BCT Editorial – 8/2/06

This page was last updated on August 2, 2006.

Hard hit; Editorial; Beaver County Times; August 2, 2006.

This is at least the eighth “[a] first-class military organization is being ground down in Iraq” editorial in less than two years and at least nine in just over two years. There may have been earlier editorials using this, but the first I found on the Times website was entitled “Worn out” (April 22, 2004). This was just about a month before I started my website. Less that three months after the beginning of the Iraq War, the Times published an editorial entitled “Mission impossible” that asserted, “[t]he U.S. occupation of Iraq is starting to look more and more like the Vietnam War.” In my opinion, the Times has been chanting a defeatist mantra for a long time and is clearly invested in U.S. failure. How sad.

Rather than endure me repeating myself, please see the following critiques of other “ground down” editorials for most of my comments.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“U.S. military is paying too high a price in the Iraqi quagmire

“The U.S. military, especially the Army and Marines Corps, is paying a terrible price for the Bush administration’s botched occupation of Iraq.

“In a letter to President Bush, U.S. Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, reported that nearly two-thirds of the Army’s combat brigades are not ready for wartime missions, largely because they are hampered by equipment shortfalls. They’re also having trouble filing [sic] their ranks with qualified personnel.”

[RWC] The editorial misrepresents Rep. Skelton’s letter a tad. While it addresses military funding, the letter doesn’t say one word about “having trouble filing [sic] their ranks with qualified personnel.”

“It’s important to note that Skelton, like fellow Democrat U.S. Rep. John Murtha, is a staunch supporter of the military. When Skelton speaks, people ought to listen because he, like Murtha, often reflects the views of those in the military.”

[RWC] You’ll note the editorial provides not one piece of evidence to support its claims about reps. Murtha and Skelton.

“He also was not leaking secrets. The documents he and his fellow Democrats cited in their letter and at a press conference were unclassified.”

[RWC] How bad is it when you have to state a U.S. representative “was not leaking secrets?”

“He was backed up by the Army chief of staff, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, who released a statement the same day saying, ‘I have testified to the facts about our readiness and I remain concerned about the serious demands we face.’”

[RWC] Duh! It’s Gen. Schoomaker’s job to be “concerned about the serious demands we face.”

Of course, the editorial author didn’t want us to know the full content of the statement. Gen. Schoomaker also said “The President, the Secretary of Defense and the Congress have worked very closely with the Secretary of the Army and me in the past, and I am confident we will have a way to meet the many challenges that lie ahead during these dangerous times.”

“The general added that the Army needs more than $17 billion in 2007 and up to $13 billion a year until two or three years after the war in Iraq ends.

“Money can fix the equipment problem.

“However, it isn’t just materiel that is being worn out in Iraq. Personnel are, too. The constant combat rotations without adequate recovery time are taking a terrible toll, and not just on the combatants. Their families are under an incredible amount of stress, as well.”

[RWC] Again, neither Rep. Skelton’s letter nor Gen. Schoomaker’s said one word about personnel “being worn out in Iraq.”

That said, wars take their toll. If you believe, however, the Times cares first and foremost about our military personnel, I would disagree. I believe politics comes first for the Times.

“A first-class military organization is being ground down in Iraq because of this administration’s blunders. Even worse, the quagmire in Iraq has limited the options the Unites [sic] States has in dealing with rogue states such as Iran and North Korea.”

[RWC] Let me get this straight. The Times believes the war on terror in Iraq is wrong but it would support wars against Iran and North Korea? Yeah, right.

“The time has come to withdraw our forces from this mess and retool and refit the Army and Marine Corps as quickly as possible so that they can do what their mission calls on them to do: to defend the nation against real enemies, not ideologically and politically convenient ones like Saddam Hussein.”

[RWC] This last paragraph really takes the cake. Not content to bash President Bush for merely being wrong in the eyes of the Times, the editorial now accuses President Bush of conducting this war because it was “ideologically and politically convenient.”