Newspaper Editorials Turn Against War
NEW YORK -- Although newspaper opinions once appeared virtually monolithic in support of an attack on Iraq, editorials from many of America's leading newspapers are now among the voices questioning the wisdom of, or timetable for, the possible conflict.
Despite rising doubts, however, there doesn't seem to be one U.S. newspaper among the top 50 dailies by circulation that is strongly "antiwar." The papers appear united in their desire for Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s disarmament, if not overthrow, and disagree only on the means, or at least the urgency. Still, something strange is going on when The Orange Country Register in Santa Ana, Calif., strikes a more dovish pose than The Boston Globe.
An E&P survey of war-related editorials published by 37 of the nation's top 50 daily newspapers this month reveals that their views fall into three general clusters: a quick-to-war camp advocating forcefully disarming Hussein sooner rather than later; a skeptical majority urging President Bush (news - web sites) to give U.N. weapons inspections a real chance to work before ordering military action (more than two-thirds of the papers that published editorials now land in this category); and a third group of about a dozen papers that hedge their views or can't seem to quite make up their mind.
Only seven of the top newspapers clearly advocate a fast-track invasion. This view largely springs from papers in and around the nation's largest cities, while those supporting a wait-and-see policy originate from all parts of the country.
Not surprisingly, The Wall Street Journal leads the formation of hawks. On Jan. 13, under the headline "To Pyongyang Via Baghdad," it argued that only by swiftly ousting Hussein from power could the United States then confront North Korea (news - web sites).
The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, the New York Post, and Newsday in Melville, N.Y., took relatively firm stances as well. On Jan. 17, Newsday criticized Hans Blix, the chief U.N. weapons inspector, who was hit a day earlier by The Washington Post. "He would like to head off U.S. military action at any cost," the Post wrote of Blix, "even though such action clearly has been justified by Iraq's failure to comply." The L.A. Times on Jan. 7 called on Arab nations to force Hussein into exile "before he pulls Iraq into war." The Oregonian in Portland and The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch also took discernible pro-war stances.
Of the top 10 papers, only USA Today and The New York Times counseled restraint, warning of the perils of war. USA Today on Jan. 16 advised America to follow sensible foreign-policy priorities: "A war now also could distract needed attention from the North Korea crisis and the war on al-Qaeda-linked terrorism." While continuing to voice strong concerns about the threat posed by Hussein, The New York Times repeatedly called for Bush to come forward with evidence, and it remains supportive of giving weapons inspectors more time.
The San Francisco Chronicle Tuesday contended that Iraqi breaches justify a pre-emptive war only as a last resort. "This drastic step will require damning evidence of an imminent threat and a broad alliance of international support," it wrote. "So far, Washington has produced neither."
To the south, in a far-more conservative area, The Orange County Register proclaimed in a strikingly blunt Jan. 19 editorial that the United States "seems to be looking for a pretext for war." The Register criticized the administration for "Alice in Wonderland logic," that argues for an Iraqi invasion regardless of whether they actually possess a "smoking gun."
The Sun in Baltimore, on Jan. 17, also tossed a cynical barb: "The way [Press Secretary] Ari Fleischer (news - web sites) describes how his boss is getting 'sick and tired' of Iraqi games, how his patience is wearing thin, makes it sound as though George W. Bush is a petulant little man stamping his foot."
Other newspapers that have staked out cautious positions include The Boston Globe, The Buffalo (N.Y.) News, The Plain Dealer in Cleveland, The Denver Post, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel in Fort Lauderdale, The Hartford (Conn.) Courant, The Courier-Journal in Louisville, Ky., the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the Star Tribune in Minneapolis, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, The Sacramento (Calif.) Bee, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times, The San Diego Union-Tribune, and the San Jose (Calif.) Mercury News.
One angle consistently dodged in editorials is the topic of Iraqi oil, which is viewed by some as one key objective of any American action. And when The Columbus Dispatch raised the issue, it spun it in America's favor, maintaining Jan. 9 that, yes, oil is the lifeblood of the U.S. economy -- and, no, there's nothing wrong with removing Hussein if he jeopardizes U.S. access to his country's resources.
Baltimore's Sun suggested on Jan. 12, however, that oil and democracy in postwar Iraq deserved an open and honest debate. That's one statement few could disagree with. And what better place to start such a discussion than the editorial pages of U.S. newspapers? This would serve the public interest in a way the politicians in Congress promised to, but never could.
--Ari Berman (<aberman at editorandpublisher.com>) is a reporter for E&P.
*