BCT Editorial – 6/22/07

This page was last updated on July 2, 2007.

Unfair burden; Editorial; Beaver County Times; June 22, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“How much more can the Bush administration ask of the U.S. military, especially the Army?

“The Associated Press reports Acting Army Secretary Pete Geren testified Tuesday that the Army is considering whether it will have to extend the combat tours of troops in Iraq if President Bush opts to maintain the recent buildup of forces through spring of 2008.

“The service is reviewing other options, including relying more heavily on Army reservists or Navy and Air Force personnel, so as not to put more pressure on a stretched active-duty force.

“Extending combat tours would be asking a lot of the soldiers and their families who already are giving a lot. Most soldiers spend 15 months in combat with a guaranteed 12 months home. If their tours are extended, it might not cut into the time they spend at home but it will add to the time they spend away from home. (Combat tours used to be 12 months long.)

“This situation should concern all Americans. A first-class military is being ground down because of the blunders of the Bush administration. Valuable lives have been, are being and will be wasted because of this White House’s hubris.”

[RWC] We have the obligatory and timeworn “a first-class military 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 Times also tends to rely on “hubris” in this context. As I wrote in a previous critique, “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.”

“Even worse, the burden is being carried by a very small number of Americans. Only about 0.5 percent of the Americans are in the military or are affiliated with it in some way. The burden and pressure on them are enormous.

“We are at war. Let’s start acting like it. That means making sacrifices, including having more of us putting our lives on hold while we serve in the military.

[RWC] If you’ve been reading Times editorials, it’s clear the editorial doesn’t intended “We are at war. Let’s start acting like it.” to apply to the Times.

Perhaps that assessment is wrong. Times editorials have consistently bashed just about every effort to defeat our enemy from the beginning. Could the Times be acting like we’re at war, but we and the Times have different goals?

“While you and your family are trying to figure out where to go on vacation, Army personnel and their loved ones are facing the prospect of more time in combat.

“It is morally wrong to ask a small percentage of Americans to make sacrifices while the rest of us carry on with our trivial (relatively speaking) pursuits.”

[RWC] Note how the editorial tells the rest of us what to do. I read the editorial a number of times and missed the part detailing how the Times as a newspaper and a business is contributing or will contribute.

Consider this. Other than having “Allah Akbar” (God is great) sprinkled in, how would this editorial have differed if our enemy had written it?