Monday, November 26, 2007
News / News Bites Speak for Yourself
Posted by Michael Miner on 11.26.07 at 09:03 PM
The Tribune editorial page waxed the Democrats the other day for failing to deal with the new reality in Iraq. "By every measure, life is improving in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq. The signs of progress are undeniable," it said, citing its own Liz Sly, who recently reported that "for the first time in years, Baghdad's residents are starting to remember what an ordinary life is like."
"It seems like Democratic leaders in Congress are trapped in a time warp," the Tribune editorial commented. "They said a year ago the surge was doomed to fail. They were wrong, yet even in light of recent military success, they still demand the president set a timetable for troop withdrawal. They're still trying to enshrine that into law."
Fair enough. Bad news from the battlefield serves the Democrats better than good news, and of all the things a political party could possibly be in denial about, military victory must be the worst. But even though the position of the Democratic Party on the war in Iraq is infinitely more significant than the position of the Tribune, I now find myself wondering what the Tribune's is.
Commenting on the surge in June, the same editorial page saw signs of success and signs of failure and concluded that "what can be said without hesitation is that U.S. forces are stretched thin and the Iraqi army has yet to prove it is an effective fighting force." In September, the Tribune observed that General David Petraeus had sounded a lot more upbeat about military progress than ambassador Ryan Crocker sounded about political progress when they both spoke to Congress. "Neither man predicated his diagnosis of progress on the Iraqi government's achievement of the benchmarks Washington has set," that editorial went on. "That's because the Iraqis aren't meeting them."
Even now the Tribune concedes that despite progress in the provinces "we have not seen political reconciliation from the leaders of Iraq's central government. That has been immensely frustrating."
The Tribune slowly, reluctantly turned against the war in Iraq. Is it now back in harness -- despite political benchmarks that are not being met, a surge that cannot be sustained because of a lack of troops, and various signs, as it pointed out in an October 7 editorial, "that the war in Iraq is being redefined as a conflict between the U.S. and Iran." The Tribune said in the most recent of its surge editorials that the Democrats need a new "agenda" on Iraq, but beyond backing off and buttoning its lip, the Tribune had no advice for the Democratic Party on what that agenda should be. What would it advise its own party, the Republicans, about the way forward in Iraq, other than to think of the surge as comfort food to enjoy while they can?
Comments (2)
Showing 1-2 of 2
I find the Tribune editorial board’s convoluted commentary on the military engagement in Iraq much less disturbing than I do the notion that “bad new from the battlefield serves the Democrats better than good newsâ€. This nation is at war, and the men and women on the battlefield wear an American flag on their shoulder, not a symbol of their respective political affiliations. I think the Tribune in this instance is exactly correct, just as the Republicans needed to back a new strategy when our Senate unanimously endorsed the promotion and assignment of General Petraeus. The President, and those commanders within the Pentagon, failed our troops for nearly three years. The truth is, Senator Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator Jack Reed, a former member of the 82nd Airborne and current member of the Armed Services Committee, have been providing critical voices and alternative legislation in order bring about some bipartisan leadership that is desperately needed to continue the military successes on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as forcing the hands of our diplomatic corps to begin to capitalize on a window of opportunity for political reconciliations among the Iraqi’s. It is the leadership of the Democrats in both the Senate, and especially in the House, who have failed to deliver on their ‘agenda’ – (and if their agenda is to have American troops fail in Iraq, I for one am glad they have). I personally feel that the Democrats don’t need a new ‘agenda’. They need new leadership. As a Democrat, and as a veteran of OIF, I do not believe the majority of my fellow Democrats wish anything but the success for the troops deployed in Iraq, and many of us do not support the leadership of our party, or even those who refuse to stand up too the extreme liberal base of groups like MoveOn.org. Just as we were disgusted five years ago when the press and members of congress failed to speak truth to power or ask truly difficult questions during the rush to war. But this war IS NOT president Bushes war, it is Americas war, and Americans of all political affiliations should insist that those troops on the front lines get the leadership they deserve, and if the Democratic leadership fails to provide them that leadership because of a political agenda that would sacrifice their lives for political gain, then this country is in far worse shape that even I thought it was. I for one am grateful that Democrats and the Tribune are engaged in a debate and asking for better leadership on all fronts. Our troops and innocent Iraqi's deserve the best, regardless of whom it comes from.
like
dislike
