Better late -- even very late -- than never

While it took the New York Times plenty of time to come around to the obvious conclusion, it has finally thrown its voice behind the effort to end the Iraq war now. In a long, well-written editorial, the editors argue for an orderly withdrawal on as quick a timetable as possible. Rather than "bugging out", they advocate a safe, orderly withdrawal that protects American military assets. The Times acknowledges that the bloodshed may increase after Americans depart, but:

"While Mr. Bush scorns deadlines, he kept promising breakthroughs — after elections, after a constitution, after sending in thousands more troops. But those milestones came and went without any progress toward a stable, democratic Iraq or a path for withdrawal. It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bush’s plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor. Whatever his cause was, it is lost."

The electorate recognized that very clearly back in 2005 or 2006, and registered its feelings in black-and-white terms in November, when Democrats stormed into Congress largely on anti-Bush, anti-war sentiment. And the too-careful Congressional leadership, lacking the courage of their convictions, folded like a tent almost as soon as the President opposed their protests.

I'm very happy that Americans have not, generally, repeated the mistakes of the Vietnam era, when returning troops were blamed for the failures in that war. Americans remain proud of the men and women who serve, and one of the war's most vocal opponents has been the mother of a fallen soldier. But we, long ago, recognized the lack of competence at the top, and the lack of realism among the architects. Our troops were given a basically impossible mission.

So, even at this too-late hour, when so many opportunities have been lost forwever, I still welcome the tardy arrival of the "newspaper of record" into the land of reason.