No deadline - no retreat
Growing up in Chicago in the 1970's there was only ONE newspaper...the Chicago Tribune. My parents would ritually read the Trib every morning over coffee and then discuss the news it contained that night at dinner. As a result, the Tribune is, was and (thanks to this) always will be the epitome of what journalism should be!
"Have you ever been in a fight? No, a real fight, with blood and pain and fear. Many of us weren't built for that moment. But when it arrives, invited by our choice or our vulnerability, its sidekick is a terrible realization: There are no easy outs. One of us will prevail, one of us will surrender.That's a weak analogy to the 3-year-old war in Iraq; no face-off between two individuals carries the immense stakes of what's happening right now, half a world away. But in both cases, blood and pain and fright do play leading roles. So it is that an anguished debate about a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq filled the U.S. Senate this week. It was a debate laced with misgivings and resolve, politics and pride, frustration and patriotism. It was also a debate in which, as has happened before, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) best synthesized the choice that weary and anxious Americans now face: "The options on the table have been there from the beginning: Withdraw and fail, or commit and succeed."Crisp speechifying, yes. But there lie dragons. Committing to win in Iraq means embracing gains like the elimination of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi--and it means more butchery like the beheading of two American servicemen. It means embracing the courage of Iraqi citizens now struggling for their freedom--and it means the uneasiness of American citizens aghast at the barbarity of it all. It means embracing the truth that there are no easy outs. One side in this war will prevail, one side in this war will surrender."
The reason, the logic and the prose employed in this editorial are designed to make the readers think about BOTH sides of the issue. It lays out the pros and cons of staying in Iraq without a hint of the writers personal leanings. Then, once it has laid out the pros and cons of the situation, it concludes:
"We can, of course, leave whenever we wish. To do so would betray the Iraqi officials and citizens who trust us to shepherd them to safety. It would tell every terror group, every future enemy, how to defeat America next. And, at a time when rogue states such as North Korea and Iran need us internationally weak rather than strong, it would signal that in future crises our saber will rattle feebly, like a death rasp in the night.The American men and women who are fighting this war do so with one eye over their shoulders. We have argued for three years whether the timetable for bringing them home should be set by politicians in Washington or by their success in the field. Once again, through our legislators, we have voted decisively for the latter.So let us keep thinking about how we feel. But let us also think about how our enemies feel."
I don't think a clearer arguement for staying in Iraq has ever been made. Thank you Tribune editorial board!
"Have you ever been in a fight? No, a real fight, with blood and pain and fear. Many of us weren't built for that moment. But when it arrives, invited by our choice or our vulnerability, its sidekick is a terrible realization: There are no easy outs. One of us will prevail, one of us will surrender.That's a weak analogy to the 3-year-old war in Iraq; no face-off between two individuals carries the immense stakes of what's happening right now, half a world away. But in both cases, blood and pain and fright do play leading roles. So it is that an anguished debate about a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq filled the U.S. Senate this week. It was a debate laced with misgivings and resolve, politics and pride, frustration and patriotism. It was also a debate in which, as has happened before, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) best synthesized the choice that weary and anxious Americans now face: "The options on the table have been there from the beginning: Withdraw and fail, or commit and succeed."Crisp speechifying, yes. But there lie dragons. Committing to win in Iraq means embracing gains like the elimination of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi--and it means more butchery like the beheading of two American servicemen. It means embracing the courage of Iraqi citizens now struggling for their freedom--and it means the uneasiness of American citizens aghast at the barbarity of it all. It means embracing the truth that there are no easy outs. One side in this war will prevail, one side in this war will surrender."
The reason, the logic and the prose employed in this editorial are designed to make the readers think about BOTH sides of the issue. It lays out the pros and cons of staying in Iraq without a hint of the writers personal leanings. Then, once it has laid out the pros and cons of the situation, it concludes:
"We can, of course, leave whenever we wish. To do so would betray the Iraqi officials and citizens who trust us to shepherd them to safety. It would tell every terror group, every future enemy, how to defeat America next. And, at a time when rogue states such as North Korea and Iran need us internationally weak rather than strong, it would signal that in future crises our saber will rattle feebly, like a death rasp in the night.The American men and women who are fighting this war do so with one eye over their shoulders. We have argued for three years whether the timetable for bringing them home should be set by politicians in Washington or by their success in the field. Once again, through our legislators, we have voted decisively for the latter.So let us keep thinking about how we feel. But let us also think about how our enemies feel."
I don't think a clearer arguement for staying in Iraq has ever been made. Thank you Tribune editorial board!
posted by The Lady Logician at
4:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home