NYT Discovers Surge Has Worked Just as Last of Surge Troops Are Coming Home

How about that? Throughout the actual surge, the NYT studiously avoided taking notice of the great progress our troops made, for fear, of course, of giving any political help to those who were, correctly, noting the fact that the surge not only had a chance to work, but was working beyond all expectations.

The NYT finally notices the year-plus of nearly catastrophic success.

Just in time to not give any of the surge troops a dollop of usable contemporaneous recognition and morale-building.

Journalism is the first draft of history? Not when it comes to the NYT reporting on American military success. Then journalism becomes the tenth or twelfth draft of history, safely documenting victories long after such reportage could actually inform the public in a timely enough manner to make informed judgments about American policy.

The self-designated "Paper of Record" finally reports what has been reported by everyone else -- including Al Qaeda itself:

What’s going right? And can it last?

Violence in all of Iraq is the lowest since March 2004. The two largest cities, Baghdad and Basra, are calmer than they have been for years. The third largest, Mosul, is in the midst of a major security operation. On Thursday, Iraqi forces swept unopposed through the southern city of Amara, which has been controlled by Shiite militias. There is a sense that Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s government has more political traction than any of its predecessors.

...

For Hatem al-Bachary, a Basra businessman, the turnabout has been “a miracle,” the first tentative signs of a normal life.

Really? I had no idea.

Incidentally, what's the least-read day of any newspaper?

Saturday, of course.

Guess this piece -- which could have been written any time over the past month (or the past year, actually) -- was just coincidentally published on the day with the least readers.

Just kinda worked out that way. Today was the first day they could finish the vigorous fact-checking of information. They could only confirm that violence was seriously reduced as of today, and not a day earlier.

And certainly not a day later. Can't crowd out all those wonderful Sunday edition features with a report of something as trivial as an American military victory.

Oh, and of course they do note that by being so very, very wrong about the surge, they're actually vindicated:

The changes are already affecting Iraq’s complicated relationship with America. In the presidential campaign, a debate is rising about whether the quiet means American soldiers can leave.

There really never was a debate about whether, once we win a war, we can withdraw our troops. The "debate" the NYT must mean is whether or not we can withdraw our troops precipitously enough to lose a war that's already been won.
And whether or not it's politically safe for the left to fight for that.

Wonder which NYT editor sports this tattoo?

Thanks for that last one to Jim.

posted by Ace at 07:45 PM

| Access Comments