What’s going on?
The New York Times, in polls, news stories, and op-ed’s, seems to be printing stories very much at odds with much of its reporting and many of its editorials of the past few years. And it isn’t just the NYT — it’s happening elsewhere in the MSM and commentariat as well. It is hard to figure out what is going on. NYT via Timeswatch:
“In the poll, The Times and CBS News posed a standard question that asks respondents to think back to the initial invasion and then judge whether or not the United States military action in Iraq was the right thing to do. ‘Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the United States have stayed out?’
“Forty-two percent of those polled said the United States did the right thing, and 54 percent said the United States should have stayed out of Iraq. The last time the question was asked, in May, 35 percent said taking military action against Iraq was the right thing and 61 percent said the United States should have stayed out.
“The July numbers represented a change. It was counterintuitive. None of the other war related questions showed change. Mr. Bush’s approval rating had not changed. Nor had approval of his handling of Iraq. The level of support for Mr. Bush’s decision to send more troops to Iraq — the so-called ‘surge’ — was about the same as it had been in past polls. Support for the decision to go to war had risen modestly and nothing else in the poll could explain it.”
Something odd appears to be going on, but it is unclear exactly what it is. There is an argument that it might be a capitulation to reality, because the surge is evidencing signs of success (though we’re not yet quite ready to buy that). We would appear to be in Iraq for the foreseeable future, whether a Democrat or Republican administration is in power. The NYT had a piece about this months ago. They have followed up with this op-ed from liberals who are not only serious war critics, but are also serious men, just a few days ago. John Burns of the NYT has said that the costs of leaving an unstable situation are unacceptably horrific. Now we see this same theme from yet another MSM pundit, David Ignatius of the Washington Post:
These struggles are different fronts of the same war. The notion that, you know, a defeat to the United States and its allies in Iraq is costless in terms of the larger war against Al-Qaeda, is just wrong. I mean, you know, bin Laden said again and again, the Americans are weak; if you hit ‘em hard, they’ll run away. They were hit hard in Beirut; they ran away. They were hit hard in Somalia; they ran away…You get to, A, protect two clear interests the US has, keeping Al-Qaeda from having a safe haven on the border of Afghanistan, and keeping that regional war from breaking out.
The change in the wind is not only evident in the MSM. General Petraeus, for one, is perhaps more upbeat than one might expect about the progress of his counter-insurgency strategy. But curiously, like the military and the President, some liberals are now found to be either supportive of the war effort, or at a minimum aware that the costs of not executing our counter-insurgency strategy are unacceptably high.
Many reasons have been postulated for this apparent change in the commentary of some in the MSM and the institutions of elite liberal thought. These include the desire of the Democrat establishment to retreat from an anti-defense cliff, and the pro Clinton tilt in that establishment in the ongoing Clinton versus Obama struggle. We don’t know about that. To us this is all very confusing. We can only hope that this is as confusing to the enemy as it is to us.
UPDATE
From listening to Michael Yon on the radio today, it is evident that in a very short time, almost “suddenly,” whatever General Petraeus is doing has begun to work in pretty dramatic fashion. Yon, who has been embedded for well over a year with combat troops in Iraq, spoke of numerous areas of progress; notable items included the vastly improving performance of the Iraqi soldiers, and the fact that people are finally just fed up with al Qaeda. If this were a trend that continued, it would be news of the most profound and happy sort. No doubt the outstanding reporter John Burns has reported some of these improvements to his editors at the New York times as well. The O’Hanlon and Pollack piece is not then an aberration, but confirms what others on the ground are seeing. It would be wonderful if this persists over time.