BCT Editorial – 11/7/10

The editorial leads with “Reality keeps getting in the way of those who argue the so-called surge worked in stabilizing Iraq.”  In “The dark side” (3/18/09), the Times said “The surge succeeded as a tactic.  It stabilized Iraq. [My emphasis]  Whether it is successful as strategy — creating a democratic Iraq — remains to be seen.”  Oops.  Either the Times doesn’t keep track of its positions, or it hopes we forget.

Keep in mind the Times is invested in being able to claim “The surge didn’t work” as it did in the fifth paragraph.  Here are some examples.

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.

The editorial said, “It merely gave the United States the window dressing it needed to declare a stalemate and get out.”  This too represents a position the Times is invested in.  You can find more about this in my critique of “Vision thing” (12/10/06).