The editorial board of the Los Angeles Times has hardly been reliable when it comes to the war in Iraq. This is not to say the paper has been consistently wrong — as far back as October 2002, the Times’ editorial board showed impressive foresight in denouncing Congress’ resolution authorizing Bush to pursue a confrontation with Iraq.
Since then, however, the LAT editorial board has grown increasingly confused. Earlier this year, the paper endorsed Bush’s escalation policy. In March, in a particularly disturbing editorial, the Times blasted congressional Dems’ withdrawal timeline, calling it an “unruly mess: bad public policy, bad precedent and bad politics.” Right from the White House talking points, the LAT accused Speaker Pelosi of trying to “micromanage the conflict, and the evolution of Iraqi society, with arbitrary timetables and benchmarks.”
Yesterday, the paper gave up. “The time has come,” the Times said, “to leave.” (via Yglesias)
After four years of war, more than $350 billion spent and 3,363 U.S. soldiers killed and 24,310 wounded, it seems increasingly obvious that an Iraqi political settlement cannot be achieved in the shadow of an indefinite foreign occupation. The U.S. military presence — opposed by more than three-quarters of Iraqis — inflames terrorism and delays what should be the primary and most pressing goal: meaningful reconciliation among the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.
This newspaper reluctantly endorsed the U.S. troop surge as the last, best hope for stabilizing conditions so that the elected Iraqi government could assume full responsibility for its affairs. But we also warned that the troops should not be used to referee a civil war. That, regrettably, is what has happened. […]
With four out of five additional battalions now in place, there is no reason to believe that the surge will help bring about an end to what is, in fact, a multifaceted civil war…. Having invested so much in Iraq, Americans are likely to find disengagement almost as painful as war. But the longer we delay planning for the inevitable, the worse the outcome is likely to be.
The editorial is not without flaw — it recommends a policy whereby combat forces would depart “by the end of 2009” — but the LAT finally seems to have gotten the big picture right.
Also note, the Times isn’t the only paper that’s come around.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the country, in a conservative state, the Roanoke (Va.) Times also called for a pullout, explaining that it, too, was reversing course on its support for the war…. The Roanoke paper stated, “Though President Bush seems psychologically incapable of the act, it is time for everyone else in the United States to recognize the inevitable: The occupation of Iraq is an utter, irredeemable failure. We cannot win there militarily or politically.
“Further expenditure of blood, lives, and treasure will gain the United States nothing. Nor will it gain anything for the Iraqi people, who have seen only chaos and bloodshed from this intervention.”
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette declared on Thursday, “All Congress needs to do is show some courage and stand up to President Bush. Its ultimate service to our forces would be to see that no more of them lose their lives in a pointless war — a great service indeed.”
The Sun of Baltimore, which had already back a pullout, now advises that “since the Iraqi parliament plans to take July and August off, Congress could suggest to the president that American troops do the same. It would be a start, at least.”
At the Portland (Maine) Press Herald on Sunday, editorial page editor John W. Porter explained the paper’s recent change of heart on the war (it now backs withdrawal) this way: A major in the Army reserve had made the observation, in chatting with a reporter for the paper, “Every day is Groundhog Day.” This, of course, refers to the movie, “Groundhog Day,” in which Bill Murray wakes each morning to find himself stuck in the same day.
“Groundhog Day,” Porter wrote, referring to Iraq. “One day indistinguishable from the next. No change. No progress. Just the grind of it.”
At a certain level, I suspect it’s of little interest what a newspaper editorial board has to say about war policy. If every paper in the country endorsed Bush’s strategy, it wouldn’t make it right.
But the point here is that newspaper editors who had endorsed the president’s policy have grudgingly come to realize the error of their ways. They were willing to follow Bush’s lead, but no more. If this sentiment grows among, say, Republican lawmakers on the Hill, the president’s position will quickly become irrelevant.