Let's get this straight: Michael Yon, a journalist who's been over in Iraq about as much as anybody, has declared, "[T]he Iraq War is over. We won." Even the Associated Press has admitted we are "now winning" in Iraq. The New York Times grudgingly concedes a "remarkable change" in Baghdad since a once-powerful Shiite army has lost its grip.
So what's the top-of-the-page headline in Sunday's Los Angeles Times (7/27/08)? "War on terror loses ground." (See an image of the actual paper. The on-line version adds the words "in Pakistan.")
The article begins,
Although the "war on terrorism" remains a consuming focus of the U.S. government, the Bush administration appears poised to leave behind a situation not unlike the one it inherited nearly eight years ago: a resurgent Al Qaeda ensconced in South Asia, training new recruits, plotting attacks against the West, and seemingly beyond the United States' reach.
First of all, there seems to be little question that the situation in Pakistan is a significant challenge for the United States. But what's with the quotation marks around the words "war on terrorism"? And do the fantastic gains in Iraq amount to nothing in the eyes of the Times? Hasn't ground been gained in the overall war on terror with the successes in Iraq?
What gives?
