BCT Editorial – 4/2/08


This page was last updated on April 3, 2008.


The anti-surge; Editorial; Beaver County Times; April 2, 2008.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.


“Radical Muslim cleric Maqtada [sic] al-Sadr has shown who is in control of Iraq — nobody.

“Over the weekend, the Shiite cleric ordered his militia to end their six-day conflict with government security forces.  The bloody confrontation, which left more than 350 people dead, revealed how weak Iraq’s central government and its security forces really are.”

[RWC] The editorial failed to mention how the fighting started.  The Iraqi government started going after members of al-Sadr’s militia, jailing them or taking their weapons.  The editorial also glosses over the fact that it was al-Sadr who quit the battle, not the Iraqi government forces.

“Al-Sadr’s successful stalemate also put a huge dent in the Bush administration’s contention that the U.S. military surge in Iraq was working.  Sure, violence has dropped off, but largely because al-Sadr had muzzled his militia and the United States has bought the loyalty of Iraq’s Sunni population.”

[RWC] The editorial failed to mention the surge never touched the area where the vast majority of the fighting took place, Basra.  This area has been the responsibility of British troops.  I’m not blaming the Brits; I’m just noting the editorial’s surge comment is bogus.

Just as in “Close call,” this editorial gives credit for the surge’s success to the enemy.

Note the editorial didn’t describe how “the United States has bought the loyalty of Iraq’s Sunni population.”  Ask yourself why.  FYI, one of the ways the U.S. “bought the loyalty of Iraq’s Sunni population” was to help them drive out al-Qaida and others who were killing innocent civilians.

“During al-Sadr’s anti-surge, the Green Zone, the well-fortified and most protected part of Baghdad where the United States has its embassy and other key operations, came under mortar fire.

“In other words, no place in Iraq is safe; no part of the country is secure.  That speaks volumes about the success of the troop surge.”

[RWC] Gee, no place in a war torn country is 100% safe.  Who would ever have guessed?  A war isn’t over until it’s over.

“Although no historic parallel is perfect, the confrontation was similar in some ways (and on a much smaller scale) to the Tet Offensive during the first six months of 1968 in South Vietnam.  Although the United States and its South Vietnamese allies defeated the Vietcong and North Vietnamese forces militarily, the latter showed that they could strike with force anywhere and at any time.  (Al-Sadr made that very same point before calling a truce.)

“Another aspect of the Tet Offensive that should not be overlooked was its impact in the United States.  The American people realized that the predictions about winning the war and giving South Vietnamese leaders time build up their military and control the countryside was a lot of bunkum.”

[RWC] Man, leftists live for the 1960s, don’t they?  At least the editorial conceded the Tet Offensive was a military victory for the U.S.  What the editorial failed to note, however, is that the news media reported the Tet Offensive as a military defeat for the U.S.  Reporting victory as defeat couldn’t have had an effect on the American people, could it?  In any case, the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese were ready to throw in the towel.  When they saw the U.S. press reported the Tet Offensive as a North Vietnam victory, however, the North Vietnamese knew they had a chance to win because the U.S. press had turned against the U.S.  Our external enemies didn’t defeat us in Vietnam; our internal enemies did.

Of course, the editorial failed to mention World War II’s Battle of the Bulge.  As a reminder, just months before Germany surrendered, Hitler pushed an attack right through the middle of the Allied lines in France and came close to succeeding.  Two U.S. regiments were forced to surrender and this battle resulted in more U.S. casualties (over 19,000 dead) than any other WW II battle.

“Listening to Bush and his chicken-hawk enablers today, it’s amazing how history so often comes close to repeating itself.”

[RWC] At least the editorial waited until the last sentence to engage in name-calling.  That’s one change anyway.  As I noted in a previous critique, the Times itself is an “enabler.”  Does that make the editorial board so-called “chicken hawks?”

What’s really sad about this editorial is, based on the Times editorial history on this topic, you have to conclude the editorial board was hoping to have an opportunity to publish such an editorial.


© 2004-2008 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.