes, until he is dead.

“Maximum use of raw power” also doesn’t mean anything to the vast majority of the enemy in Iraq. Remember, these guys believe in a god that provides virgins to those men who kill indiscriminately. It doesn’t matter how many troops you have, Islamofascists believe Allah is on their side and thus numbers don’t matter.

“That has not been the case in Iraq, in large part because of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s clear disdain for the Powell Doctrine.”

[RWC] The editorial fails to note the so-called Powell Doctrine applies to conflicts between “conventional” armies. It has no applicability to the current situation in which the enemy hides among the people. Overwhelming military force means nothing when you can’t easily identify your enemy on the battlefield, or when there is no clearly defined battlefield.

“Look at the impact this has had. The world’s most powerful nation is stuck in a tar-baby war from which it can’t extricate itself, and its only exit strategy is fast approaching the declare-victory-and-get-out stage.”

[RWC] Wishful thinking on the part of the editorial author(s).

Here’s a prediction. Regardless of the overall success we have in Iraq, when we leave the Times will redefine victory so it can still claim we “declared victory and ran.” That is unless we have a Democrat president at the time.

“In regard to an exit strategy, a key component of the Powell Doctrine, this administration has none. Bush said last week that U.S. forces will be in Iraq after he leaves office.”

[RWC] Liberals apparently don’t count victory as an exit strategy. Regarding troops being in Iraq after President Bush leaves office, I hope that didn’t surprise the editorial author. Who didn’t know this a long time ago? Did the author not pay attention to the history of Germany and Japan after World War II? You don’t turn around overnight a country steeped in violence for decades.

“Remember when administration officials were telling the American people that the bulk of the military would be out of Iraq within months of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein?”

[RWC] Note the author didn’t provide a quote to substantiate his claim.

Here’s what President Bush said on May 1, 2003. “We have difficult work to do in Iraq … The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done and then we will leave and we will leave behind a free Iraq.”

I don’t know about the editorial author, but I didn’t interpret that statement to say “the military would be out of Iraq within months.”

“This president, this defense secretary, this administration must be held responsible for policies that are squandering America’s military might. Our men and women are being killed and maimed, often horribly, and, if this president has his way, will for years to come.”

[RWC] In case the Times missed it, “Our men and women [were] being killed and maimed” by terrorists for over 20 years. Apparently it’s OK for Americans to die when the carnage is spread over time and when we don’t fight back.

If the situation is so bad and hopeless, why do so many of our servicemen re-enlist knowing full well they will return to Iraq? Don’t get me wrong. I don’t like to read about our brave men and women dying in Iraq, but it seems clear these Americans believe in the mission and believe they are succeeding. As strange as it may seem to the Times, I actually believe what I hear from the mouths of our “boots on the ground” over editorial authors. If our military men and women didn’t believe they were succeeding, would they continue to re-enlist?

“In past editorials, we have called for the president to commit more troops and equipment to Iraq in order to secure the situation, something that would have been done from the start if this White House had adhered to the Powell Doctrine.”

[RWC] Everyone on the left has an opinion. While the Times was claiming it wanted more troops in Iraq, many of its fellow travelers were claiming we should get our troops out because they were the problem.

Truthfully, I don’t believe the Times position was sincere. I believe if the U.S. had sent in more troops, we’d have seen editorials saying something like, “See, we’re losing, and just as in Vietnam, we’re being told more troops will solve the problem.”

“It’s now obvious that Bush had and has no intention of ever doing that. He wants to maintain a status quo in which American troops are fast becoming sitting ducks in an Iraqi civil war.”

[RWC] There is no Iraq civil war, yet the Times has declared one exists, probably out of wishful thinking. If “American troops are fast becoming sitting ducks,” perhaps the author can explain why the data shows American troop deaths have been decreasing since October.

“The United States has no choice but to get out of Iraq as quickly as possible and live with the consequences. It must retool and refit its military, reinstitute the Powell Doctrine and prepare to deal with a world that no longer fears or respects America’s might.”

“Whether we want to admit it or not, the damage is already done. Our nation and its people must prepare themselves to deal with the post-Iraq world that Bush hath wrought.”

[RWC] I’ve written this before. What must it be like when your “success” depends on the defeat of your country?

Who writes editorials for the Times, Osama bin Laden?

Though I believe the Times wants America to lose assuming that will help promote the Times’ warped political agenda, I also believe the Times is afraid we’re winning. That’s why we get editorials telling us we need to get out now.