UPDATED: Another Turning Point in Iraq -- Pull Out or Final Push?

By: Greg Mitchell Today, on a Sunday news show, Sen. John McCain called for a massive injection of U.S. troops into Iraq. He claimed that the war could still be won and the consequences of pulling out would be catastrophic. With the president's visit to Vietnam reviving bad memories and links to the Iraq war, McCain asserted that while it was proper to eventually abandon Southeast Asia, the fallout from leaving Iraq would imperil all of us.

This comes on the heels of hints in the press that both President Bush and his Iraq Study Group may well favor a "final push" for victory in Iraq, despite the apparent plea for a reversal of course expressed by voters in the recent midterm elections.

It has been one year since Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) issued his sudden and startling call for the start of a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Since then, troop levels have remained steady, death and violence have increased, and few editorials and pundits have echoed Murtha's call.

One more thing: Since that day, 790 Americans have been killed in Iraq and more than 6000 seriously wounded.

One year later, we are again at a critical moment in the war, with the renewed calls for a build up. The media remains complacent. The Washington Post stands hawkish through it all, and even the dovish New York Times suggested last Sunday "one last push to stabilize Baghdad. That would require at least a temporary increase in American and Iraqi troops on Baghdad streets."

Sound like a good idea to you? Opinion writers are once again squarely on the spot. If they oppose the idea they won't hear much protest from readers. Every major survey shows that about 60% back a U.S. withdrawal -- immediately or within a year.

Last Nov. 17, I was in the middle of writing yet another of my tireless, perhaps tiresome, columns suggesting that perhaps it was time for at least a few major newspapers to carry editorials calling for the start of a phased pullout from Iraq after more than two years of murder and incompetence. None of my previous efforts had produced much of a positive response, beyond the Seattle Times and Minneapolis Star Tribune and a few others, so my hopes were not exactly high.

Then came word that Rep. Murtha had suddenly called for a rapid ?redeployment? of U.S. forces from Iraq, and even introduced a bill to this effect. Murtha? Wasn?t he that crusty old hawk and Pentagon water-carrier? Amazingly, it was true, and the media went wild -- not endorsing his views, God forbid, but at least giving them serious play. Within hours, I had penned a column hinting that perhaps this would be this war?s ?Cronkite moment? -- when a wholly establishment figure says, enough! That voice sure wasn?t going to come from, say, The Washington Post.

?Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily,? Murtha said then. ?It is time to bring them home.? He pointed out that more than half of Americans in polls wanted us out, and uttered these highly prescient words: ?The public is way ahead of us.?

In response, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said, "it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore."

But hat?s off to Rod Dreher, the conservative newspaper columnist, who quickly posted this at NRO Online, the National Review site: ?If tough, non-effete guys like Murtha are willing to go this far, and can make the case in ways that Red America can relate to -- and listening to him talk was like listening to my dad, who's about the same age, and his hunting buddies -- then the president is in big trouble. I'm sure there's going to be an anti-Murtha pile-on in the conservative blogosphere, but from where I sit, conservatives would be fools not to take this man seriously.?

I closed my initial column by urging editorial and opinion writers to rise to the ?Cronkite? challenge. So what happened after that? Most of them praised Murtha for showing some courage, but then came out against withdrawal or suggested that the U.S. give the Iraqis a few more months to get their act together. Of course, 12 months have passed since then -- and some of the same editorial writers now ask for another six months.

One year ago, USA Today, which had been critical of the conduct of the war, opined: ?Murtha's call for withdrawal is as understandable as it is misguided.? The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, also no fan of the war, weighed in that Murtha's call ?plays better as a heartfelt expression of frustration than as sound practical advice.? The Washington Post ripped those who call for ?an early pullout,? adding ?what we've mainly seen during the past two weeks is a shameful exercise in demagoguery and name-calling. ... If there is to be any chance of that war being won, the United States will have to commit its own forces to the fight for years, though perhaps not at current levels. The alternative is to risk a defeat that would be devastating to U.S. security.?

The San Antonio Express-News added: ?A precipitous departure from Iraq is likely to create more problems than it will solve.? Many other papers expressed the belief, or at least hope, that the upcoming elections in Iraq would turns things around. The Plain Dealer in Cleveland repeated its demand for the resignation of Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld -- while opining that a "precipitous withdrawal risks the tragic waste of the blood investment we have in Iraq." The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel said Murtha is "surely on the right track," but "leaving Iraq now would be a mistake."

So here we are, 12 months and thousands of U.S. casualties later, with renewed calls for an American buildup, not a draw-down, in Iraq. So, editorial writers, what do you have to say?