Military Commanders Turn to the NY Times: A Turning Point in Iraq?

The major story this week involving our military involvement abroad and anonymous sources doesn’t have the byline of Michael Isikoff. And wasn’t published in Newsweek. The major story that everyone should be talking about has the byline of John Burns and Eric Schmitt and is published in today’s New York Times. It provides a startling picture of what’s really going on in Iraq.

In fact, when the history of this war is written, this front-page story -- and what it reveals -- may be seen as a turning point.

The Times quotes "five high-ranking officers" as pulling back from -- one might say "retracting" -- suggestions that the U.S. could begin a drawdown of troops in Iraq by early 2006: "One officer suggested Wednesday that American military involvement could last 'many years.'"

The number of car bombings in Baghdad just this month -- 21 -- is approaching the total from the entire last year of 25. And the Iraqi people are rapidly losing confidence in their new government -- with only 45% expressing positive expectations, down from 85% following the election.

So, what does it all mean? Here’s the money quote from one of the high-ranking officers:

"I think that this could still fail."

You know the situation has to be really bad when military leaders feel the need to turn to the New York Times. It’s irrefutable evidence that the political leadership of both parties has completely failed the military men who have been charged with extricating us from this debacle. When you’re not being heard by the administration -- and when the loyal opposition is turning a blind eye to the most critical issue of our time -- then you leak to the press in a desperate effort to be heard.

We’ve seen plenty of outrage about Michael Isikoff, but where is the outrage about today's revelations? The Bush White House has proven itself incapable of leveling with the American people about Iraq. But where are the Democrats? Where is Harry Reid? Where is Nancy Pelosi? The only Democrat of note speaking out about Iraq this week is Bill Clinton. And he’s out there prostituting himself and providing cover for the administration’s continued lies.

We once supposed that Clinton’s equivocating, triangulating and desperate need to be loved were because he was always looking ahead to the next election. Well, it turns out they must be in his DNA.

Clearly Newsweek is not the problem here. The problem is a war not only founded on lies but conducted on lies. And our military leaders are finally speaking out. What happens next will depend on whether we listen. They deserve a better hearing than they’re getting.