This weekend, the LA Times editorial board did something that far too few observers are willing to do: it changed its mind. It looked at an evolving situation, got more information, and adjusted position to reflect reality. Was the move a little late? Yes. Was the Times' initial analysis of the surge incorrect? Absolutely. Am I willing to praise converts even at this late date? Every one counts.
The Sunday editorial said, in part,
After four years of war, more than $350 billion spent and 3,363 U.S. soldiers killed and 24,310 wounded, it seems increasingly obvious that an Iraqi political settlement cannot be achieved in the shadow of an indefinite foreign occupation. The U.S. military presence — opposed by more than three-quarters of Iraqis — inflames terrorism and delays what should be the primary and most pressing goal: meaningful reconciliation among the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.It is, indeed, time to leave. Although the Times was taken in by Bush administration spin on the recent escalation, it recognized that fact and acknowledged that the surge cannot succeed in place of political solutions, the kind of compromises that continue to be nonexistent in Iraq. Perhaps the Times was even affected by -- and I know this might seem crazy -- it's own reporting on the issue, like Sunday's article indicating that Defense Secretary Gates may not be on the same page as the administration. The Washington Post editorial board (and yes, I mean you, Fred) might take a lesson from this development.
This newspaper reluctantly endorsed the U.S. troop surge as the last, best hope for stabilizing conditions so that the elected Iraqi government could assume full responsibility for its affairs. But we also warned that the troops should not be used to referee a civil war. That, regrettably, is what has happened . . .
Having invested so much in Iraq, Americans are likely to find disengagement almost as painful as war. But the longer we delay planning for the inevitable, the worse the outcome is likely to be. The time has come to leave.
There is plenty of talk these days about August/September being the time for final evaluation. The new supplemental bill looks like it will mark the end of the summer as a turning point, Republicans are increasingly (and noisily) dissatisfied, and more people and opinion leaders are seeing that the surge won't work. We've all been tricked before, enduring repeated claims that "we'll know in six more months," stretching over years, so I'm not entirely optimistic, though obviously the more people who recognize the war for the disaster it is, the better. Still, I'm not convinced that anyone other than President Bush is able to end the war, and there are no signs that will ever happen. In September, Bush will say that there has been progress, the war must go on, and everybody else should shut up. Reasonable people everywhere will disagree. Then what?
UPDATE: Faiz checks in to say that the conversion is even more stark considering how shabbily the Times treated Speaker Pelosi just weeks ago. As ThinkProgress notes, it's part of a trend: "Public opinion is solidifying behind a withdrawal, proponents of the war are breaking ranks, and Bush is becoming more isolated in his position . . ."
