BCT Editorial – 9/3/10

As I wrote in a previous critique, “I might be inclined to believe the concern expressed by the editorial is genuine except for one thing.  Times editorials consistently [did] their damnedest to belittle the mission of our armed forces in Iraq.  Maybe it’s me, but I don’t honor someone by telling them their actions are misguided and worthless.”

Here are some examples of “troop support” by the Times.  First, though the Times told us in graphic terms the 2007 Iraq surge wouldn’t work (here, here, here, here, here), it said go ahead anyway.  The point was to set up the Times to claim it was right regardless of how things transpired.  At the time I wrote, “What a gutless position!  Worse than gutless, it displays an amazing lack of principles and a willingness to sacrifice American lives to make a political point.  If the Times truly believes ‘the effort to pacify Iraq most likely will fail and that many more American personnel will be killed, maimed and wounded in a futile effort,’ it has a moral obligation to fight against the troop increase.”

Second, when Gen. Petraeus reported the surge was having success, the Times told us he was “playing a numbers game.”

Third, you’ll recall the Times gave credit for progress in Iraq to the “Sunni awakening,” Iran, and Muqtada al-Sadr, not our troops.

Finally, the editorial quotes “historian Andres [sic] Bacevich” but, as previous editorials, told us little about him.  According to Wikipedia, Andrew Bacevich is a retired career Army officer, “has been ‘a persistent, vocal critic of the US occupation of Iraq, calling the conflict a catastrophic failure’,” and “described George W. Bush’s endorsement of such ‘preventive wars’ as ‘immoral, illicit, and imprudent.’”  Mr. Bacevich’s son was killed in combat by an IED in Iraq.  It’s interesting the Times didn’t consider this background info to be relevant enough to mention.