Pressing Issues: Will Editorials Take a Stand on the War? As the war turns even uglier in Iraq, polls show that many, if not most, Americans favor withdrawing some troops, now. It's suddenly becoming a hot topic in the media. Why are editorial pages still afraid of this idea?
By
Greg Mitchell
(September 27, 2004) -- After a month of uprisings in Iraq, an unexpected hike in U.S. casualties and shattered good will in the Arab street, what do American newspapers have to say? So far, not very much, at least in terms of advising our leaders how to clean up or get out of this mess. But then, they are not alone. Republicans have been cackling for weeks over John Kerry's inability to distinguish his position on the war from the president's.
The more things change, the more they remain the same. I wrote the above for my column at E&P Online back in early May.
More than four months, several hundred American deaths and 1,000 U.S. casualties later, our cause (whatever it is) in Iraq is in worse shape than ever, if you can believe the declassified National Intelligence Estimate released in mid-September, the recent testimony of scores of military and civilian observers, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Sen. Chuck Hagel, a leading Republican from Nebraska.
There are no easy answers in Iraq, but one tough question remains: What are America's newspapers going to do about it?
In that previous column, and others, I have argued that newspapers have a special responsibility because of the enabling role many of them played in helping to make this war possible in the first place. But isn't a phased withdrawal a radical notion? So radical that many reputable polls show that about half of all Americans support bringing some troops home, now.
Editorialists seem afraid to face the music, however. Every few months, they find hope in upcoming "turning points." Four months ago it was the pending transfer of power in Iraq. Now elections loom, but they likely will take place, if they happen at all, only in certain parts of that country. Through it all, violence and resentment against the U.S. has only swelled.
I won't argue with the conventional wisdom that chaos, corruption, terrorist attacks, economic disruption, and the killing of civilians would follow a U.S. pullout. Then again, we have all that now.
The continuing presence of U.S. troops, in fact, may be the motivation (and excuse) for much of that ongoing evil. Besides removing that trigger, if we start to withdraw we'd be better able to combat the bad guys elsewhere who can actually attack us here at home. Call it a "transfer," not a retreat.
It's one thing to sign off on another few months of carnage, with an end in sight. But is the press ready to accept Kerry's most optimistic assessment — maybe begin a pullout next summer, perhaps concluding in four years? Let alone Republican estimates as high as Sen. John McCain's guess that this could last a full decade?
What about reported plans for a post-election mobilization of troops and massive U.S. offensive? Signing off on that?
Kerry often repeats his Vietnam-era statement about not wanting to ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake, but his four-year plan hardly prevents this. Actually, that last single victim doesn't bother me as much as the prospect of thousands that could come between now and then.
There's an odd press/public disconnect on this issue. While surveys show that most Americans support bringing some troops home, are pessimistic about the outcome in Iraq, and feel the war has not made us safer —and, indeed, feel the country is going "in the wrong direction" — not a single major U.S. newspaper (that I know of) backs a phased withdrawal. Four months ago, I wondered when the first top paper would endorse this position. It's my belief that once a few papers, and respected officials, take this stand, a stampede in this direction would follow. It happened before, with Vietnam, in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Many newspapers highlight landmarks in the U.S. death toll (like the recently reached, and now far surpassed, 1,000) by printing the names and/or pictures of the fallen. Until the same papers come out for starting to remove our troops from harm's way, they must share responsibility for the additional U.S. fallen they will need to honor in the months and, I fear, years ahead.
The Washington Post, in mid-September, declared that calling for any withdrawal is an "irresponsible position," even as it concluded that the president had been "dishonestly" optimistic about the progress of the war. Even more revealing was a Sept. 9 editorial in the dovish Minneapolis Star Tribune, under the promising heading, "1,000/How Many More Must Die?" The editors said all the right things, but concluded not with a demand for withdrawal but a question: "How many more must die for a mistake Bush still refuses to admit and shows no ability to correct?"
If Bush and Kerry refuse to answer the question, will our editorial pages? Greg Mitchell
(gmitchell@editorandpublisher.com)
is the editor of E&P and author of seven books on politics and history.
E&P welcomes your feedback and comments: letters@editorandpublisher.com.
By using this link, you agree to allow E&P to publish your comments on our letters page. To send comments not for publication, please use our Contact Us page.
RSS
Pressing Issues: Will Editorials Take a Stand on the War?
