BCT Editorial – 2/26/07

This page was last updated on March 3, 2007.

Trapped; Editorial; Beaver County Times; February 26, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The British are leaving, the British are leaving.

“And no matter what spin President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and others put on last week’s announcement that Great Britain will begin withdrawing its troops from Iraq, it is not good news.

“If nothing else, the pullout by the only ally with a significant number of troops in Iraq makes a mockery of the so-called Coalition of the Willing.”

[RWC] Hmm, the Times candidate in the 2004 presidential election already did this. Lest we forget, in 2004 Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) referred to our allies as a “trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought, and the extorted.”

“Particularly repugnant was the administration’s argument that the British could leave because the part of Iraq they control has been pacified. They spun it into an Iraq-that-could-be if the president was left to pursue his present policy.

“What they conveniently overlooked is that Basra is not Baghdad. Southern Iraq is largely Shiite, and one reason that area is relatively peaceful is that the Shiites are laying low. They know that once the British leave they’ll have a free hand to do whatever they want.

“In effect, the British have followed the advice that U.S. Sen. George Aiken gave to President Johnson in 1965 regarding U.S. involvement in Vietnam: Declare victory and get out.

“Another way to look at the situation is that the British are getting out while the getting is good. They have seen the post-surge future of Iraq and want nothing to do with it.”

[RWC] This is an example of what happens when you are invested in defeat. You see, because of all its editorials, the Times can’t afford success of any kind by anyone – except our enemies – in Iraq. That’s why we get the “Shiites are laying low” comment. Remember, this comment comes from an editorial that twice already has accused others of employing “spin.”

Are the Shiites “laying low?” I don’t know, and neither does the Times. The difference is, I hope the British have been successful while the Times hopes the “Shiites are laying low.”

“If not, why aren’t the British troops being transferred to help the United States pacify the Sunni Triangle?”

[RWC] This is sticking my neck out, but maybe because the Brits carried out their mission. Not surprisingly, the editorial fails to note the Brits are increasing troops in Afghanistan.

“The United States isn’t free to leave Iraq. As former Secretary of State Colin Powell warned before the United States invaded Iraq, the Pottery Barn rule applies: We break it, we bought it.”

[RWC] That’s right; Iraq wasn’t broken before 2003. Does the Times really believe our memories are that faulty?

“The other countries can leave, but the Bush administration is trapped in Iraq. Unfortunately, it’s a trap of its own devising.”

[RWC] Have you noticed people of the Times ilk use language like “the Bush administration is trapped in Iraq” and so on? The Bush administration is not in Iraq, the United States of America is.

Why don’t we hear language like “the Roosevelt/Truman administration is trapped in Germany,” “the Roosevelt/Truman administration is trapped in Japan,” “the Truman administration is trapped in Korea,” “the Clinton administration is trapped in Kosovo,” et cetera?