It's Your War Now, Part IV: The Mistake

By: Greg Mitchell Call me Hector. But in my tireless, and perhaps by now tiresome, two-year pursuit--harpoon in hand--my white whale is the lack of editorial opposition to the Bush stay-the-course policy in Iraq.

At least in recent days I have gained a few more shipmates from the media, most recently Michael Kinsley in Friday's Washington Post (of course, the majority of average Americans were already on board). In suggesting there are strong arguments for the start of a U.S. withdrawal, or at least a timetable for same, he joined this week all of the top political factions in Iraq and Bill O?Reilly. But it took a hawkish congressman, not some uprising on newspaper editorial pages, to get the ball rolling.

Or as Kinsley puts it: ?Now, thanks to Rep. John Murtha, it is permissible to say, or at least to ask, ?Why not just get out now? Or at least soon, on a fixed schedule??" Exactly.

Also on Friday, the Seattle Times revealed that Norm Dicks, the hawkish Democratic congressman from Washington, is outraged by attacks on Murtha. "The insurgency has gotten worse and worse," he said. "That's where Murtha's rationale is pretty strong ? we're talking a lot of casualties with no success in sight. The American people obviously know that this war is a mistake."

In the news section of E&P Online earlier this week, we charted the editorial response to Murtha?s call. Two years ago, and about 1700 lost American lives ago, I started advocating in this space that at least a few newspaper editorialists come out for a phased (not immediate) withdrawal. Outside of Al Neuharth and a few others, the response was tepid.

But now interest is suddenly growing. Even Howard Kurtz on CNN's "Reliable Sources" on Nov. 27 finally, after all this time, did a segment on the editorial timidity (without crediting E&P for repeatedly raising the issue, of course).

Surely after the Murtha statement and polls showing opposition to the war rising even higher, and the president?s approval rating in the pits, editorials have now grown brave? Not a chance.

A close look at other recent editorials reveals strong support for Murtha's anger and much criticism of how the White House launched this war and has handled it since. Yet almost none of these newspapers (the Seattle Times being a prime example) has come right out and said that the U.S. should soon begin to pull out of Iraq or even set a timetable for doing so.

From one perspective, this could be viewed as setting a wise and careful course. From another?and mixing my shipboard metaphors--it amounts to re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic when others are trying to grab the ship's wheel.

While a few papers take what could still be called a "hawkish" position -- The Washington Post, Boston Herald, and Wall Street Journal, to name three -- most of the other papers are profoundly critical of the U.S. war strategy, but not to the point of advocating a pullout.

So you have USA Today calling Murtha's plea "understandable" but "misguided," even while re-affirming that the entire war was "a mistake.? The Austin American Statesman in Texas said most Americans have "lost confidence" in the president's war leadership but withdrawal would likely "not be in this nation's best interests at this point."

The New York Daily News declared: "Murtha is right, of course, that the American public is sick of the slog, is 'thirsting for a new direction' and 'wants and deserves real answers.'" But it added that he "is still wrong" about withdrawal.

Knight Ridder papers denounced the "mishandling of prewar intelligence" and "incompetence" in the war effort -- but stopped short of advocating a pullout. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel said Murtha is "surely on the right track," but "leaving Iraq now would be a mistake." A timetable might be wise, but only if it is "flexible," the paper said.

What's truly amazing is that the Bush administration may actually be ahead of newspaper editorials in considering a pullout, if hints from Washington in the past few days are any indication.

Here, then, is the conclusion of Kinsley?s column on Friday. It follows his description of the ways in which our current policy has come to resemble what occurred in Vietnam?-when the public and most policymakers gave up on the war but we refused to get out for years (no "cut-and-run"), leading to the loss of thousands more American lives.

Kinsley:

?We are now very close to that point of general agreement in the Iraq war. Do you believe that if Bush, Cheney and company could turn back the clock, they would do this again? And now, thanks to Rep. John Murtha, it is permissible to say, or at least to ask, ?Why not just get out now? Or at least soon, on a fixed schedule?? There are arguments against this -- some good, some bad -- but the worst is the one delivered by Cheney and others with their most withering scorn. It is the argument that it is wrong to tell American soldiers risking their lives in a foreign desert that they are fighting for a mistake.

?One strength of this argument is that it doesn't require defending the war itself. The logic applies equally whether the war is justified or not. Another strength is that the argument is true, in a way: It is a terrible thing to tell someone he or she is risking death in a mistaken cause. But it is more terrible actually to die in that mistaken cause.

?The longer the war goes on, the more Americans, ?allies? and Iraqis will die. That is not a slam-dunk argument for ending this foreign entanglement. But it is worth keeping in mind while you try to decide whether American credibility or Iraqi prosperity or Middle East stability can justify the cost in blood and treasure. And don't forget to factor in the likelihood that the war will actually produce these fine things.

?The last man or woman to die in any war almost surely dies in vain: The outcome has been determined, if not certified. And he or she might die happier thinking that death came in a noble cause that will not be abandoned. But if it is not a noble cause, he or she might prefer not to die at all. Stifling criticism that might shorten the war is no favor to American soldiers. They can live without that kind of ?respect.?"