Despite Setbacks, Top Papers Back U.S. Effort in Iraq 1 hour, 38 minutes ago
NEW YORK Despite the growing upheaval and U.S. casualties in Iraq (news - web sites), a majority of the nation's 20 largest newspapers, in editorials during the past week, have urged the White House to stay the course.
Among this group, however, there is wide disagreement on whether to send more troops and whether sticking to the June 30 handover of power to an Iraqi government is a good idea. None of the top 20 (by circulation) urged a quick military withdrawal, although some call for the U.S. to share responsibility with the United Nations (news - web sites) or NATO (news - web sites).
Perhaps the most "dovish" of the papers was the Minneapolis Star Tribune (Click for QuikCap), which had opposed the war and declared on April 8: "Turn the planning for Iraq's future totally over to the United Nations. Take down the Coalition Provisional Authority. Let the Iraqis and the United Nations work out their own solution, at their own pace." But it, too, said, "There can be no question of cutting and running militarily."
The New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, USA Today and Los Angeles Times, all on April 6, called for the United States to partner with the United Nations or "the world community," with USA Today pointing out that "the U.S. cannot remake Iraq into a democratic society through the barrels of its guns."
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution combined two approaches by arguing that if the United States is going to maintain its presence in Iraq, we should increase the number of troops in that country -- and seek greater assistance from the international community. "We should stay only if we're willing to do what is necessary to succeed," the paper declared on April 2. "A strategy of doing just enough not to fail -- which seems to be the course so far -- simply isn't good enough."
But most papers felt the U.S. could still handle the job with its current allies.
Typical was the statement by The Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J., on April 7: "There is no turning back now. If we leave before securing the country and handing power to a legitimate government, the region could plunge into chaos, and America's worst enemies could emerge freshly empowered." It added that the White House "must finally face" the prospect of sending more troops.
The Arizona Republic in Phoenix issued an explicit call against running from the terrorist threat: "We have few options. If the reasons for overthrowing Saddam were legitimate, if Iraq and the world are better off with Saddam out of power, then we must stay the course," the paper said on April 6. "We must continue the painstaking and dangerous tasks of building a government and turning over control to Iraqis themselves in a moderate, tolerant way."
Despite the toll of the Iraq war in resources and lives, The Washington Post said on April 6, "The alternative -- to step back from confrontation with Iraq's extremists -- would invite even worse trouble. ... U.S. Commanders should not hesitate to act quickly and with overwhelming force."
And The Philadelphia Inquirer appears quite willing to dig in for the long haul: "If Iraqis allow it, a large number of U.S. soldiers should remain in Iraq for years, for whatever it takes until stability takes root," the paper said on April 2. "Americans need to understand that this mission requires a years-long commitment."
Even the liberal-leaning San Francisco Chronicle noted it's too late to withdraw from the conflict: "If Iraq has any hope of becoming a stable country, Washington will need to finish the job of forming a central government before pulling out."
While the top papers continued to back long-term U.S. engagement, several questioned the June 30 handover of power, with the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Star-Ledger, and Star Tribune among those who feel that postponement must be considered.
--Charles Geraci is a reporter for E&P.