Top Papers Editorialize on Mosul, Realism, and Iraqi Elections

By: Charles Geraci Four of the nation's top newspapers weighed in on the latest violence in Mosul and elsewhere in Iraq on their editorial pages today, calling for a more honest and realistic approach by the Pentagon and White House.

USA Today was most overtly critical. The title of its editorial: "Latest deadly attack in Iraq calls for U.S. reality check."

The paper believes "Iraq is not lost. But it's far from won." It termed Iraq a "cauldron of uncertainty" and called for "realism -- over hollow optimism and political spin -- as the costs mount."

Noting that "Americans are worried," USA Today cited the latest USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll which indicates that a majority, of 51%, "regrets the decision to go to war in the first place."

The paper says the "reality check" it calls for might begin by asking the following questions: "Are Iraqis being properly trained?" "Are there enough U.S. forces, and are they being adequately protected?"

USA Today concludes, "Resolving the mess in Iraq requires the administration to be both resolute and realistic. ... For now, it's long on resoluteness but short on realism."

The New York Times sharply criticized the Iraq war in a lengthy editorial titled, "Grim Realities in Iraq."

The paper began rather pessimistically: "This has been a devastating week in Iraq and it's still only Wednesday. ... America's effort to bring into being a new Iraqi government representing all major population groups and capable of defending itself and its citizens still has a very long way to go. Some 21 months after the American invasion, United States military forces remain essentially alone in battling what seems to be a growing insurgency, with no clear prospect of decisive success any time in the foreseeable future."

The paper remarked that if Washington wants to "try to salvage [January's Iraqi] election," it needs to pay considerable more attention to the country's Sunni population. If the Bush administration could get "broader Sunni participation," the Times said it should seriously consider postponing the elections, set for January 30, for several months.

The paper noted President Bush's remark Monday that "the whole command structure necessary to have a viable military is not in place." The Times noted it is "glad to hear Mr. Bush acknowledge this sobering reality, but we are still waiting for him to explain who will have to fill in for these noncombat-ready Iraqis and for how long."

The Times concluded saying it is "in everyone's interest" to postpone the Jan. 30 election date under one condition: if this could "ensure more adequate Sunni participation."

Like its New York counterpart, the Los Angeles Times emphasized the significance of the Sunnis. But the editorial didn't discuss postponing the Iraqi elections. Instead, it noted: "We can only hope that an Iraqi government with more legitimacy might command more loyalty and a greater willingness among police and soldiers to stand and fight. Trouble is, for that to happen the election that could provide that greater legitimacy needs to be held, and protected."

The Washington Post remains resolute, like President Bush, on the Jan. 30 date for elections. The Post said: "Those who struck yesterday hope a spectacular and bloody attack will drive the United States out of Iraq, as it was driven from Lebanon and Somalia, and doom those Iraqis who now risk their lives for the elections." The paper concluded that the "only possible answer" is "to pick up the wounded, pray for the dead and return to the mission."