BCT Editorial – 5/6/07

This page was last updated on May 6, 2007.

No way out; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 6, 2007.

Have you noticed Times editorials never push for a winning strategy? Rather than encourage our leaders – both Democrat and Republican – to come up with what the Times believes to be a winning strategy, editorials for at least the last three years have told us Iraq is a lost cause.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Now that President Bush and congressional Democrats are done posturing on funding for the occupation of Iraq they’re expected t [sic] start working on a deal that both sides can agree on.

“The Associated Press reported Democrats were unlikely to continue to demand a troop withdrawal deadline, which was the reason Bush gave to justify vetoing the $124.2 billion measure.”

[RWC] There were two reasons for the veto. The second was $24.2 billion of spending completely unrelated to Iraq or the military that the Democrats had to add to buy votes in the House. Does anyone care to guess why the editorial omitted that tidbit?

“Instead, there’s been talk of establishing standards - so-called benchmarks - for the Iraqi government to meet, such as enacting legislation to share oil resources, holding provincial elections and spending $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction.

“Setting benchmarks might make legislation more palatable to Republicans in the House and Senate, many of whom are skittish about congressional elections in 2008.

“But while Democrats, Republicans and the Bush White House are hammering out a funding bill they can agree on, their counterparts in Baghdad are taking a break - a two-month summer vacation.

“What makes this break especially galling is that while Iraqi lawmakers don’t feel any pressing need to improve the lives of their citizens by establishing a government that is actually able to deliver services, especially internal security, U.S. troops are dying, being maimed and being wounded in an attempt to secure Baghdad and other parts of the country.”

[RWC] I can only assume the editorial author filters his news. In case he missed it, “Iraqi lawmakers” are themselves the targets of attacks, so I suspect the do “feel [a] pressing need to improve the lives of their citizens …” I too would like to see the Iraqis move faster, but I doubt their speed (or lack thereof) is because they aren’t motivated.

Regarding the comment that “U.S. troops are dying …,” so are Iraqi security forces and in greater numbers, yet they continue to volunteer just as our brave men and women.

“But righteous indignation on the part of Americans only goes so far because, least [sic] we forget, the Bush administration is responsible for the chaos in Iraq. Americans can scold Iraqis all they want, but the bottom line is that they did not create this mess. Iraqis are living with the consequences of the Bush White House’s bungling of the occupation of Iraq.”

[RWC] The Times isn’t really in a position to express “righteous indignation.” As a reminder, the Times “supported the current troop surge, even though we [the Times] don’t believe it will be successful.” As I’ve written before, this is a cowardly and despicable position. Its purpose is to set up the Times to be “right” regardless of the outcome. Should we succeed, you can bet an editorial will crow about support for the surge. Should we fail, an editorial will say “we told you to surrender,” though probably not in those words.

“While politicians in Washington wrangle over supporting the troops and while Iraqi lawmakers chill out for the summer, the Iraqi people and American military personnel will bear the burden of failed leadership in both countries.

“Iraq is being destroyed as a nation. The American military is being ground down in a war it cannot win. Islamic militants are growing stronger by the day.”

[RWC] The idea Iraq wasn’t a completely dysfunctional nation long before 2003 is a popular leftist myth. Here’s a brief recap. Iraq started two wars against its neighbors in the 1980s/1990s, used chemical weapons against its own citizens, embarked on a nuclear program in the 1970s/1980s, tortured and/or killed hundreds of thousands of its citizens, harbored terrorists, offered rewards to the families of suicide bombers, constantly attacked U.S. military aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones, et cetera.

We also have the obligatory and timeworn “a first-class military organization is being ground down” or ground up comment. It’s not really a Times anti-Bush/Iraq editorial without this statement. This claim goes back at least to April 2004, after only about a year in Iraq.

“The situation in Iraq has reached the point where no good can come from anything that is done. Pull the troops out and Iraq descends into civil and sectarian war, which would destabilize the rest of the Middle East. Keep the troops in Iraq and they are sitting ducks for assassins and terrorists who will continue to disrupt life throughout Iraq.”

[RWC] I wish the guys on the left would get their stories straight. This editorial alleges removing U.S. troops will result in “civil and sectarian war,” while many (most?) of the Times’ fellow travelers tell us the U.S. presence is the problem and all would be well if we’d just leave.

“Even involving neighboring countries (Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc.) in an effort to stabilize Iraq is a long shot. That’s because terrorists are free agents who answer to no one but themselves and because controlling the forces of hatred (Kurdish/Arab and Sunni/Shiite) that have been unleashed would take a massive and sustained security effort.”

[RWC] This paragraph would have us believe “the forces of hatred (Kurdish/Arab and Sunni/Shiite)” were not previously “unleashed.” I realize that many on the left can’t remember history before the day President Bush took office, but these groups have been killing each other for decades. In Iraq alone, the Sunnis – thanks to Saddam Hussein – persecuted and murdered Shiites on a grand scale.

Regarding the Kurds, Hussein’s Arab-run government used chemical weapons on the Kurds in 1987/1988. The worst attack (Halabja) killed about 5,000 innocent civilians. According to the State Department, “10,000 more were blinded, maimed, disfigured, or otherwise severely and irreversibly debilitated.”

Regarding Arab/Kurd animosity, it may be overblown. In general, the Kurdish area of Iraq is relatively peaceful and Iraqi Arabs have shown little interest so far in attacking the Kurds. Likewise, the Kurds appear happy to be left alone and aren’t attacking anyone.

“Events in Iraq will take their own course and are beyond the control of mere mortals in Washington, D.C. or Baghdad. We are staring into the heart of darkness.”

[RWC] As I noted at the beginning, there’s no call to get it right. Only doom and gloom. This is pretty much how the left looks at everything. They are especially peevish when they realize taking money from one person and giving it to another isn’t considered a potential solution even by themselves.