Slowly turning the ship of state
In one of the more notable changes of course in recent years, the New York Times has, little by little over the past few weeks, become, ever so reluctantly, pro-war. What appeared to us as cognitive dissonance at first has emerged as a discernible pattern. We noted the pro war Brookings op-ed the other week. Then this on Saturday, reported without any hint of disapproval:
Democrats Say Leaving Iraq May Take Years…Even as they call for an end to the war and pledge to bring the troops home, the Democratic presidential candidates are setting out positions that could leave the United States engaged in Iraq for years…These positions and those of some rivals suggest that the Democratic bumper-sticker message of a quick end to the conflict — however much it appeals to primary voters — oversimplifies the problems likely to be inherited by the next commander in chief. Antiwar advocates have raised little challenge to such positions by Democrats…many Democrats are increasingly taking the position, in televised debates and in sessions with voters across the country, that ending a war can be as complicated as starting one.
“We’ve got to be prepared to control a civil war if it starts to spill outside the borders of Iraq,” Mr. Edwards, who has run hard against the war, said at a Democratic debate in Chicago this week. “And we have to be prepared for the worst possibility that you never hear anyone talking about, which is the possibility that genocide breaks out and the Shi’a try to systematically eliminate the Sunni. As president of the United States, I would plan and prepare for all those possibilities.”…
their strategies are a balancing act. In her public appearances, Mrs. Clinton often says, “If this president does not end this war before he leaves office, when I am president, I will.” But she has affirmed in recent months remarks she made to The New York Times in March, when she said that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” that would require a continuing deployment of American troops. The United States’ security, she said then, would be undermined if part of Iraq turned into a failed state” that serves as a Petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda.”
Then came this editorial on Monday, negative in tone of course about the war, but firmly committed, through the elimination of alternatives, to keeping “sufficient troops” at “staging points” to thwart an al Qaeda “bid to hijack control of a strife-torn Iraq.” Just where would such troops and staging points be to fight in Iraq, if not in Iraq themselves?
If anyone outside the White House truly believes this can work — that the United States can simply stay in Iraq in reduced numbers, while ignoring the civil war and expecting Iraqi forces to impose order — the British experience demonstrates otherwise. There simply aren’t reliable, effective and impartial Iraqi forces ready to keep the cities safe, nor are they likely to exist any time soon. And insurgents are not going to stop attacking Americans just because the Americans announce that they’re out of the fight…
The United States cannot walk away from the new international terrorist front it created in Iraq. It will need to keep sufficient forces and staging points in the region to strike effectively against terrorist sanctuaries there or a Qaeda bid to hijack control of a strife-torn Iraq.
It is interesting to note that there seems to be a convergence of the reluctant pro-war views of the New York Times and the campaign of one of the leading presidential candidates. As was noted in the Chicago Sun-Times: Responding to a question about what the United States should do if, after a troop withdrawal, al-Qaida should take over Iraq, Clinton repeated her plan for pulling troops out and then added, “But if it is a possibility that al-Qaida would stay in Iraq, I think we need to stay focused on trying to keep them on the run as we currently are doing in Al Anbar province.” And just how would one do that, if not by having the soldiers in Al Anbar province?
Feel free to form your own opinion on whether the views of the Clinton campaign and the New York Times merely reflect great minds thinking alike. In any event, it now appears evident that in the considered opinion of the Liberal Establishment, we won’t be leaving Iraq any time soon.